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
millais said:
I remember hearing somewhere that the Allied leadership in the winter of '39 was so obsessively averse to offensive operations on the Westfront that in order to profitably employ their idle divisions, they even contemplated deploying an expeditionary force to intervene in the Finnish Winter War in a retarded attempt at opening a second front against the German-Soviet bloc.
Click to expand...
The plan was to deploy somewhere around 100k British and 30k French troops into Finland to help us to win the war, but of course there were other pragmatic reasons for a move like this. The Franco-British force would have landed to Narvik and moved on rail through Norway to Sweden, through Kiiruna along the way. France and Brits asked both Norway and Sweden to accept the movement of the troops, for it not to be an invasion, and if they had accepted it would have pushed both countries into Allied side sooner than later, at least that was the thinking. Norway said no, Sweden also said no as Germany had told them that a such move would require Germany to see Sweden as their enemy and immediately invade them. Now we are at early march and the peace deal between Finland and Soviets was done which was the end of these plans.

But hypothetically let's say that the transit rights are given, what will happen next? Suddenly Narvik becomes an important Allied supply port and you have thousands of men and ships just handling logistics there. Narvik is also an important export port for Swedish metals from Kiiruna which would also see Allied troops handling logistics. Suddenly one major source of metals that Germany desperately needed would be under watchful eyes of the French and the Brits. And if that happens Germany would find a dagger pointed straight down at them from the North, especially if Germany actually invades Southern Sweden like they threatened to do.

So sure helping Finland would have been nice, those troops could have stabilized the front as our army was quite exhausted. But the bigger prize would have been the ability to deny Swedish metals to Germany.
 
Romulus augustulus said:
Hiter was able to rouse the Germans to fight. they had good morale. The Russians didn't have a choice in the matter.

The leadership of France and England were not able to do either of the above.
Click to expand...
Germans were still pissed about the unfair Versailles treaty. Russians have a genetic attribute of ignoring all the ass raping their own leaders commit against them, as soon as they are told that an external force is threatening the Rodina.
 
Foley said:
Germans were still pissed about the unfair Versailles treaty. Russians have a genetic attribute of ignoring all the ass raping their own leaders commit against them, as soon as they are told that an external force is threatening the Rodina.
Click to expand...
Russians are incredibly fatalistic. they know they're peasants, so they don't complain when the state grinds them down. so much so that it's integral to their identity as Russians.
 
Romulus augustulus said:
Russians are incredibly fatalistic. they know they're peasants, so they don't complain when the state grinds them down. so much so that it's integral to their identity as Russians.
Click to expand...
It really is amazing, like I said it's basically a genetic feature just like it is for Africans to rape women. This is why I'm extremely pessimistic about Russia ever becoming something else but a thoroughly niggerlicious country, no matter who succeeds Putin.
 
Othais said:
This whole 1mm past the wall thing picked up a lot of attention specifically because it is "opaque" to most people. They can't mentally see the interaction in the gun. By being so narrow and jocular in Ivan's first attempt, the specific context was lost and the same opaqueness allowed the public to make all sorts of strange assumptions.
Click to expand...

I live in the UK. I've never touched a handgun in my life. The only guns I've ever seen are when the Matrix squad pull over a local drug dealer on the motorway and they've got them surrounded with the MP5's out. So it's all pretty opaque to me.

The initial Wyoming Gun Project video seemed retarded to me, because hell, if you're going to jam something into the mechanism of something to bypass it, why would you be surprised that you can bypass it? If it doesn't do it without something jammed into the mechanism, I was struggling to see what the issue is.

Ivan's video made it slightly less opaque but I'm still a bit baffled by it all. My understanding now is something like this: there's a point on the trigger pull that people are referring to as 'the wall'. Prior to the trigger being pulled back to the wall, the gun is safe. Once the trigger is pulled back beyond the wall, the safety is disengaged and slop in the slide can cause the gun to be fired by any slight wiggle or movement.

Here's the thing I'm not clear about. On the P320, the wall seems to be just about a millimetre back from the trigger's 'resting' position. The Glock is subject to exactly the same issue, but the wall on the Glock appears to be about an inch and a quarter back from the trigger's resting position. Wouldn't this longer pull before the wall is reached make the Glock inherently safer than the Sig?

And why does he not discuss the role of that second safety switch in the middle of the trigger? Does that not have to be depressed for the trigger to be moved backwards? Am I correct in assuming that the Sig doesn't have that switch? I can't see one on any of the videos.
 
Swole McPole said:
And why does he not discuss the role of that second safety switch in the middle of the trigger? Does that not have to be depressed for the trigger to be moved backwards? Am I correct in assuming that the Sig doesn't have that switch? I can't see one on any of the videos.
Click to expand...
From what I’ve heard about the design of the Sig, adding a trigger safety wouldn’t make the gun safer. Even the manual safety models have gone off with the safety engaged.
 
Swole McPole said:
Here's the thing I'm not clear about. On the P320, the wall seems to be just about a millimetre back from the trigger's 'resting' position. The Glock is subject to exactly the same issue, but the wall on the Glock appears to be about an inch and a quarter back from the trigger's resting position. Wouldn't this longer pull before the wall is reached make the Glock inherently safer than the Sig?

And why does he not discuss the role of that second safety switch in the middle of the trigger? Does that not have to be depressed for the trigger to be moved backwards? Am I correct in assuming that the Sig doesn't have that switch? I can't see one on any of the videos.
Click to expand...
TriggerEventsDesc.webp

The resting position to the wall is called the "takeup". I wouldn't call one or the other inherently safer as ANY gun shouldn't go off before the break. Though in holster etc., a foreign object inside the trigger guard would certainly have to move much further before the gun went off.

It's probably more about whats going on after the wall called the "creep". Glock has a pretty long creep before the trigger breaks and releases the striker. Sig's mousetrap of a mechanism is trying to act on a bunch of internal mechanisms with the bare minimum of movement which probably leaves an extremely small margin of error in their design. Any QC issues will show tenfold.

A nub wouldn't do much for Sigs "current" issues. From my understanding, the nub in the middle of the trigger on the Glock is mostly a safety against dropping. I don't think it's all that effective at stopping foreign objects from pulling the trigger.
 
WhoBusTank69 said:
Speaking of gunsmithing, Caleb of Brownell's Youtube fame called Ivan out.
Click to expand...
I really don't understand what the fuck is wrong with Ivan. Just call the Wyoming dude a retard and move on. He's convincing nobody of anything. People unfamiliar with the rat will just think he's shilling for Sig and those who are familiar with him know he's a contrarian sperg 80% of the time.
 
Laminated Flooring Panel said:
But the bigger prize would have been the ability to deny Swedish metals to Germany.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and you'd join the Soviet and Germans into the same side, you'd have full technical cooperation (specially in aircraft or tanks or ships), the soviets would supply any oil and ore the Germans wanted, and they'd be a dagger pointed at turkey and India and Iran-iraq.

You'd need nukes to stop them.
 
Wyoming Gun Project posted another one yesterday now focusing on the striker safety disconnector.

The video displays the striker safety disconnector disengages the striker safety before a complete trigger pull contrary to SigSauer's claims, as well as what little information that's out there.
SigP320.webp
Sourced from

EDIT:
Shadetree Armorer goes through a bunch of videos and tidbits in a very good compilation or summary of known details. TL;DW, It is suspected the design is very susceptible to crud piling on top of the sear to artificially lower the engagement surface resulting in conditions that cause taps and jostling to disconnect the sear from the striker. A faulty striker block safety may allow an uncommanded discharge on top of that.
(Archive)

incessant editing due to grammar and wording
 
Last edited:
Nobody is doing this with a primed case in the Glock because the striker safety works totally different. In a Glock the trigger bar doesn't move the striker safety up until the same moment it's leaving the striker. The striker is slipping the sear but it's still getting caught by the striker safety, if the striker safety is off you aren't "past the wall" you're holding the trigger at the break.

Notice also that the Glock striker block isn't some tab that engages on what looks to be essentially a secondary sear, but a vertical block that is pushed up by a separate lobe on the trigger bar.

 
Last edited:
Foley said:
That was never going to happen lol
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure allied troops engaging the soviets in the winter war would mean the realignment of the Soviet union against allied forces.
You'd get a Berlin-Moscow axis for certain.

Tangentially related to guntubbers: MajorSamm had a gay breakdown and deleted everything:
He was starting to make some good documentaries, but I guess attracting the "wrong" crowd scared his British/Australian ass off.
Screenshot_20250804-160704.YouTube.webp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom