General GunTuber thread

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • 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
Trench did a video about Botkins' new training class video and the quick summation is 20 mins of Trench going over how not intimidated by Lucas he is. Maybe intimidated isn't the right word, maybe challenged would be a better word. Either way Trench is coping about someone who is a much better shooter than him, and this time he can't even call the other person fat to deflect from his insecurities.

He begins by reading off a DM he shot Lucas on IG, which sort of undermines the point of a DM. He also says during the video that this is a private conversation between him and Lucas, despite this being a public youtube video. All his actual points are just him whining about how Lucas (who is not and never has been in army) isn't teaching in accordance with army doctrine. Trench repeatedly reference his army marksman trainer handbook during this video, and accuses Lucas of being doctrinally inaccurate.

Lucas also committed the sin of saying LPVOs are good because they help you see what you're aiming at.

I know I've done a bunch of posts recently about Trench but he's just so prolific in both how much content he puts out and just how retarded he is.
 
I watched like the first 3 minutes of trench grenade commenting on Lucas’ class.

I’m surprised Lucas even entertained the conversation. He’s doing performance based training, and Trench isn’t in a position to comment on that with any authority.
 
gbrs 122.JPG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JgmOK7BSiY
Don Shipley released a 12 part series on his son, DJ Shipley. The entire series is demonetized by Don because DJ accused his dad of using his name to monetize videos and sell his “SEAL experience.” DJ is the criss cross applesauce SIGGER guy and tacticringe GBRS zogbot.

The series is brutal. He calls his son dumb, calls out his lies, and exposes him as a deadbeat dad. He says it took DJ five tries to pass his driving test and claims he stole his dad’s valor and stories to get online attention. He also claims DJ is an abusive father.

Don is raising DJ’s son, whom he says DJ abandoned, and claims DJ and his new lady are harassing him for doing so. Pretty wild that they’re airing all of this out on social media.
 
Last edited:
SinistralRifleman said:
I watched like the first 3 minutes of trench grenade commenting on Lucas’ class.

I’m surprised Lucas even entertained the conversation. He’s doing performance based training, and Trench isn’t in a position to comment on that with any authority.
Click to expand...
Can't even blame you, this video was legitimately hard to get through. Just so much envy towards Lucas and attempts to protect his own ego. I don't think Lucas did respond, at least I don't remember Trench mentioning it. I had planned to also do his ammo crisis video but only made it as far as him saying "anyone telling you not to panic buy ammo now just wants to trick you so they can buy all the ammo first" and just didn't have the energy left after the first video.

His gay fanclub are already coping in the comments
1778800341346.png
 
TerminalTryHard said:
All his actual points are just him whining about how Lucas (who is not and never has been in army) isn't teaching in accordance with army doctrine. Trench repeatedly reference his army marksman trainer handbook during this video, and accuses Lucas of being doctrinally inaccurate.
Click to expand...
This is always hilarious when I see it online. Gotta follow the current modern army textbook or else you are 110% wrong even if your performance proves otherwise, can't wait until someone needs to be promoted again and we swap to another shooting guide just like how it went from semi bladed stance to total front toward enemy (or else your armor won't ever work and you insta die) to back to semi bladed.
 
JimJams1998 said:
This is always hilarious when I see it online. Gotta follow the current modern army textbook or else you are 110% wrong even if your performance proves otherwise, can't wait until someone needs to be promoted again and we swap to another shooting guide just like how it went from semi bladed stance to total front toward enemy (or else your armor won't ever work and you insta die) to back to semi bladed.
Click to expand...
Some people really fail to grasp what you can take away from the way military is doing things. Something done by the military, whether we are talking about the doctrine, or issued gear, is rarely the best thing out there. It also is rarely the worst. But people need to realize that you can't apply the same standards across a government military organization, and the civilian world (or a lesser government organization).

When talking about equipment, the military rarely acquires the absolute best thing performance wise. Why? Cost, scale of production to name two big reasons. Obviously there are things you don't compromise on like advanced weapon systems, but let's stick to infantry equipment here.

And when it comes to doctrine and training, you also have to realize that the military is training people for their own objectives, and they are training masses and different people. When infantry soldiers are going to the range, the objective of the training is not to make everyone the best possible shooter. The objective is to make everyone proficient to fit the standards they require, so they can focus on stuff that actually matters for an infantry soldier, like how to operate as a unit.

For an example, I am reading the Finnish military handbook for shooting training. Everyone probably agrees, that you are going to be a better shooter when you are aiming with your dominant eye, and if it requires you to learn how to shoot on your less dominant side hands wise, it will be worth it in the end. In this handbook, it just says that if you have a non-dominant eye with your strong side arm, tough shit. You need to close your dominant eye, and shoot with your weaker eye. Why? Because it's safer to teach people to handle firearms this way, than to try and make them use them on their weak side hands wise. The objective, like I said earlier, is not to teach everyone to become the best shooter out there. It's to teach everyone to become proficient enough, and to do it safely too.

The Army Marksman Trainer handbook that Trench is referencing to, is not a guide on how to teach someone to become a great shooter and a marksman. It's a guide for how the Army is training marksman to fit their mold.
 
