![Bravo Company BCM](/images/2016/banners/sticky/BCM_StickyBarAd_225x40.gif)
![Login](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
Are there any good builders for the G3? I’ve got a receiver in back and need to get it built out.
Alternatively, price check for a PTR receiver in the white with rail? |
|
Quoted: Ian introduces people to the information, it's up to them to dig deeper if it interests them. That's how every hobby or devotion starts. View Quote It's not hard to get correct info..or even say "hey there are two theories on this xyz thing...I don't know which is true.." etc... |
|
Quoted: Except when his information is bad...his acolytes then parrot the "bad" info as gospel truth. Then when you say the info is bad..the acolytes say no..gun jesus knows more about guns than anyone... It's not hard to get correct info..or even say "hey there are two theories on this xyz thing...I don't know which is true.." etc... View Quote Which is the case with any cult of personality. Jeff Cooper was definitely one of those. Mas Ayoob is another that has spread a ton of misinfo and boomers take it and run with it. We have members here that are like that as well. If they make a claim, it's not questioned by their fans. Just human nature. The difference with Forgotten Weapons is he's mainly covering antique shit that potentially has conflicting source material. He's got to make an educated guess at what's right and roll with it. At the end of the day, it's entertainment with an educational lean. His shit about what weapon systems are better, etc. are just opinion pieces. Take them for what they are worth. |
|
Quoted: The choice of the G3 for the Danish army was definitely driven by cost. I think our G3's may actually have been some kind of lease agreement or something. It was apparently very cheap. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Had the Germans been granted the license to produce FALs (HK was already producing some smaller parts), I don't think the CETME would have seen the kind of widespread use that it did as the G-3/HK-91. It definitely would have seen some use outside of Spain, although it'd be more like the SIG 510 in terms of its commonality (a few countries adopted it besides Switzerland and the Vatican, such as Chile, which also got the FAL, G-3, and SIG 542). The SIG 510 doesn't seem to have fared too well in various trials, often being in last place. G-3 rarely came out on top, even in countries that ultimately adopted it. Usually beaten by the FAL, and sometimes also by the AR-10. Cost or availability (particularly with the latter, which had production issues, which is part of why the Germans chose not to go for it), plus HK licensing and helping set up for production in other countries, made the difference that led to the G-3's adoption in many cases. The choice of the G3 for the Danish army was definitely driven by cost. I think our G3's may actually have been some kind of lease agreement or something. It was apparently very cheap. I suspect cost is also why a number of the cost-conscious Western countries that went with the G-3 have continued to use it instead of switching to new 5.56 or 7.62 weapons. Heck, some still use even older weapons like Garands and Thompsons (looking at Greece and Turkey here). |
|
I watched the whole vid and found nothing wrong that he said. I also own a HK91 (G3 clone) and a Aussie L1A1 (FAL). The G3 has shown to have modernized best out of the 7.62 (.308) battle rifles.
|
|
Quoted: Imagine saying that anything without a rail built into the receiver "Modernizes better"... *Laughs in Modern M14* https://i.imgur.com/CB9SHuWh.jpg View Quote Easy to tell in this thread who actually watched the whole video before commenting. |
|
Quoted: Most of that is true of the FAL as well. View Quote FAL has fallen almost completely by the wayside. G-3 is still in wide use and still will be in wide use for some time to come. FAL got the hype as "Rifle of the Free World". G-3 got the actual task of being the Western (Non-Combloc) Standard Combat Rifle used in combat all over the world. (Vs. the Horde of Godless Heathen Commie AKs). Which nations were sending their troops into Combat in Afghanistan & Iraq armed with FALS? ... and that was nearly 20 years ago. ![]() I've owned several FALs & G-3 types (HK-91 & PTR) for many years & fired many many many rounds. If I could only take one, I'd hands down take the G-3. Especially if I could take the "Modernized" rail top version. Even a good product can be improved! EDITED - If you REALLY like the FAL, then fine - I don't want to say bad things about your true love. but in the Real World, that old but dear girl has been passed by the crowd of "modern" 5.56 / 7.62x39 / 5.45 intermediate cartridge crowd, or for the 7.62x51 users, the G-3 still doing it's thing all over the world. |
|
Quoted: Are there any good builders for the G3? I’ve got a receiver in back and need to get it built out. Alternatively, price check for a PTR receiver in the white with rail? View Quote AKA Ghillebear He’s considered to be the best |
|
Quoted: Which is the case with any cult of personality. Jeff Cooper was definitely one of those. Mas Ayoob is another that has spread a ton of misinfo and boomers take it and run with it. We have members here that are like that as well. If they make a claim, it's not questioned by their fans. Just human nature. The difference with Forgotten Weapons is he's mainly covering antique shit that potentially has conflicting source material. He's got to make an educated guess at what's right and roll with it. At the end of the day, it's entertainment with an educational lean. His shit about what weapon systems are better, etc. are just opinion pieces. Take them for what they are worth. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Except when his information is bad...his acolytes then parrot the "bad" info as gospel truth. Then when you say the info is bad..the acolytes say no..gun jesus knows more about guns than anyone... It's not hard to get correct info..or even say "hey there are two theories on this xyz thing...I don't know which is true.." etc... Which is the case with any cult of personality. Jeff Cooper was definitely one of those. Mas Ayoob is another that has spread a ton of misinfo and boomers take it and run with it. We have members here that are like that as well. If they make a claim, it's not questioned by their fans. Just human nature. The difference with Forgotten Weapons is he's mainly covering antique shit that potentially has conflicting source material. He's got to make an educated guess at what's right and roll with it. At the end of the day, it's entertainment with an educational lean. His shit about what weapon systems are better, etc. are just opinion pieces. Take them for what they are worth. but not when it's things that are commonly known and he gets it wrong. Inexcusable...period |
|
Quoted: Are there any good builders for the G3? I’ve got a receiver in back and need to get it built out. Alternatively, price check for a PTR receiver in the white with rail? View Quote Jeff Walters, aka Ghilliebear on HKPro aka Parabellum Combat has built G3 and HK33 clones for me out of kits, with RCM (U.S. made, hammer-forged, nitrided) barrels. They are outstanding shooters. Jeff was apparently involved with Unity in production of recent MP5 mags, per a thread here. He also makes a few parts sold at RobertRTG. He also un-f’d a Turkish MKE AT-43 conversion I bought here. (I didn’t realize I like roller-locks that much!) Does great work and a pleasure to deal with. |
|
Quoted: I agree especially if he's talking about something with little info available.and he makes a speculation... but not when it's things that are commonly known and he gets it wrong. Inexcusable...period View Quote I watch his stuff intermittently, what has he gotten wrong that makes y'all react so strongly? |
|
Quoted: The G-3 was used EXTENSIVELY in the African Bush Wars of the 70's & 80's. And all through Central America insurgencies & Contra revolutions' too! In the Middle East. The G-3 was the primary rifle for the Iranians in the Iran - Iraq war. The Saudis field the G-3 in their battles in Yemen. And by several Forces from nations supporting the NATO / USA in Afghanistan since the Invasion and closer to home, widespread use by Mexico & Columbia in the Drug Wars from the 70's to today... The G-3 is still around still going strong ... from being one of the primary weapons in the battles of the Bush throughout Africa & Central America, to still being issued (& improved) by several significant forces in Europe who are still slinging 7.62x51 NATO. https://zenithfirearms.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/b4c9271ef9389ebee0045ffef2fb269f-military-photos-military-history.jpg https://www.telesurtv.net/__export/1465582747237/sites/telesur/img/news/2016/06/10/south_sudanxs_child_soldiers_hillary_clintonxs_complicity.jpg_1810791533.jpg https://kids.kiddle.co/images/c/ca/Mexican_army.jpg http://epetersmexico.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/3/1/38317915/2547561_orig.jpg https://photo.weaponsystems.net/image/s-carousel/c-640-400/n-fa_ar_g3_p06.jpg/--/img/ws/fa_ar_g3_p06.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Latvian_Soldier_G3A3.jpg View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I think the main reason is the countries that still use the G3s have a small military that they don't want to spend a lot of money on. Like Sweden and Norway. And like you said, they also build them in house and can put their employees to work rebuilding their own equipment. FAL is still in use in places like South Africa, Brazil and even Australia used them in the early 2000s. And you can argue that the Brazilian and South African FALs saw more actual use than the ones in Norway/Denmark/Sweden in the past 20+ years. ... These nations might not be European but it is safe to say the FAL has been modernized and is still seeing some use today. The G-3 was used EXTENSIVELY in the African Bush Wars of the 70's & 80's. And all through Central America insurgencies & Contra revolutions' too! In the Middle East. The G-3 was the primary rifle for the Iranians in the Iran - Iraq war. The Saudis field the G-3 in their battles in Yemen. And by several Forces from nations supporting the NATO / USA in Afghanistan since the Invasion and closer to home, widespread use by Mexico & Columbia in the Drug Wars from the 70's to today... The G-3 is still around still going strong ... from being one of the primary weapons in the battles of the Bush throughout Africa & Central America, to still being issued (& improved) by several significant forces in Europe who are still slinging 7.62x51 NATO. https://zenithfirearms.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/b4c9271ef9389ebee0045ffef2fb269f-military-photos-military-history.jpg https://www.telesurtv.net/__export/1465582747237/sites/telesur/img/news/2016/06/10/south_sudanxs_child_soldiers_hillary_clintonxs_complicity.jpg_1810791533.jpg https://kids.kiddle.co/images/c/ca/Mexican_army.jpg http://epetersmexico.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/3/1/38317915/2547561_orig.jpg https://photo.weaponsystems.net/image/s-carousel/c-640-400/n-fa_ar_g3_p06.jpg/--/img/ws/fa_ar_g3_p06.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Latvian_Soldier_G3A3.jpg No question both were used heavily but that isn't the topic. The video makes the point that the G3 was more successful because it was modernized more whereas the FAL wasn't. That simply isn't true. Outside of Brazil they might not have had an official modernization program or name, but a number of countries have put scope rails, rails, and new stocks and continue to use them. Often in the DRM role. They're also seeing some big use in Syria and the like as of late. ![]() ![]() |
|
View Quote |
|
Quoted: No question both were used heavily but that isn't the topic. The video makes the point that the G3 was more successful because it was modernized more whereas the FAL wasn't. That simply isn't true. Outside of Brazil they might not have had an official modernization program or name, but a number of countries have put scope rails, rails, and new stocks and continue to use them. Often in the DRM role. They're also seeing some big use in Syria and the like as of late. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/75/09/19/750919c586312fa74b40ef31fe458941.png https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ERTmgnSW4AEUu2r.jpg View Quote That FAL looks like it has a cheap ass Leapers scope on it. |
|
Quoted: I watch his stuff intermittently, what has he gotten wrong that makes y'all react so strongly? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I agree especially if he's talking about something with little info available.and he makes a speculation... but not when it's things that are commonly known and he gets it wrong. Inexcusable...period I watch his stuff intermittently, what has he gotten wrong that makes y'all react so strongly? He thinks the D stamp on Finn mosins is so they could shoot russian heavy ball type D ammo...it's not. He thinks the extractor on a P38 pistol is the loaded cartridge indicator....it's not. He thinks the garand was designed for M2 ball....it's not. All very simple things and not difficult to research at all. |
|
Quoted: Simple things... He thinks the D stamp on Finn mosins is so they could shoot russian heavy ball type D ammo...it's not. He thinks the extractor on a P38 pistol is the loaded cartridge indicator....it's not. He thinks the garand was designed for M2 ball....it's not. All very simple things and not difficult to research at all. View Quote In the Finn Mosin video, he says the D stamp is for different profile ammo. He may have said something about russian ammo later in the vid, I was jumping around. Someone made a comment similar to yours and the reply was "what ammo is best for a D stamp rifle? Russian..." I don't know if that's correct or not, but it gives him an out on that if so. Remember the editing thing I brought up? I watched a couple videos on the P38 and he pointed out the extractor and differences between them on multiple variations. So I may not have seen the same video as you are talking about. I couldn't find a review on the basic Garand, and didn't really feel like watching any more at that point. So I just wasted way too much time looking at this stuff, lol. I have less than a cursory knowledge of the guns you referenced, so I had to google the points you made. The D stamp and M2 ball issue is probably gun lore, because I saw those same inaccuracies on multiple forums and gun pages. I could see him trying to find info and making the wrong call. At the end of the day, it still seems like y'all are being really pedantic and he's just trying to do God's work. Cut him some slack or start your own channel and I'll be your first subscriber. |
|
Quoted: In the Finn Mosin video, he says the D stamp is for different profile ammo. He may have said something about russian ammo later in the vid, I was jumping around. Someone made a comment similar to yours and the reply was "what ammo is best for a D stamp rifle? Russian..." I don't know if that's correct or not, but it gives him an out on that if so. Remember the editing thing I brought up? I watched a couple videos on the P38 and he pointed out the extractor and differences between them on multiple variations. So I may not have seen the same video as you are talking about. I couldn't find a review on the basic Garand, and didn't really feel like watching any more at that point. So I just wasted way too much time looking at this stuff, lol. I have less than a cursory knowledge of the guns you referenced, so I had to google the points you made. The D stamp and M2 ball issue is probably gun lore, because I saw those same inaccuracies on multiple forums and gun pages. I could see him trying to find info and making the wrong call. At the end of the day, it still seems like y'all are being really pedantic and he's just trying to do God's work. Cut him some slack or start your own channel and I'll be your first subscriber. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Simple things... He thinks the D stamp on Finn mosins is so they could shoot russian heavy ball type D ammo...it's not. He thinks the extractor on a P38 pistol is the loaded cartridge indicator....it's not. He thinks the garand was designed for M2 ball....it's not. All very simple things and not difficult to research at all. In the Finn Mosin video, he says the D stamp is for different profile ammo. He may have said something about russian ammo later in the vid, I was jumping around. Someone made a comment similar to yours and the reply was "what ammo is best for a D stamp rifle? Russian..." I don't know if that's correct or not, but it gives him an out on that if so. Remember the editing thing I brought up? I watched a couple videos on the P38 and he pointed out the extractor and differences between them on multiple variations. So I may not have seen the same video as you are talking about. I couldn't find a review on the basic Garand, and didn't really feel like watching any more at that point. So I just wasted way too much time looking at this stuff, lol. I have less than a cursory knowledge of the guns you referenced, so I had to google the points you made. The D stamp and M2 ball issue is probably gun lore, because I saw those same inaccuracies on multiple forums and gun pages. I could see him trying to find info and making the wrong call. At the end of the day, it still seems like y'all are being really pedantic and he's just trying to do God's work. Cut him some slack or start your own channel and I'll be your first subscriber. I looked around for a Garand video myself, closest thing I could find is his video on the T3E2 trials and points out the original .276 caliber Garand. |
|
Quoted: I looked around for a Garand video myself, closest thing I could find is his video on the T3E2 trials and points out the original .276 caliber Garand. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Simple things... He thinks the D stamp on Finn mosins is so they could shoot russian heavy ball type D ammo...it's not. He thinks the extractor on a P38 pistol is the loaded cartridge indicator....it's not. He thinks the garand was designed for M2 ball....it's not. All very simple things and not difficult to research at all. In the Finn Mosin video, he says the D stamp is for different profile ammo. He may have said something about russian ammo later in the vid, I was jumping around. Someone made a comment similar to yours and the reply was "what ammo is best for a D stamp rifle? Russian..." I don't know if that's correct or not, but it gives him an out on that if so. Remember the editing thing I brought up? I watched a couple videos on the P38 and he pointed out the extractor and differences between them on multiple variations. So I may not have seen the same video as you are talking about. I couldn't find a review on the basic Garand, and didn't really feel like watching any more at that point. So I just wasted way too much time looking at this stuff, lol. I have less than a cursory knowledge of the guns you referenced, so I had to google the points you made. The D stamp and M2 ball issue is probably gun lore, because I saw those same inaccuracies on multiple forums and gun pages. I could see him trying to find info and making the wrong call. At the end of the day, it still seems like y'all are being really pedantic and he's just trying to do God's work. Cut him some slack or start your own channel and I'll be your first subscriber. I looked around for a Garand video myself, closest thing I could find is his video on the T3E2 trials and points out the original .276 caliber Garand. The original was in .30cal then .276 then BACK to .30 cal Simple research would have avoided that...now everyone thinks it was .276 first... thanks to his confusion. |
|
Quoted: To everyone chiming in on Ian's lack of gun knowledge, or mistakes made during videos. You do realize that he gets called about a neat gun that's up for auction, does some cursory research and then shoots about 8 times the length of footage we actually see. Some shit he may get wrong, others may get cut up in editing and are out of context. All of that is exusable, given the sheer number of firearms he's covered. If you haters can honestly say that you know everything in every video he's done, my hat's off to you. If you are nitpicking about your personal pet/favorite guns that he covered, get over it. We can't come to a consensus on basic facts and history here, so don't be surprised when info presented doesn't agree with what you think... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Ian is not as knowledgeable as some here think he is, but he can entertaining sometimes and a lot of his videos are dry. I can't stand his buddy from InRange and it doesn't shock me if either of them were woke... A lot of folks their age seem to be woke as fuck including a lot of the members here that falls into their demographic. Right now when I watch YouTube gun videos I usually watch 9 Hole Reviews because they have been pretty entertaining at times and I like that. However they some content that is annoying as fuck like there scenario episodes and Henry posting his Iceland Jeep Trip videos . I could give a fuck less about that stuff. I am much more interested in exotic rare firearms I either will not ever own due to price or just obscurity they review time to time. Given a choice between MAC and Forgotten Weapons I will watch MAC and I think he is an industry shill, but I told him that myself more than once . To everyone chiming in on Ian's lack of gun knowledge, or mistakes made during videos. You do realize that he gets called about a neat gun that's up for auction, does some cursory research and then shoots about 8 times the length of footage we actually see. Some shit he may get wrong, others may get cut up in editing and are out of context. All of that is exusable, given the sheer number of firearms he's covered. If you haters can honestly say that you know everything in every video he's done, my hat's off to you. If you are nitpicking about your personal pet/favorite guns that he covered, get over it. We can't come to a consensus on basic facts and history here, so don't be surprised when info presented doesn't agree with what you think... Yep |
