Brick Fight

I want to like Larry Vickers, but he needs to get his cameraman off of coke, and get himself some pronunciation coaching.
 
The FG-42 probably suffered the most from being hard to get a hold of. You couldn't really got analysis beyond a few people who fired them and what specs could be relayed. Everything else was just more reactionary response due to limited info. I'm sure it wasn't the future-is-now weapon some make it out to be, but it was a solid concept with some impressive tech for the time. I'm especially interested in how switching from semi to auto reconfigures it to open bolt.
 
The Smithsonian Channel has this neat show called The Weapon Hunter. If I remember, he went into pretty decent detail about the FG-42, and even got camera time with rare items like those flare guns that the Fallschirm converted into grenade launchers. He definitely seems worth a watch, as I've seen quite a few episodes and not heard one ridiculous myth out of his mouth (funny that's a genuine pro to a show, but there we are). I was surprised how well the guy knew his stuff. Hell, I was just amazed that he dubbed the PaK 40 as the biggest danger to Allied tanks, instead of Tigers or 88s. There was even an episode that showed him going around for parts to fix up an old M10.

I want to like Larry Vickers, but he needs to get his cameraman off of coke, and get himself some pronunciation coaching.
 
The FG-42 probably suffered the most from being hard to get a hold of. You couldn't really got analysis beyond a few people who fired them and what specs could be relayed. Everything else was just more reactionary response due to limited info. I'm sure it wasn't the future-is-now weapon some make it out to be, but it was a solid concept with some impressive tech for the time. I'm especially interested in how switching from semi to auto reconfigures it to open bolt.
 
The Smithsonian Channel has this neat show called The Weapon Hunter. If I remember, he went into pretty decent detail about the FG-42, and even got camera time with rare items like those flare guns that the Fallschirm converted into grenade launchers. He definitely seems worth a watch, as I've seen quite a few episodes and not heard one ridiculous myth out of his mouth (funny that's a genuine pro to a show, but there we are). I was surprised how well the guy knew his stuff. Hell, I was just amazed that he dubbed the PaK 40 as the biggest danger to Allied tanks, instead of Tigers or 88s. There was even an episode that showed him going around for parts to fix up an old M10.

Finally got to put some decent ammo in the Enfield today. 50 yds, standing unsupported, first six rounds I put in:
 

 
I really need to give PPU some props. Not only do these guys make modern affordable versions of rare rifle rounds, they make them damned good, too. I guess if I was some fucking Facebook Dad, I'd post that with something like "When you meet your daughter's new boyfriend... and he extends his hand to shake yours... hand him this!!!"
 
Also, took my dad's Mini-14 out for the first time in a while. I really need to give him credit for how well he takes care of all of his guns. This thing is forty years old:
 

Finally got to put some decent ammo in the Enfield today. 50 yds, standing unsupported, first six rounds I put in:
 

 
I really need to give PPU some props. Not only do these guys make modern affordable versions of rare rifle rounds, they make them damned good, too. I guess if I was some fucking Facebook Dad, I'd post that with something like "When you meet your daughter's new boyfriend... and he extends his hand to shake yours... hand him this!!!"
 
Also, took my dad's Mini-14 out for the first time in a while. I really need to give him credit for how well he takes care of all of his guns. This thing is forty years old:
 

Finally got to put some decent ammo in the Enfield today. 50 yds, standing unsupported, first six rounds I put in:
 

 
I really need to give PPU some props. Not only do these guys make modern affordable versions of rare rifle rounds, they make them damned good, too. I guess if I was some fucking Facebook Dad, I'd post that with something like "When you meet your daughter's new boyfriend... and he extends his hand to shake yours... hand him this!!!"
 
Also, took my dad's Mini-14 out for the first time in a while. I really need to give him credit for how well he takes care of all of his guns. This thing is forty years old:
 

Finally got to put some decent ammo in the Enfield today. 50 yds, standing unsupported, first six rounds I put in:
 

 
I really need to give PPU some props. Not only do these guys make modern affordable versions of rare rifle rounds, they make them damned good, too. I guess if I was some fucking Facebook Dad, I'd post that with something like "When you meet your daughter's new boyfriend... and he extends his hand to shake yours... hand him this!!!"
 
Also, took my dad's Mini-14 out for the first time in a while. I really need to give him credit for how well he takes care of all of his guns. This thing is forty years old:
 

Interesting, but the way he wrote that gives me a headache. It's like someone's reading it monotone with few pauses. It's certainly more intriguing than the purely circumstantial claims I've heard from other people.

It's weird that I can probably easily spot this thing at distance out of a lineup of about 1,000 government letters at this point.

I wrote another big self-excusing write-up, but I think most of us get a little salty because it gets frustrating when you try to inform, and people don't even want to take the information you give them. It's not that they know the drawbacks of a Tiger or the shortcomings of Rommel and choose to come out with a favorable opinion, it's just that they won't accept the realities, period. It's incredibly frustrating, so we play with each other with the discussion to let off steam for the most part. As a branch to the thread and to my Teutonic ancestors, a picture of the Loewe-made Argentine Mauser that's been in the family for 70 years:
 

I wrote another big self-excusing write-up, but I think most of us get a little salty because it gets frustrating when you try to inform, and people don't even want to take the information you give them. It's not that they know the drawbacks of a Tiger or the shortcomings of Rommel and choose to come out with a favorable opinion, it's just that they won't accept the realities, period. It's incredibly frustrating, so we play with each other with the discussion to let off steam for the most part. As a branch to the thread and to my Teutonic ancestors, a picture of the Loewe-made Argentine Mauser that's been in the family for 70 years:
 

I haven't checked if that one part of the bill to completely remove ammo from toxic substance control went through, too.

1) Interesting long guns placed out front. Half the stores in our area don't put anything out front at all. This means that the 2 or 3 clerks working are always tied down if anybody wants to look at any gun, and nobody can look at any gun if three of them are talking to their buddy and ignoring the customers. The other half usually just precariously throw indistinguishably similar-looking deer rifles on one or two racks, while everybody's still tying up the clerks by actually trying to see everything else behind the counter.
 
2) Handguns arranged in some kind of sensible organization. My eyes just tend to glaze over when there are two Rugers, one .380 and one 9mm, each with a .45 S&W and a repro SAA between them (Everything facing different directions, too). Arrange by brands, caliber, used, milsurp, revolvers, whatever. It's just easier to decide if I can visually compare price/size/whatever of one 9mm auto next to other ones. If I'm comparing two 1911s, the clerk shouldn't have to be walking all along the counter just to pull a few out.
 
3) Shelf labels placed underneath well-organized ammo. Different boxes print their caliber size. The organization should be a no-brainer. I found PPU .303 150gr flanked by 12 gauge and 6.5 grendel yesterday, while the higher grain .303 was way over with the 54r. None of the shelves were labeled, and ammo boxes were stacked in a way that made half of them impossible to see the caliber written on the box.
 
4) Haggling. The guy I regularly dealt with in C&R was a bit of a fuck, but he always realized I came in with cash and knew what I wanted. I could tell he was desperate to sucker someone into paying $600 for that Enfield I bought, but it was easier to talk him down when I counter-offered with a common retail price with cash in-hand. Just realizing that 3 minutes of talking to me and answering questions meant a few hundred dollars for him meant he was willing to deal. Other gun stores let me look at something that's obviously over-priced, and will not hear a counter-offer, saying "take it or leave it." Well, I guess I'll leave it to sit on your shelf for another two years.
 
5) No politics. This is a no-brainer, but are you such a slave of the 24-hour news cycle that you can't stand to have any paying customer be comfortable, regardless of political affiliation. I know this just sounds like the leftie getting mad, but even my right-leaning father can't stand to hear some angry weirdo at the counter yelling about FEMA death panels (again, tying down a clerk). No other type of store really allows this kind of stuff, and for good reason. Your customers should not be scaring away other customers.
 
6) Little clutter. Why  are there four very similar Ruger Redhawks in the display case in random locations while other guns you only have one of are barely visible beneath a bottom shelf? Why do you have a dozen of the same model and type of a Remington deer rifle all placed in a row with random .22s and ARs placed between them? Why is half of a gun rack hidden behind camo lingerie and Jeff Foxworthy books? I'd imagine product is best placed in a way where it can draw attention, and not clutter the aisle. A customer buying reloading tools shouldn't have to wait for the guy picking out a "Top 10 reasons to go deer hunting" t-shirt to get out of his way.
 
Everyone has different experiences, but I see this kind of stuff enough that I can call them out when someone starts talking about it.
 
 
edit: Watching Hickock45 talking about gun histories makes me sad. Suddenly appreciating John saying "I don't know" in his videos and leaving it at that.

1) Interesting long guns placed out front. Half the stores in our area don't put anything out front at all. This means that the 2 or 3 clerks working are always tied down if anybody wants to look at any gun, and nobody can look at any gun if three of them are talking to their buddy and ignoring the customers. The other half usually just precariously throw indistinguishably similar-looking deer rifles on one or two racks, while everybody's still tying up the clerks by actually trying to see everything else behind the counter.
 
2) Handguns arranged in some kind of sensible organization. My eyes just tend to glaze over when there are two Rugers, one .380 and one 9mm, each with a .45 S&W and a repro SAA between them (Everything facing different directions, too). Arrange by brands, caliber, used, milsurp, revolvers, whatever. It's just easier to decide if I can visually compare price/size/whatever of one 9mm auto next to other ones. If I'm comparing two 1911s, the clerk shouldn't have to be walking all along the counter just to pull a few out.
 
3) Shelf labels placed underneath well-organized ammo. Different boxes print their caliber size. The organization should be a no-brainer. I found PPU .303 150gr flanked by 12 gauge and 6.5 grendel yesterday, while the higher grain .303 was way over with the 54r. None of the shelves were labeled, and ammo boxes were stacked in a way that made half of them impossible to see the caliber written on the box.
 
4) Haggling. The guy I regularly dealt with in C&R was a bit of a fuck, but he always realized I came in with cash and knew what I wanted. I could tell he was desperate to sucker someone into paying $600 for that Enfield I bought, but it was easier to talk him down when I counter-offered with a common retail price with cash in-hand. Just realizing that 3 minutes of talking to me and answering questions meant a few hundred dollars for him meant he was willing to deal. Other gun stores let me look at something that's obviously over-priced, and will not hear a counter-offer, saying "take it or leave it." Well, I guess I'll leave it to sit on your shelf for another two years.
 
5) No politics. This is a no-brainer, but are you such a slave of the 24-hour news cycle that you can't stand to have any paying customer be comfortable, regardless of political affiliation. I know this just sounds like the leftie getting mad, but even my right-leaning father can't stand to hear some angry weirdo at the counter yelling about FEMA death panels (again, tying down a clerk). No other type of store really allows this kind of stuff, and for good reason. Your customers should not be scaring away other customers.
 
6) Little clutter. Why  are there four very similar Ruger Redhawks in the display case in random locations while other guns you only have one of are barely visible beneath a bottom shelf? Why do you have a dozen of the same model and type of a Remington deer rifle all placed in a row with random .22s and ARs placed between them? Why is half of a gun rack hidden behind camo lingerie and Jeff Foxworthy books? I'd imagine product is best placed in a way where it can draw attention, and not clutter the aisle. A customer buying reloading tools shouldn't have to wait for the guy picking out a "Top 10 reasons to go deer hunting" t-shirt to get out of his way.
 
Everyone has different experiences, but I see this kind of stuff enough that I can call them out when someone starts talking about it.
 
 
edit: Watching Hickock45 talking about gun histories makes me sad. Suddenly appreciating John saying "I don't know" in his videos and leaving it at that.

Tiramisu just doesn't have any stand-out flavors in my mind. There's not enough coffee for a savory bite. Not enough cheese for fragrance, and certainly not an appealing texture. I've just never figured out a reason to eat it besides "It's sweet and has sweet things in it." The basic premise behind most dishes is that there's this great flavor you want to show off, and then you do what you can to enhance or compliment that flavor.

Sturgeon's idea for an article got me thinking. It seems gun myths are rarely challenged, and if they are, they tend to either:
 
a) Take one step forward and two steps back. As in they refute the main myth, but spout 2 or 3 more in the process.
 
b ) Get drowned out by all of the myths' weird supporters with arguments usually starting about their "sniper grandpas in WWII" even if it's about M16s in Vietnam or something.
 
c) Just get lost underneath the constant shoveling of more content by other channels propagating the myths.
 
I honestly wouldn't mind a Mythbusters version of a lot of these. Show how impractical the "garand ping" myths are when you can barely hear the ping in combat, the ping barely happens when you bounce it against a helmet, gun battles aren't fought like a Call of Duty match, etc. But also try to do a setup that supports the myth to see if it can be recreated in any capacity. Forgotten Weapons does a good job of teaching and confronting misinformation, but Ian doesn't exactly make too many videos that will hold the attention of the average goober for too long. I guess the problem would end up being a big mixture of safety issues, cost, video makers' integrity (in lots of regards, including scientific), and resources (including time for filming and editing). A man can dream, though.

Well, either way, I finally knocked a gun off of my to-fire list. I finally got to shoot a BAR. Ever since I stopped patronizing my local gun stores, I've made friends with one of the further-away shops I've been going to. I told him I wanted to fire a BAR really badly, and he invited me out to the range with some friends to shoot it. It felt weird at first, but Christ it was fun to shoot. I felt a little shaken up by the recoil, but I love that monster, and I had a blast shooting it despite its well-documented historical issues. My list is getting smaller, but I still think I may have to pull volunteer personal chef duty in return for getting range-time with a Johnson M1941.

Sturgeon's idea for an article got me thinking. It seems gun myths are rarely challenged, and if they are, they tend to either:
 
a) Take one step forward and two steps back. As in they refute the main myth, but spout 2 or 3 more in the process.
 
b ) Get drowned out by all of the myths' weird supporters with arguments usually starting about their "sniper grandpas in WWII" even if it's about M16s in Vietnam or something.
 
c) Just get lost underneath the constant shoveling of more content by other channels propagating the myths.
 
I honestly wouldn't mind a Mythbusters version of a lot of these. Show how impractical the "garand ping" myths are when you can barely hear the ping in combat, the ping barely happens when you bounce it against a helmet, gun battles aren't fought like a Call of Duty match, etc. But also try to do a setup that supports the myth to see if it can be recreated in any capacity. Forgotten Weapons does a good job of teaching and confronting misinformation, but Ian doesn't exactly make too many videos that will hold the attention of the average goober for too long. I guess the problem would end up being a big mixture of safety issues, cost, video makers' integrity (in lots of regards, including scientific), and resources (including time for filming and editing). A man can dream, though.

There is a point to limiting weapons specialization to an extent, especially in WW2. The toughest pill for me to swallow has always been the "I would rather have." Yes, if I had the logistics capacity of the US Army, I would rather have an MP 44 regularly fully-stocked with ammo, and allies with their fully-stocked weapons as well due to tactical flexibility. It's an unrealistic argument in every way that isn't a complete vacuum where the only question, "which is more useful in a straight combat situation?" is the only question to answer. Unfortunately, the MP 44 has a heavier load for less ammo and its own unique ammo to support, so whether you scavenged it/it was issued to you, you're not going to find much ammo for it anyway. So not only can you not feasibly carry as much ammo as a Garand, you cannot keep this thing supplied under any sort of condition in WW2 that's not some rear-echelon political SS unit or something. Under the real conditions of WW2, I'd have taken a Garand.

There is a point to limiting weapons specialization to an extent, especially in WW2. The toughest pill for me to swallow has always been the "I would rather have." Yes, if I had the logistics capacity of the US Army, I would rather have an MP 44 regularly fully-stocked with ammo, and allies with their fully-stocked weapons as well due to tactical flexibility. It's an unrealistic argument in every way that isn't a complete vacuum where the only question, "which is more useful in a straight combat situation?" is the only question to answer. Unfortunately, the MP 44 has a heavier load for less ammo and its own unique ammo to support, so whether you scavenged it/it was issued to you, you're not going to find much ammo for it anyway. So not only can you not feasibly carry as much ammo as a Garand, you cannot keep this thing supplied under any sort of condition in WW2 that's not some rear-echelon political SS unit or something. Under the real conditions of WW2, I'd have taken a Garand.

There is a point to limiting weapons specialization to an extent, especially in WW2. The toughest pill for me to swallow has always been the "I would rather have." Yes, if I had the logistics capacity of the US Army, I would rather have an MP 44 regularly fully-stocked with ammo, and allies with their fully-stocked weapons as well due to tactical flexibility. It's an unrealistic argument in every way that isn't a complete vacuum where the only question, "which is more useful in a straight combat situation?" is the only question to answer. Unfortunately, the MP 44 has a heavier load for less ammo and its own unique ammo to support, so whether you scavenged it/it was issued to you, you're not going to find much ammo for it anyway. So not only can you not feasibly carry as much ammo as a Garand, you cannot keep this thing supplied under any sort of condition in WW2 that's not some rear-echelon political SS unit or something. Under the real conditions of WW2, I'd have taken a Garand.

A little late, but also keep in mind that a lot of us met on a game forum where users with avatars of literal Nazis could call our Russian friends here subhuman garbage for even minor critique of German military equipment and practice. They'd get off free while se would get temp-bans for saying "nazis were bad" or something. We tend to take the piss on German stuff mostly because of the mythic nature surrounding it, and there's lots of exaggeration when we do jab. I'm sure at least a few users here happily own something with Walther, H&K, Mauser, etc. written on the side, but god knows I don't want to give any weirdo nationalists any sort of validation.

I take Bethesda's games for what they are: Just a chance to walk around a world and find interesting stuff. They're good winter games, the type where I'm stuck indoors and just want to wander around and occasionally kill a thing or two when I get home at weird times of the day.. I liked FO1, couldn't get into 2, loved 3, and sort of liked NV (never played Tactics). That said, Bethesda usually has some of the worst writers and voice acting in gaming, which is odd because they have some of the best "un-"writing out there. There's stuff like the terrible opening sequence to Skyrim, but then interesting level designs that tell more about stuff like the Falmer and Dwarves than loads dialogue could. I'm looking forward to 4, though I'm still kind of weirded out by the presentation. A lot of it looks like a departure for both Fallout and Bethesda.

I do mostly agree with Alex. I prefer older weapons. It must have been hunting/hiking with my dad's old Savage, and later, my M44 Mosin, but I've never felt close to a polymer gun. There are exceptions, like the FALs and early-model M16s, but nothing with a rail has appealed to me, and that guy throwing a fit in the comments is an indicator of a few ways that I don't like where gun design and the gun business in general are going. I guess I like a reflection of craftsmanship in things I enjoy. Food, tobacco, firearms, even things like entertainment media (to dispel criticism that it's just anti-modern sentiments). I see little craftsmanship in most (not all) modern firearms.

You also have to take into account that lots of politicians and people of power are pretty damned tall. I got struck by that meeting politicians. It makes sense, since it lends to the air of charisma, and helps in public apperances. It's not really a rule, but if you're examining the judgement of people that would be around Napoleon the most (military and dignitary types), then you'll probably see a general trend in opinion.

I wrote out a bigger post that was more vitriolic (towards the NRA, not anyone here) and whiny, but dumped it. My problems with the NRA aren't lobbying. They're public relations. Nobody without a gun knows about the NRA's information or safety programs. All they see are news stories of NRA figures blaming victims, appealing to nutsos, or organizing pro-gun rallies down the street from a major shooting within the month of the tragedy. Their public relations arm is losing the non-owner voter, and it's going to seriously hurt them (and us) down the line. People to whom pro-gun and anti-gun ownership is a very important issue are both in the minority. The rest are fence-sitters that you have to keep on your side. Otherwise, opinion shifts away from you, resulting in a legislature that you can no longer lobby.