Last edited:
This post is one I have had to explain over and over for our Primer show. Mostly because everyone gets upset that we don't race the equipment in demo or that Mae doesn't run the guns aggressively at all. They will nitpick a hundred points of modern or even period practice.

Meanwhile I have to repeatedly explain the point is to just show function, balance, she holds it loose so you can perceive the relative recoil, she stages triggers so she can feel out the little creaks and stacks. Most soldiers were not that experienced anyway, seeing a "novice" approach let's you get an idea of how easy or difficult that firearm would be en masse. We don't explore these military arms with an eye on the top 2%.

The competition / police tactical angle has been juiced by personal defense "combat handgunning" which really took off in the 1980s. Its a lens people can't seem to drop now, even in a historical context.
 
Foley said:
And when it comes to doctrine and training, you also have to realize that the military is training people for their own objectives, and they are training masses and different people. When infantry soldiers are going to the range, the objective of the training is not to make everyone the best possible shooter. The objective is to make everyone proficient to fit the standards they require, so they can focus on stuff that actually matters for an infantry soldier, like how to operate as a unit.

For an example, I am reading the Finnish military handbook for shooting training. Everyone probably agrees, that you are going to be a better shooter when you are aiming with your dominant eye, and if it requires you to learn how to shoot on your less dominant side hands wise, it will be worth it in the end. In this handbook, it just says that if you have a non-dominant eye with your strong side arm, tough shit. You need to close your dominant eye, and shoot with your weaker eye. Why? Because it's safer to teach people to handle firearms this way, than to try and make them use them on their weak side hands wise. The objective, like I said earlier, is not to teach everyone to become the best shooter out there. It's to teach everyone to become proficient enough, and to do it safely too.

The Army Marksman Trainer handbook that Trench is referencing to, is not a guide on how to teach someone to become a great shooter and a marksman. It's a guide for how the Army is training marksman to fit their mold.
Click to expand...
low IQ guys like Trench just uncritically buy into all the "as a US solider you are the best of the best at EVERYTHING" training stuff they tell guys to build confidence and morale as total fact. It genuinely never occurs to him that the vast majority of soldiers only need to be able to shoot good enough to keep the crew served weapons from getting flanked and perticipate in a final assault - so that's what the training is built around.
Othais said:
Meanwhile I have to repeatedly explain the point is to just show function, balance, she holds it loose so you can perceive the relative recoil, she stages triggers so she can feel out the little creaks and stacks. Most soldiers were not that experienced anyway, seeing a "novice" approach let's you get an idea of how easy or difficult that firearm would be en masse. We don't explore these military arms with an eye on the top 2%.

The competition / police tactical angle has been juiced by personal defense "combat handgunning" which really took off in the 1980s. Its a lens people can't seem to drop now, even in a historical context.
Click to expand...
It's genuinely hilarious to me when guys like this see old combat/training footage and don't know that even stuff like the four rules didn't become common until the 60's-70's. The amount of WW2 footage of guys running around with the weapon off safe and/or flagging eachother is truly staggering.
 
Romulus augustulus said:
there was a 101st guy on D-Day that managed to kill himself with his own garand when climbing over a wire fence. I can't find it now but there were photos of his helmet from a museum somewhere.
Click to expand...
I learned to shoot from my grandpa and even to this day he has the attitude of "You can have your finger on the trigger, that's what the safety is for."
 
Othais said:
This post is one I have had to explain over and over for our Primer show. Mostly because everyone gets upset that we don't race the equipment in demo or that Mae doesn't run the guns aggressively at all. They will nitpick a hundred points of modern or even period practice.

Meanwhile I have to repeatedly explain the point is to just show function, balance, she holds it loose so you can perceive the relative recoil, she stages triggers so she can feel out the little creaks and stacks. Most soldiers were not that experienced anyway, seeing a "novice" approach let's you get an idea of how easy or difficult that firearm would be en masse. We don't explore these military arms with an eye on the top 2%.

The competition / police tactical angle has been juiced by personal defense "combat handgunning" which really took off in the 1980s. Its a lens people can't seem to drop now, even in a historical context.
Click to expand...

April Fool's concept...have Mae dress like a BF1 character and run the weapon as ridiculously fast as the animations in that game depict.
 
quaawaa said:
Use yt-dlp. That's the answer for almost every video archival task.
Click to expand...
OK, then how about Pepperbox?

Rabbi Yeshua Moon said:
I’m just happy I can wear Hawaiian shirts again without everyone knowing I’m a deranged extremist
Click to expand...
On the other hand, I wear Hawaiian shirts whenever I want to look fancy and peacock in front of my coworkers....
 
Last edited:
MirrorNoir said:
On the other hand, I wear Hawaiian shirts whenever I want to look fancy and peacock in front of my coworkers....
Click to expand...
Sheepdogs like myself wear Hawaiian shirts so our Kimber 1911s don't print when we're carrying. Gotta keep OPSEC while out grocery shopping. No one expects the Boomer in a Hawaiian shirt and wearing Oakley sunglasses with a high and tight to be carrying a pistol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom