- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
Any actual proof or is it just this commie's word for it?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Saying and not showing really just looks like he's trying to kick a hornet's nest for his 15 minutes of fame.Any actual proof or is it just this commie's word for it?
I don't think the video by MAC (he does jokingly call it redneck science) or the TECOM test entirely settles it. The TECOM people used some type of tape and a "spring-loaded battery connecting clip". Four times with the tape, one time with the clip. Or maybe four times with the tape, one of them paired with the clip? They interchangeably used the words trial and occasion. There's a lot of variables missing like the barrier itself, condition of the weapon, forces imparted by the user, etc. I think Karl got the story from P&S ModCast 100 - Gun Nerds 5: AR15 Theory
Go to 12:25:
P&S ModCast 100 - Gun Nerds 5 AR15 Theory (Forward Assist).mp4
WWSD: Aero Upper
Karl FA barricade.mp4
Myth Testing: Will holding the forward assist on an AR15 blow it up?
MAC gist.mp4
View attachment 2842255
Saying and not showing really just looks like he's trying to kick a hornet's nest for his 15 minutes of fame.
Well that looks even worse for Karl since the story was entirely hypothetical without even a hinting at grenading the receiver as was proposed in his video. Chuck said he could definitely understand a grunt bracing their rifle with the forward assist against a surface. Even Jordan says just the forward assist would break, as people have seen happen.I think Karl got the story from P&S ModCast 100 - Gun Nerds 5: AR15 Theory
The FAL is an inanimate object.This guy claims that Ian McCollum copyright struck him, for his response to his and Vickers Rhodesian FAL videos.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=epuJbPdGl3U
Literally every over pressure AR explosion I've ever heard of was caused by a barrel obstruction anyways. Even if you put a piece of steel round stock into the buffer tube to completely prevent even the tiniest amount of BCG movement I don't think it would really make a difference since a barrel is proofed for that kind of pressure anyways due to engineering safety standards. So even if someone were strong enough to hold the bolt closed it wouldn't make a difference, maybe it breaks the tip of the forward assist claw or one of the ratchet teeth but I doubt it would be able to. Now you wouldn't want to do it consistently and if the barrel or the BCG were already compromised due to previous damage maybe it works but the chances of all the stars aligning in such a way to cause that are so astronomically slim that only the most tacticool of the tacticool would factor it into their "prepare for absolutely everything ever" mindset.TL;DR: They applied more force than a human could realistically pull and showed that the FA would just piston back and push the gun away.
I'll admit I'm not gonna watch this a nearly half hour long video of some commie bong whining about a rifle and a no longer existing country but I will look at his channel.
And we have:
Being salty about Jon Tron
Being salty about Chris Pratt
Being salty about no nut november
Being salty about Liberty Prime
Being salty about Alex jones
Being salty about the salt bae meme
Still being salty about Jon Tron
Still fucking salty about gamergate in 2021
I think the more amazing thing is Ian taking that claim at face value when he was doing that video with Karl a while back. For a guy trying to make himself into a firearms historian, taking in hearsay without being skeptical and looking into yourself is pretty damning.
I’m glad I never bought Ian’s books given his penchant for cognitive dissonance.
The difference in height required for an M16A# with 30 round magazine is relatively comparable to the distance needed to cycle a lever; even then, that being the reason for a lack of military adoption is silly as there were more sensible reasons, be it ammunition logistics(soldiers on the frontier barely had ammunition for their Springfields) or questionable durability - Othais from C&Rsenal stated their 1895(in 7.62x54R no less) had a forward bend in the lever just enough to disrupt function, and I would suspect that would be much more common if more were used.And if I remember CORRECTLY, they (As in Karl and Ian) even perpetrated the myth that you couldn't fire a lever-action while prone when there are a plethora of videos proving otherwise
Agree for the most part.The difference in height required for an M16A# with 30 round magazine is relatively comparable to the distance needed to cycle a lever; even then, that being the reason for a lack of military adoption is silly as there were more sensible reasons, be it ammunition logistics(soldiers on the frontier barely had ammunition for their Springfields) or questionable durability - Othais from C&Rsenal stated their 1895(in 7.62x54R no less) had a forward bend in the lever just enough to disrupt function, and I would suspect that would be much more common if more were used.
Karl has specifically said that lever guns can be used prone and the difficulty in using them prone is overstated/non-existent. He’s done more practical lever gun content than anyone. He won classic division at DB2020 using a lever gun including shooting it from the prone.
As for this thing about him claiming the gun would blow up with the forward assist blocked…can you find where he said that directly? Not a MAC video claiming he did. I asked him about this and his only memory of the subject at all was other people bringing it up on the P&S modcast.
In fairness to those "most folks" without context "catastrophic failure" is associated with gun blowing up and the user possibly injured.I think this is the exact thing they are talking about that you mentioned already.
Most folks probably hear "catastrophic failure" and think "it dun blew up!".
Pretty sure they soft endorsed the magpul drum in their original WWSD videos. IIRC they used it at tiger valley (?)The fault lies where I believe he is absolutely fucking stupid in terms of how things work "field wise." His video on drum mag reliability spouting about how they're atrocious when there have been great strides technologically to make them run better, and more consistently, to the point the Marines are testing them with the M27 IAR.
Pretty sure they soft endorsed the magpul drum in their original WWSD videos. IIRC they used it at tiger valley (?)
I say that this makes them not good, because this leaves me with a chocolate milkshake with strong hints of apple, banana, and strawberry, which they can fuck right off with.Also those ice cream machines are actually pretty good, the issue is that they're an absolute bitch and a half to clean.
I think it's more likely that if someone had their AR15 explode, it was because they had a squibload before or somehow had a .300 in their magazine, merely coinciding with them bracing awkwardly against a barrier.ETA: there's testimony in the pinned comment that the FA breaks in such an event done by hand, so there's some seriously questionable shit about grenading a rifle with the push of a button.
I am still of the opinion that ounces make pounds, so again, if someone wants to build a particularly light rifle, something like the KP15 lower would be one option when choosing a lower, and one I think isn't without merit.Legit, I wouldn't be so adverse to the idea of a Polymer lower if the whole "Wuh-ate Reduction" shtick was dropped and the lowers be seen as a cheaper alternative to aluminum receiver.
I want to say that we used to call people like those mallninjas.I was thinking about that during this whole debacle. There's just no term for it yet, but that's a damn close descriptor for spreading myths about the forward assist.
As I said before, he's a good academic who has a bit of an ego because of his fame, but he's not a veteran soldier who has done tours of duty with with an M16, he has no long term practical experience putting the rifle in hard use in the field (and neither had Eugene Stoner).At the same time, he can be wrong. Particularly in the case of the Forward assist. Though I do have to say I'm surprised he's not aware of the TECCOM trials.
Mallninja was more the kind of guy who thought CoD was real life or those guys that thought airsoft was equivalent to military training. Read the writings of Gecko45 to see the quintesential essence of the Mallninja from the progenitor of the Mallninjas.I want to say that we used to call people like those mallninjas.
Varying degrees of catastrophic failures include "blowing up", and in the Aero upper video he discussed "major components" breaking and rendering the gun inoperable. If "blowing up" is much too specific a statement, then we can certainly instead say he claimed it would cause a catastrophic failure based off a hypothetical situation that legitimately never happened.As for this thing about him claiming the gun would blow up with the forward assist blocked…can you find where he said that directly?
That is because a catastrophic failure is bad and breaks things in a catastrophic way - it's not an inconvenience, it's a kaboom.Most folks probably hear "catastrophic failure" and think "it dun blew up!".