General GunTuber thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I just don't think a 6lb AR (5.95lb) is that amazing of a selling feature. Good luck telling anyone that elsewhere on the internet....

A P/W 14.5 is often going to be right at 6lbs. Not hard to hit 6lb with the right handguard, barrel, stock.
Hell my PWS mod2 piston gun is right 6lbs.
 
Full Spectrum said:
Stoner would have designed a gun in 2020 that ensures KE Arms generates as much profit as possible for a company he is not employed by.
Click to expand...

The rifles weren’t a profit center. After paying for the BOM, Labor, FET, and everything else associated with the cost of the WWSD we make about $100 profit on a complete WWSD rifle shipped to Brownells. WWSD went from a thought exercise/DIY program for viewers into a commercial product over the span of several years. Had it been intended as a commercial project from the start component cost and availability would be a much greater consideration.

If we had not vertically integrated manufacturing operations of components that were in short supply and irregularly available, we never would have filled all the orders.

So let’s say we did use the Surefire/Sullivan BCG; increase cost at retail by another couple hundred bucks and introduce even more variables in supply chain. Are people going to pay $1900-2000 for a WWSD? I doubt it.

Regarding Faxon barrels: at some point they started over gassing them with 0.081 gas ports to run with steel case ammunition. Karl and Ian selected the barrel profile, not the gas port size. Our points of contact all left Faxon. I never got a response to my request to reduce the gas port size to 0.078”. We were only being allocated 100 barrels a month with hundreds of open orders. So we switched to BA. Never underestimate the human factor in dealing with vendors; if the people you worked with and cared about the program aren’t there anymore it may not continue to work.

Karl and Ian doing WWSD in 2017 is no more ripping off Paul Shank’s lightweight 3 Gun rifle 2010 than Paul Shanks is ripping off a JP light weight 3 Gun rifle from the 1990s. There is almost nothing original in this industry; only refinements and recombinations of existing concepts and components.
 
Last edited:
AGPinochet said:
Karl associate Deviant Ollam who recently collaborated with Karl at the most recent AWCY Gun Makers Match is publicly fawning over the animal neglecting, grifting man made desert known as the Tenacious Unicorn Ranch and its resident autogynephiles. Karl sure does know how to pick associates, tactical autogynephiles, chris chan pronoun policers and a guy who simps for trannies who neglect animals and lie about being threatened by maga chud militias
Click to expand...
Ollam said he really admired Weimar Republic Germany, didn't he?
 
SinistralRifleman said:
Karl and Ian doing WWSD in 2017 is no more ripping off Paul Shank’s lightweight 3 Gun rifle 2010 than Paul Shanks is ripping off a JP light weight 3 Gun rifle from the 1990s. There is almost nothing original in this industry; only refinements and recombinations of existing concepts and components.
Click to expand...
That's precisely my point. WWSD isn't materially or substantially different than a marginal and iterative development of gamer guns. It even becomes worse with the CDR which admits to the fact that "WWSD" and the original handguard, chromed BCG, exact cassette trigger model, PDQ lever, and SCSS are of secondary importance to the concept, further putting the central thesis of the WWSD concept closer to Paul's gun by having even less differentiae. The WWSD as a concept ends up being: polymer lower (kp-15), no forward assist, some kind of exterior BCG coating other than phosphate, ambi safety, and some kind of cassette trigger (the CDR gets at least a surely gamer version with the weaker sub-milspec strength hammer spring; I'm not sure about the SLT since there doesn't seem to be any of that information about it available.) You could even possibly say a milspec BCG is "closer" to the premium WWSD and Stoner's intent since it is chromed internally.

The thing about the gas system is that even at .078" on the original midlength 16" faxon barrel it exceeds the milspec midlength 14.5" gas port of .076" on the URGIs despite having extra dwell length, so it was already comparatively overgassed to begin with by essentially the same amount to begin with that Faxon increased to the new .081" port. Funny enough the overgassing problem on the AR-15 was outside of Stoner's control and due to his selection (with Remington) of an unsuitable IMR powder for mass production. So there is some parallel of a mistake here as to what Stoner did, though isn't this supposed to be what Stoner would do with his lessons learned? Faxon was already recommending an H2 buffer on their barrels to begin with circa 2016, which is indicative of overgassing from the start. Of course gamers and recreational shooters using cheap and weak ammo is also in line and congruent with Stoner's intent for maximum velocity (as with all milspec loads being loaded as hot as possible) to meet the 500 yard steel helmet penetration requirement by having a round that was at max allowable chamber pressure with the IMR single base powder that was blowing out primers. They fixed the overgassing on the original M16 using ball powder by going from a 1.8 oz buffer to a 5 oz one (3.2 oz increase and deadblow effect.) Was the overgassing that much worse on the faxon barrel where one or two 2.4 oz heavier tungsten (than the steel) weights couldn't fix the issue?

Ascribing something as extraordinary as Stoner's intent to something so petty in scope and gamer specific seems disingenuous if not outright just a very bad opinion. Just as you observed it is quite in line with what competition setups have used and were progressing towards. So then, it would be better stated as what would gamers do without using an adjustable gas block, would it not?

 
Last edited:
Full Spectrum said:
Holy fucking wall of text
Click to expand...

You have far more time to argue in autistic detail about rifles that you’re never going to purchase than I have time to go through point by point and explain and argue with you.

Build a successful YouTube channel.
Get 500,000 subs.
Spec out the Full Spectrum Autism rifle.
Generate 1,000 pre-orders
We’ll build whatever you spec out as long as it can actually be done.
We can even do a limited edition puzzle piece Multicam Cerakote for the first 100 buyers.

And then in 2037 some other person with too much time on their hands can argue with you about how it’s just a copy of some gun some dude did in 2022.
 
AGPinochet said:
Karl associate Deviant Ollam who recently collaborated with Karl at the most recent AWCY Gun Makers Match is publicly fawning over the animal neglecting, grifting man made desert known as the Tenacious Unicorn Ranch and its resident autogynephiles. Karl sure does know how to pick associates, tactical autogynephiles, chris chan pronoun policers and a guy who simps for trannies who neglect animals and lie about being threatened by maga chud militias
Click to expand...
Isn't his "wife" a tranny? In any case, while I think he's a smug leftypol antifa cringelord, most of his videos are actually pretty informative so I ignore the shit takes. I do the same with info I get from cringe far right guys. You don't have to like a guy to learn good information from them.
 
SinistralRifleman said:
And then in 2037 some other person with too much time on their hands can argue with you about how it’s just a copy of some gun some dude did in 2022.
Click to expand...
I think his point is he won't pass his build off as novel or meme Stoner. If anything, this guy would be good to have a conversation with in a non-adversarial setting given his autistic knowledge and differing opinion.

SinistralRifleman said:
Build a successful YouTube channel.
Get 500,000 subs.
Click to expand...
This also brings in the issue of people conflating Youtube subscribers with correctness. Touting subscriber clout is something people would normally see in the Beauty Salon.
 
Last edited:
SinistralRifleman said:
You have far more time to argue in autistic detail about rifles that you’re never going to purchase than I have time to go through point by point and explain and argue with you.

Build a successful YouTube channel.
Get 500,000 subs.
Spec out the Full Spectrum Autism rifle.
Generate 1,000 pre-orders
We’ll build whatever you spec out as long as it can actually be done.
We can even do a limited edition puzzle piece Multicam Cerakote for the first 100 buyers.

And then in 2037 some other person with too much time on their hands can argue with you about how it’s just a copy of some gun some dude did in 2022.
Click to expand...
Ah yes a deflection to commercial appeal and social media likes, I didn't know you could be such a modernist hypebeast. Wasn't my point about the WWSD rifle conspiracy is that it's more of a commercial cash grab masterminded by you than it is about doing what Stoner would actually do? Maybe you could stay a little focused on my argument as this "Autism" is simply the sort of engineering involved with actually designing a rifle from the ground up (like what Stoner would do) rather than being a notorious AR-15 "gunsmith" cobbling commercially oriented parts together only to find they are sub-par to a basic bitch Colt 6920 in terms of gas regulation. Why don't you ask your techs/engineers at KE arms how they came to the SLT's hammer spring strength, what testing regimen they used, and how it compares to the milspec hammer spring and get back to me if they have a similar level of autism in making a product? Don't worry though, I already have a 2017 WWSD mostly piecemealed together from years ago and getting a 2020 for testing to prove my points in all of this is a trivial cost to me and was already planned so look forward to that in addition to the current testing program I current have arranged for in the works as we speak.

More importantly I would have a little humility with claims to my own rifles, as to what their significance is, reference actual history, military standards, and my own scientific testing. You can see in my first video how I specifically reference SOCOM's mk18 presentation on extractor tension and that I copy them exactly on my rifle, not that I am doing anything original or of unique commercial interest. More importantly I'm simply looking to have a properly tuned AR-15 and demonstrating the science behind it rather than trying to make a commercial market "ready to settle down" gas port size. Funny enough, even BA barrels are overgassed compared to milspec last time I emailed them for their spec some time ago. Turns out nearly all the popular low price barrel manufacturers are overwhelmingly porting their rifles for anemic Russian steel case ammo instead of trying to make the entire barrel to military specification. With how much people shit talk the army for ball powder like Ian and Karl (watch my first video on the subject to understand why the Army was right about it) you'd think they would also similarly be just as concerned with overgassing their own rifles that they actually own and use, but it appears to be a merely hypocritical stance by people ignorant of the actual history and the actual science/understanding of the rifle. This is also why Karl does not understand that Kyle Rittenhouse really did need his forward assist and the implications of pulling the charging handle on a push feed gun is more likely going to cause a doublefeed when beginning from a standard failure to feed (see my second video.)

As for making a midlength 14.5"-16" carbine. What are you going to do that outperforms a basic milspec such as USASOC's URGI? How would you even know what you're doing with your rifle is even better? What standards and specifications would you use? How would you demonstrate it? It seems that you guys didn't even spec a gas port size for your contracted barrels much in the same way Colt or the Army didn't receive a specified port pressure from Stoner. This is what it means to demonstrably make a good rifle that will not encounter trouble similarly as the original M16 did. This is why the M16/M4 is reliable now with the current TDP. When you deviate from the TDP you either have to get lucky, hope commerical manufacturers aren't going to shortcut you (like faxon does with their gassing), or test it for yourself. To prove it you need to demonstrate it.

As an example: Why does the exterior chrome plating on a BCG do anything for a rifle? Why does ease of cleaning have any benefit for a milsepc or superior gun? People have actually been able to explain that there is an advantage to this beyond mere reliability or cosmetic concerns. Of course you two spend 16 minutes talking about how easy it is to clean and only a 30 seconds or so about the intended engineering improvements beyond a basic milspec and actual military contract BCG you can buy for $100.
 
Full Spectrum said:
Funny enough, even BA barrels are overgassed compared to milspec last time I emailed them for their spec some time ago. Turns out nearly all the popular low price barrel manufacturers are overwhelmingly porting their rifles for anemic Russian steel case ammo instead of trying to make the entire barrel to military specification.
Click to expand...
And now goodbye Russian ammo :story: they better hope the Marshall plan for Ukraine involves forcing them to pump out cat sneeze steel case .223
Full Spectrum said:
With how much people shit talk the army for ball powder like Ian and Karl (watch my first video on the subject to understand why the Army was right about it) you'd think they would also similarly be just as concerned with overgassing their own rifles that they actually own and use
Click to expand...
The internet told me that if it can't handle the steel it doesn't deserve the brass.
Brought to you by the same people who figured out tampons can be used to plug bullet holes.
 
UVB-76 said:
Brought to you by the same people who figured out tampons can be used to plug bullet holes.
Click to expand...
Every time someone tells me that, I laugh and laugh and laugh and ask them to tell me how that turns out when they do it.
 
Neigh said:
I think his point is he won't pass his build off as novel or meme Stoner. If anything, this guy would be good to have a conversation with in a non-adversarial setting given his autistic knowledge and differing opinion.


This also brings in the issue of people conflating Youtube subscribers with correctness. Touting subscriber clout is something people would normally see in the Beauty Salon.
Click to expand...

Why the project was called What Would Stoner Do? has been explained at length. It’s a question that was answered over the course of dozens of videos. The InRange audience bought up the products discussed, and Brownells eventually approached InRange turning it into a turn key commercial product.
The people mad about the name of the project fall into 3 categories.

1) people who think it always was a commercial project and don’t care about the back story of it as thought exercise.
2) people indignant at the invocation of the Stoner name, while not equally applying that indignant to all the other stuff in the AR industry called Stoner something.
3) people who are mad they didn’t think to do it first.

So after 2-3 years of videos of it as a thought exercise they should have changed the name when it got turned into a commercial project? That’d be a great way to lose all marketing inertia.

Subscriber count isn’t a matter of correctness. It’s a matter of wielding enough influence to make something commercially viable. Be correct. Have the best product that can possibly be made. And you can still fail if it isn’t promoted correctly to the right audience.

UVB-76 said:
The internet told me that if it can't handle the steel it doesn't deserve the brass.
Brought to you by the same people who figured out tampons can be used to plug bullet holes.
Click to expand...

The people who want their rifles to be able to run with whatever garbage ammo they can find are legion.
 
SinistralRifleman said:
Why the project was called What Would Stoner Do? has been explained at length. It’s a question that was answered over the course of dozens of videos. The InRange audience bought up the products discussed, and Brownells eventually approached InRange turning it into a turn key commercial product.
The people mad about the name of the project fall into 3 categories.

1) people who think it always was a commercial project and don’t care about the back story of it as thought exercise.
2) people indignant at the invocation of the Stoner name, while not equally applying that indignant to all the other stuff in the AR industry called Stoner something.
3) people who are mad they didn’t think to do it first.

So after 2-3 years of videos of it as a thought exercise they should have changed the name when it got turned into a commercial project? That’d be a great way to lose all marketing inertia.

Subscriber count isn’t a matter of correctness. It’s a matter of wielding enough influence to make something commercially viable. Be correct. Have the best product that can possibly be made. And you can still fail if it isn’t promoted correctly to the right audience.
Click to expand...
1) I literally first asked about the back story and you've refused to answer given the litigation going on. I, with such a pointed and elevated interest in the origin, was accused by you of being an agent of GWACs, so obviously I would not fall into this category. Karl and Ian have never specifically talked about the particulars of the origins in any useful level of detail (probably a good thing for Russel.) Why didn't you simply refer me to their other videos then?
2) I think it would be hard to find someone who disagrees with Stoner as a "designer" on the AR-15 more than I have.
3) I am not interested in shilling meme rifles. I'm much more satisfied with the nature of my current profession than reducing myself to pay shills or be a shill for firearms.

The actual specific intent has always been nebulously defined over the course of the WWSD project. It's been said to be "what stoner would do with modern materials" at one time and "a modern colt SP-1" at another for instance. Full auto design benefits and suppressor use are not "applicable" to the WWSD project per the 2020 BCG video and 2017 pinned flash hider. This calls into question the very nature of what Stoner always did (design full auto capable guns for the military who now use suppressors) against the intent of this rifle.
 
All this talk and sperging about stolen ideas this and not what stoner would do that! I just want a dummy light meme AR for God's sake!
4fb.png
 
Molly White's Breast Milk said:
If the WWSD is selling so well why haven't you paid to have IraqVeteran8888 or Demolition Ranch to shill it? IV8888 only charges $4000 for a one time video.
View attachment 3230911
Click to expand...
Really can't see Demo Ranch making an entertaining video about a plastic AR unless it's "How many .50 cal rounds can it take before it stops working"
 
Full Spectrum said:
He paid leviathan tribe for TFBTV to shill it twice instead.
Click to expand...
Oh fuck, I forgot about Leviathan! I'd want to see GarandThumb do a freeze test on it.
White Devil said:
Really can't see Demo Ranch making an entertaining video about a plastic AR unless it's "How many .50 cal rounds can it take before it stops working"
Click to expand...
He'd do a video about shooting something ridiculously messy and be like "Oh look at this new gun I just got!".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom