The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.

[Sturgeon]

Well, now somebody has got to write a tropical action-adventure/thriller story where the plucky protagonist uses a Plus Ultra machine pistol:

[Sturgeon]

I am considering doing an article for TFB on the very common historiological fallacy regarding weapons, where a person analyzes weapons of war as if they were used in one-on-one duels or otherwise by single combatants, as opposed to men in units, and regardless of their logistical considerations. If I did the article, one of the primary examples of this I would use would be the .276 Garand versus the .30-06 Garand, and one of the examples I would avoid is the MP.44 (because everyone's tired of talking about it, I think).

Two questions:

1. In the past, doing articles about people and the "meta" surrounding small arms has been risky. Do you think this would be a good article for TFB, or not?

2. What should I name the fallacy? My current working name is "the champion fallacy".

[Donward]

Gunfighter fallacy. Or High Noon fallacy. Duelist fallacy.

Like two gunmen facing off in the streets of Dodge.

[Tied]

I am considering doing an article for TFB on the very common historiological fallacy regarding weapons, where a person analyzes weapons of war as if they were used in one-on-one duels or otherwise by single combatants, as opposed to men in units, and regardless of their logistical considerations. If I did the article, one of the primary examples of this I would use would be the .276 Garand versus the .30-06 Garand, and one of the examples I would avoid is the MP.44 (because everyone's tired of talking about it, I think).

Two questions:

1. In the past, doing articles about people and the "meta" surrounding small arms has been risky. Do you think this would be a good article for TFB, or not?

2. What should I name the fallacy? My current working name is "the champion fallacy".

 

range jockey fallacy 

[Brick Fight]

I am considering doing an article for TFB on the very common historiological fallacy regarding weapons, where a person analyzes weapons of war as if they were used in one-on-one duels or otherwise by single combatants, as opposed to men in units, and regardless of their logistical considerations. If I did the article, one of the primary examples of this I would use would be the .276 Garand versus the .30-06 Garand, and one of the examples I would avoid is the MP.44 (because everyone's tired of talking about it, I think).

Two questions:

1. In the past, doing articles about people and the "meta" surrounding small arms has been risky. Do you think this would be a good article for TFB, or not?

2. What should I name the fallacy? My current working name is "the champion fallacy".

 

1. It would probably go above the commentors' heads in every capacity, but I'd like it.

 

2. The "Rochambeau Fallacy." The assumption all fights  are on equal grounds with different equipment.

[Sturgeon]

More specifically that all wars are one-on-one duels between one dude with this gun and another dude with that gun.

[Alex C.]

Set the world on fire and discuss the relative insignificance of small arms and light weapons since WWI (where I believe less than 10% of French casualties were from small arms).

I love how Jim Bob logic = "The Mauser sux, it lost two wars".

[Tied]

Set the world on fire and discuss the relative insignificance of small arms and light weapons since WWI (where I believe less than 10% of French casualties were from small arms).

I love how Jim Bob logic = "The Mauser sux, it lost two wars".

 

God i wish i heard that line inbetween the "Mi6 lost vietnam" and the "m1 carbine lost Korea"

 

dont get me wrong, i feel the soviet equivalents of above are much superior, but to assume that any 1 firearm has LOST any war in the 20th century is a fallacy

[Toxn]

I am considering doing an article for TFB on the very common historiological fallacy regarding weapons, where a person analyzes weapons of war as if they were used in one-on-one duels or otherwise by single combatants, as opposed to men in units, and regardless of their logistical considerations. If I did the article, one of the primary examples of this I would use would be the .276 Garand versus the .30-06 Garand, and one of the examples I would avoid is the MP.44 (because everyone's tired of talking about it, I think).

Two questions:

1. In the past, doing articles about people and the "meta" surrounding small arms has been risky. Do you think this would be a good article for TFB, or not?

2. What should I name the fallacy? My current working name is "the champion fallacy".

Throw in the spherical cow joke and you'll have the perfect storm of general incomprehension and in-joke chuckling by the few.

 

That said, I think this is a great idea for public service purposes.

 

I'm going to second duelist's fallacy, as the assumption really seems to be along the lines of two dudes walking our the paces on a flat plain and then blasting away at each other.

[Toxn]

Well, now somebody has got to write a tropical action-adventure/thriller story where the plucky protagonist uses a Plus Ultra machine pistol:

Presumably after the scene where said protagonist discards a baby browning.

 

Speaking of the Ruby, I'd be interested to know if anyone is making an updated/recreation version?

[LoooSeR]

FSB STRNG

[LoooSeR]

 

iHALO ?

[LoooSeR]

Interesting footage of the Ratnik bodyarmor. And A545.

[LoooSeR]

Ukrainian AF

[Bronezhilet]

Brussel central train station yesterday/today.

 

Brussel in general yesterday/today:

 

 

16-17 people arrested yesterday evening, pictures of raid:

[Belesarius]

FNCs and AUGs.

 

Nice.

[Bronezhilet]

More:

[Alex C.]

FNC master race.

[LoooSeR]

Weapons, that were shown to Putin some ime ago.

 

 

 

[Brick Fight]

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.

[Sturgeon]

1. It would probably go above the commentors' heads in every capacity, but I'd like it.

 

2. The "Rochambeau Fallacy." The assumption all fights  are on equal grounds with different equipment.

 

What does Yorktown have to do with it?

 

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.

 

Hopefull, I won't fall victim to a.)

At least some of these myths are things that I bet TFBTV could tackle. I could, as well, but people are much more willing to watch a movie, in general.

[Alex C.]

The Garand ping would be very easy to do.

[Brick Fight]

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.

[Donward]

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.

The TFB Spencer article was just like that where it devolved into a talk about the M1 Carbine. Although the premise that the Spencer was somehow underrated is a bit of a fallacy. It was the Trapdoor 1873 Springfield that was underrated due to its use during the Battle of the Little Bighorn and the Custer Myth.

 

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.

Awesome! The only Browning Automatic Rifle I've fired is the company's hunting rifle version...

 

The Garand ping would be very easy to do.

 

It is pretty obvious that the Garand ping myth didn't happen and couldn't happen. I'm just wondering where it first got started. I'm guessing a 10 year PFC-turned-Sergeant during basic training in the early part of the war imparted some wisdom. Or else there might have been a training video or movie or Stars and Stripes article about it happening "that one time". Or else some veterans on leave were drinking and telling tall tells to the rear echelon pukes who bought it.

 

It's kind of like the Sherman Ronson myth. The origins are probably lost to time.

[Alex C.]

I have always seen the Garand ping myth as something that would have come up organically. Looking at it from a practical standpoint, I could see that if I was issued a rifle that made a really audible noise when I was empty it would be a little unnerving. Yes, you fight with a unit, but there is that "what if" scenario in the back of your head.

Of course the small "what could happen" would then be mentioned often and make its way into colloquial firearm tales.

 

With the huge amount of people who have fought with M1s, I would find it unlikely that the ping has not fucked over at least one dude. Stranger things happened (see: shooting down an aircraft with a 1911). It has become one of those things that taints a firearm despite the incredible service record or other merits (like glocks exploding, M16 Vietnam jam machine, Beretta 92 slide ejection, etc.).