General GunTuber thread

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Cool, but will the videos still be lame and gay?

I really liked the show when they did it out of Moss Pawn and Gun though, It was always of enormous interest to me, being able to see what kind of guns Americans could pick up at their local pawn shop -- guns I could never even dream of owning.

It was charming that it seemed to be filmed with the cast of Deliverance as well.
 
Not really a Guntuber, but it's a YouTuber and it's gun related so I'll post it here to spark a discussion.
A NYC judge straight up said "The Second Amendment doesn't exist in this court" and convicted someone for simply building guns that never fired a single bullet. God I want to see this go strrrraight to the Supreme Court. At this rate NY, and perhaps by extent the whole of US' justice system will devolve into USSR style show trials. Fuck your rights, fuck your freedoms, we own you.
This cunt "judge" needs to be hanged for treason.
I really liked the show when they did it out of Moss Pawn and Gun though, It was always of enormous interest to me, being able to see what kind of guns Americans could pick up at their local pawn shop -- guns I could never even dream of owning.

It was charming that it seemed to be filmed with the cast of Deliverance as well.
Barry was the draw for me, with his passing I steadily lost interest and eventually stopped watching all together. The 12th was the 10 year anniversary of his death, can't believe it's been a decade.
 
Not really a Guntuber, but it's a YouTuber and it's gun related so I'll post it here to spark a discussion.
A NYC judge straight up said "The Second Amendment doesn't exist in this court" and convicted someone for simply building guns that never fired a single bullet. God I want to see this go strrrraight to the Supreme Court. At this rate NY, and perhaps by extent the whole of US' justice system will devolve into USSR style show trials. Fuck your rights, fuck your freedoms, we own you.
A lot of guntubers and youtubers are making videos on this but... it's not really that special. Trial courts don't do much judicial review of statutes unless there's clear and applicable caselaw. So Constitutional arguments are rare at that initial level (enough that defendants will sometimes plead guilty based on the facts but preserve their right to appeal based on Constitutional grounds). Even though the judge shouldn't have expressed it that way, she probably won't get her willy whacked for it.

Homemade guns would be an interesting case for the bruen test. Unfortunately there's nothing to compel SCOTUS to take it and the chances of the 2nd Circuit finding in favor of any 2nd A defedant are slim.
 
@Smashed & Slamed
It's easy to make fun of people from a century ago for being backwards but some of their concerns were legitimate or were at least logical. To give an example of how logistics have evolved. During the 2nd Balkan War the Romanian army sustained an order of magnitude more casualties to do a Cholera outbreak than from Combat. And at the time the Romanian army was considered a modern force.
Another example is the United States had done a few studies on invading Canada in the late 1800ies. Through the border west of the Greaf Lakes and east of the Rockies and concluded while it can be done, but they would suffered a very uncomfortably high number of casualties just from exposure, disease, shit happens and etc. before even encountering a single Canadian.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: make_it_so
I think you are forgetting that Othais is a man stuck in 1910. Logistics seems easy in current year when fighting sand people and you can just fly in supplies if need be. Before the mass adoption of combustion engines you had to hand load the ammo in a box, hand load that box in a crate, hand load that box into a train/ship, get that train/ship safely as close as you can to the front, put the crate on a cart and get it to a supply depot, unbox the crate, get the box from that crate to the company/regiment, open the box and give it to a couple of idiots that may or may not have a donkey to take it to the front line unit so they can hand distribute it. And even that is describing post Franco Prussian warfare. In wars before that you didn't really use trains or distributed supply chains.
Othais often references the siege of Plevna where the Turks employed Winchester repeaters in .44 Henry alongside Martini Peabody's in .45 Turkish. The Turks apparently had no real issue in maintaining them for their (short) service life and apparently bought enough ammunition so it wasn't an issue. So if 19th century Turks could manage it?

A solider would be given ~100 ish rounds and he was expected to only need those 100 rounds until a major engagement afterwards their unit would be moved to a spot where they could get more ammo.

This is not how it worked in a developed Army. A soldier would have an individual issue of ammunition, however more traveled with the squadron echelon and more still with regimental baggage train. Armies in that period had problems supplying themselves with food and clean water less so with ammunition.

the Romanian army sustained an order of magnitude more casualties to do a Cholera outbreak than from Combat. And at the time the Romanian army was considered a modern force.
The Romanian military is not now nor has it ever been considered a 'modern force'. The 2nd Balkan war was a time when poor undeveloped countries tried to field huge armies, with predictable results.

I know the GMPGs in the British Army are more than 50% heavier than the Minimi's, and the ammo is almost double the weight per round, that's a not insignificant difference.
So it's less about the British Army wanting to introduce the GPMG into the section than it was the Army wanting to get rid of Minimi, which was never really able to do what they wanted it to do, mainly because of the short barrel. The Army wanted a DMR and once the Sharpshooter went into service the Minimi's days were numbered.

Also it's not really true that GPMG's are a direct replacement. In a pure light role infantry Bn soldiers will be carrying mortar bombs, and belts of 7.62 for the support company, the rifle companies are scaled for GPMG's but they're issued as dictated to people that would otherwise have a rifle. In motorised or mechanised Bn, the GPMG's are with the vehicle so they can be carried when dismounted or not as required. Really it was just they wanted rid of the Minimi.
 
Has anyone ever heard of this channel before? He makes some good stuff but comes off as a little "holier than thou". In his latest video he took a slight dump on admin, who surprisingly responded.

Screenshot_2024-04-26-10-52-57-75_f9ee0578fe1cc94de7482bd41accb329.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: TonySopranoFan57
Has anyone ever heard of this channel before? He makes some good stuff but comes off as a little "holier than thou". In his latest video he took a slight dump on admin, who surprisingly responded.

View attachment 5939994
He's one of those guys that thinks because he gets his gear dirty rolling around in the mud larping that he's an expert on tactics.
 
We have addressed this in various episodes but to be clear:

Better access to Ottoman accounts (a translation was made available from the Turkish commander) points out the Winchesters weren't used on the line at Plevna. Likely because of limited ammo and lack of range, though to my knowledge there is no reason written.

The Russians likely named them as an excuse for their poor performance at close range, the admittedly bad sighting of the Berdan II was named as the long range problem. That's why all Berdans have updated, longer rear sights.

Regardless, Europe heard the Russian story and, combined with other repeater successes, finally decided to start spending the cash on them. Notably they kept the same service rifle cartridge, which they also struggled to share with any mitrailleuse and early MGs

Single cartridge production also saves on logistics at production btw. Same raw materials, same processed pieces, same training, same inspection, etc. If you have two lines dedicated to rifle and one to carbine running all out for war and you end up with carbine shortages somehow, then you have to have massive down time to convert a rifle line or make new. If all three are the same you just have to worry about global output and not balancing issues.

In wars of attrition small problems start to stack. We all acknowledge Germany suffered from having too many overlapping technologies in WW2, straining their limited resources unnecessarily. The US sat between them and the other Euros, but the US uniquely had an uncontested, massive manufacturing base that allowed for insane wastage without fear.

Even so, the US would need future vision to feel safe using two primary cartridges... and then for what perceivable gain?
 
Their last TWIG was 2 weeks ago, which is kinda weird. I guess their schedule is less weekly and more like “whenever they feel like it”.
TWIG's schedule has been more like 'whenever we feel like it or have time' for as long as I've known about it, going back to Matt's old cohost Shawn. Weekly shows are the exception, usually 2 weeks to a month pass between episodes. The podcast predates the Fuddbusters channel and was/is hosted on the Firearms Radio Network website. It actually goes back to at least 2013(the earliest episode on FRN is #9) with different hosts. Guess Matt and co. took over at some point from the original cast and never changed the name.
 
Last edited:
We have addressed this in various episodes but to be clear:

Better access to Ottoman accounts (a translation was made available from the Turkish commander) points out the Winchesters weren't used on the line at Plevna. Likely because of limited ammo and lack of range, though to my knowledge there is no reason written.

The Russians likely named them as an excuse for their poor performance at close range, the admittedly bad sighting of the Berdan II was named as the long range problem. That's why all Berdans have updated, longer rear sights.

Regardless, Europe heard the Russian story and, combined with other repeater successes, finally decided to start spending the cash on them. Notably they kept the same service rifle cartridge, which they also struggled to share with any mitrailleuse and early MGs

Single cartridge production also saves on logistics at production btw. Same raw materials, same processed pieces, same training, same inspection, etc. If you have two lines dedicated to rifle and one to carbine running all out for war and you end up with carbine shortages somehow, then you have to have massive down time to convert a rifle line or make new. If all three are the same you just have to worry about global output and not balancing issues.

In wars of attrition small problems start to stack. We all acknowledge Germany suffered from having too many overlapping technologies in WW2, straining their limited resources unnecessarily. The US sat between them and the other Euros, but the US uniquely had an uncontested, massive manufacturing base that allowed for insane wastage without fear.

Even so, the US would need future vision to feel safe using two primary cartridges... and then for what perceivable gain?
Logistics balancing is the real bugbear, not the effort of keeping the streams separate. It’s about the opportunity cost of providing an overlapping kind of supply without being perfectly predict what the use rate is going to be.

Every crate of 30 carbine sitting around at a supply dump represents time and effort that could have been spent on something else, like fuel or artillery shells. Time spent figuring out how much is actually needed means clerks are tied up solving a problem that doesn’t have to exist. It means your supply convoy always has an extra truck full of ammo that may not even get used except for practice that it must haul everywhere it goes. It simplifies things to have everyone pulling from the same pot. 30-06 was always going to get used somewhere, in the rifle or machine gun sections, and at a much higher rate.

You evaluate if it’s worth it to have the additional capability, but even though the M1 carbine is easier to shoot, carry and store, is it worth the drain on staff, manufacturing and shipping time?

It ended up being a decent decision for the war the US ended up fighting, where shipping was eventually more or less unopposed and only limited to how fast the US could expand its Merchant fleet. You didn’t have to worry about whether Liberty ship that just sank had rifle or carbine ammunition on it. America essentially fights wars the same way still. The US Army is very good at logistics, but also doesn’t have to care about waste and can thank the US Navy (and American taxpayer) for the fact that whatever they need is basically guaranteed to show up in-theater.
 
Logistics balancing is the real bugbear, not the effort of keeping the streams separate. It’s about the opportunity cost of providing an overlapping kind of supply without being perfectly predict what the use rate is going to be.
A good logistics system needs to be able to cope with more complicated problems than supplying mixed ammunition calibers to the section level. In WWII where the US army were able to staff logistics positions with high quality personnel they wouldn't otherwise have been able to recruit it doesn't seem to ever have been an issue.

Also consider there are different schools of logistics, so rather than the delay inherent of a 'pull' system, where a unit places a demand for a consumable item such as ammunition, which travels back through the chain of command, a 'Push' system has decent G4 personal at every level of command who are able to anticipate usage and push supplies forward before a demand is issued. If you have a top tier people properly integrated into the decision making process then a push system is possible.

Every crate of 30 carbine sitting around at a supply dump represents time and effort that could have been spent on something else, like fuel or artillery shells. Time spent figuring out how much is actually needed means clerks are tied up solving a problem that doesn’t have to exist. It means your supply convoy always has an extra truck full of ammo that may not even get used except for practice that it must haul everywhere it goes. It simplifies things to have everyone pulling from the same pot. 30-06 was always going to get used somewhere, in the rifle or machine gun sections, and at a much higher rate.
This is lean supply chain thinking and it's fucking cancer. The fact that supply chains in certain industries still haven't recovered after covid gives a present day example of the problems with it.

That box of ammo even if it's never fired, and is moved constantly from dump to dump, only for the war to end and it to be tipped into the ocean or sold as surplus has still fulfilled an important purpose. Not only because it keeps an additional weapon system fielded but because having tactical reserves of supplies gives commanders additional scope for action. So for example if responding to an attack they can move reinforcements forward without clogging roads with supply trucks because reserves of ammunition are already in place.

It ended up being a decent decision for the war the US ended up fighting, where shipping was eventually more or less unopposed and only limited to how fast the US could expand its Merchant fleet. You didn’t have to worry about whether Liberty ship that just sank had rifle or carbine ammunition on it. America essentially fights wars the same way still. The US Army is very good at logistics, but also doesn’t have to care about waste and can thank the US Navy (and American taxpayer) for the fact that whatever they need is basically guaranteed to show up in-theater.
Compared to Artillery ammunition, and fuel, small arms ammunition would place a fairly small demand on shipping.

The US started to withdraw the 4.5 Inch gun (M1 of course) in 1944 after already limiting its use, to simplify logistics, in that case they made a clear headed decision that the gun just wasn't worth the additional effort of supplying it. So the US were open to making a cost benefit analysis.

Better access to Ottoman accounts (a translation was made available from the Turkish commander) points out the Winchesters weren't used on the line at Plevna. Likely because of limited ammo and lack of range, though to my knowledge there is no reason written.
I stand corrected. The idea of a bunch of Turks shooting down waves of Russians with western style lever actions in retrospect might seem a bit crazy. I read an article on militaryrifles.com which I think was a reprint of an older article that had me convinced.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: HumptiDouji
I'll point out the questions that touch on this topic were not 30-06 vs 30 carbine

It was 276 vs 30-06
And 45 vs 30 carbine
Sorta
 
@Trig.Point

I think we’d agree on the fundamentals that additional complexity and logistics time are considerations that should be made.

I’d still maintain that logistical cost/benefit decisions vary wildly depending on how well supplied you are and the kind of war you are fighting. By Normandy especially the US essentially knew they were going to win the war, and had the manpower to put towards the overhead. I hadn’t heard specifically how capable the logistics officers were so it’s good to see it brought up and I’d agree.

But it’s still a consideration that’s going to vary depending on the strategic and operational concerns. Like Othais said, Germany suffered from poor supply choices, and I’d add that they suffered in a way they wouldn’t have if they were winning and had the same manufacturing base as the US did. I don’t think the contrast between American and German industry at any stage of the war can be overstated.

Lean logistics don’t make sense when you’re literally the best funded and supplied military on the planet, which the US essentially has been to varying degrees since WW2. At that point any logistics decisions become a matter of how many lives you can save while prosecuting your war. The opportunity cost for supplying different equipment is always a concern though.

I'll point out the questions that touch on this topic were not 30-06 vs 30 carbine

It was 276 vs 30-06
And 45 vs 30 carbine
Sorta

I misremembered it as the question being whether the M1 carbine made more sense in 30 carbine or 30-06, but I’m remembering now that they asked whether it made more sense to produce the M1 in .45 or convert Thompsons to 30 carbine. I am honestly impressed that you were still pretty respectful to the asker because converting the Thompsons is uhhhhh. Dumb.

30 carbine was probably not a huge drain in the long run, but it also probably wasn’t necessary.

I agree that the distance between .276 and 30-06 is so negligible that it would have been more of a headache than it was worth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trig.Point
I agree that the distance between .276 and 30-06 is so negligible that it would have been more of a headache than it was worth.
British tanks used 7.92mm BESA Machine guns for the Hull and Coaxial positions well into the 1950's. The Bren gun on each tank was .303. Later on in the war the same Regiments would use 1919 Brownings in 30-06 that came with US supplied vehicles. They managed with relatively minor headaches. Their logistics problems all centered around the supply of main gun ammunition. Meanwhile the infantry were never issued the 30,000 M1 Garands that they got given by the US through lend lease.

Germany suffered from poor supply choices, and I’d add that they suffered in a way they wouldn’t have if they were winning and had the same manufacturing base as the US did.
I think German logistical problems are often misunderstood. There was a theoretical logistical system that centred around rail networks which essentially boiled down to a constant movement of equipment moving between the front line and well developed depots, maintenance facilities and factories. A system that Germany had the resources to operate, however the Army in particular fucked it up.
 
Last edited:
Barry was the draw for me, with his passing I steadily lost interest and eventually stopped watching all together.

I'm pretty sure that was true for a huge proportion of that early audience. His death seemed like a really weird business as well. Like, hadn't the guy had fallen off the wagon and started behaving like a bit of an asshole? It seems really strange that he would die almost immediately he started drinking again. Made me wonder if there weren't other substances involved? Or was it related to the fact that he'd somehow alienated all the people who had cared about him?

I was hugely frustrated by how little they actually shared about his death. One minute he's online and seems fit as a fiddle. Five minutes later, he's dead as a doorpost.

After his passing, I'd still watch the occasional gun gripes video from time to time. We don't really have a firearms culture in the UK -- certainly not one that I have access to -- so despite Chad being a very poor substitute, he was still miles better than Eric. So I carried on watching those 'how people should behave at the gun store' videos, and there was something about watching these two hillbillies who'd gotten nigger rich off YouTube and were spunking all the money on guns that I found fascinating for a little while. But once the cash started to dry up and the e-begging got more and more desperate, it just became unwatchable for me.
 
I used to watch for Barry and the meltdown videos.
Barry died and the MDs got old.
Eric also has a guitar channel that I watched for a little while too but again, just ended up being him jerking off whatever he had got his hands on.
What ultimately killed it for me was when it came out just how much of a shill he his.
Almost as bad as sootch00.
 
There's an interesting point about logistics and the M249. When adopting the M249, the ammunition for it is packed differently than the unlinked M193 that was being issued for the M16A1 and it ended up, naturally, giving less ammunition per volume. There was an upper limit of volume that I believe had to do with their amphibious carriers or shipping containers (I forget the exact bottleneck). The M16A2 project was kickstarted by the Marines as a way to primarily reduce the ammo consumption of their riflemen (and fears of the AK-74 outranging the M16A1) now that they would be expecting to not be able to give them as much ammo as before. One of the Marine requirements was that full auto had to be eliminated (the presumption that troops wouldn't be able to conserve ammo if the option was available) and if it wasn't for the project manager suggesting Colt's burst mechanism, it would have been a semi automatic only gun. The project manager for the Marines is in the ar15.com thread about the A2 pistol grip (also that same PM's idea.) https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/W...istol-grip-to-the-A2-pistol-grip-/118-626884/

As far as the 7.62 GPMG question goes, I think they need 3 instead of only 2 in a weapons squad and they should keep the SAWs in the squads. Of course, the Army is making some rather strange decisions with the new SAW having no provision for quick change barrel and it needing mandatory cool down periods in a way that the British GPMG model doesn't. It also doesn't help that the FN MAG's barrel alone is over half the weight of the new M250 - and there's no magic trick to deal with the heat of an LMG with a gun that necessarily has such a light barrel. Of course now we have .50, .338NM, 7.62, 6.8, 5.56, and 9mm. Our new calibers of .338 and 6.8 will have significantly less usage than our 7.62 and 5.56 by the nature of the guns and their inability to have their predecessor's sustained fire rates, so it should be easier in one sense of total volume for logistics.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: HumptiDouji
Back