|
Quoted: Another error on his behalf... The original was in .30cal then .276 then BACK to .30 cal Simple research would have avoided that...now everyone thinks it was .276 first... thanks to his confusion. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Simple things... He thinks the D stamp on Finn mosins is so they could shoot russian heavy ball type D ammo...it's not. He thinks the extractor on a P38 pistol is the loaded cartridge indicator....it's not. He thinks the garand was designed for M2 ball....it's not. All very simple things and not difficult to research at all. In the Finn Mosin video, he says the D stamp is for different profile ammo. He may have said something about russian ammo later in the vid, I was jumping around. Someone made a comment similar to yours and the reply was "what ammo is best for a D stamp rifle? Russian..." I don't know if that's correct or not, but it gives him an out on that if so. Remember the editing thing I brought up? I watched a couple videos on the P38 and he pointed out the extractor and differences between them on multiple variations. So I may not have seen the same video as you are talking about. I couldn't find a review on the basic Garand, and didn't really feel like watching any more at that point. So I just wasted way too much time looking at this stuff, lol. I have less than a cursory knowledge of the guns you referenced, so I had to google the points you made. The D stamp and M2 ball issue is probably gun lore, because I saw those same inaccuracies on multiple forums and gun pages. I could see him trying to find info and making the wrong call. At the end of the day, it still seems like y'all are being really pedantic and he's just trying to do God's work. Cut him some slack or start your own channel and I'll be your first subscriber. I looked around for a Garand video myself, closest thing I could find is his video on the T3E2 trials and points out the original .276 caliber Garand. The original was in .30cal then .276 then BACK to .30 cal Simple research would have avoided that...now everyone thinks it was .276 first... thanks to his confusion. That actually was my fault, I threw the term "Original" in there instead of stating the "trials version for the requested .276 cal round requested by the military". No offense but thus far you haven't proven any of the falsehoods you claimed he pushes. ETA: In the video for the T3E2 trials, he mentions a 30 cal version was being developed at the same time as the .276 just in case there was a push to keep with what they had. |
|
Quoted: I looked around for a Garand video myself, closest thing I could find is his video on the T3E2 trials and points out the original .276 caliber Garand. View Quote Perhaps he is referring to that garand ammo testing inrange tv did a while back I like forgotten weapons, but sometimes Ian jumps to conclusions that defy conventional knowledge, like when he went on about how great totally fixed sights on combat rifles are, then completely got wiped at his 2 gun match with a fixed sight carcano. His/karls WWSD is just a nothing special AR wrapped up in ego. And saying the G3 modernizes better than the FAL. Easier, sure, but the G3 is still an ergonomic clusterfuck, and the FAL is still seeing significant use around the world |
|
Quoted: In the Finn Mosin video, he says the D stamp is for different profile ammo. He may have said something about russian ammo later in the vid, I was jumping around. Someone made a comment similar to yours and the reply was "what ammo is best for a D stamp rifle? Russian..." I don't know if that's correct or not, but it gives him an out on that if so. Remember the editing thing I brought up? I watched a couple videos on the P38 and he pointed out the extractor and differences between them on multiple variations. So I may not have seen the same video as you are talking about. I couldn't find a review on the basic Garand, and didn't really feel like watching any more at that point. So I just wasted way too much time looking at this stuff, lol. I have less than a cursory knowledge of the guns you referenced, so I had to google the points you made. The D stamp and M2 ball issue is probably gun lore, because I saw those same inaccuracies on multiple forums and gun pages. I could see him trying to find info and making the wrong call. At the end of the day, it still seems like y'all are being really pedantic and he's just trying to do God's work. Cut him some slack or start your own channel and I'll be your first subscriber. View Quote https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPPyBJ_pFmQ39G4FXBQxUPA |
|
Quoted: That actually was my fault, I threw the term "Original" in there instead of stating the "trials version for the requested .276 cal round requested by the military". No offense but thus far you haven't proven any of the falsehoods you claimed he pushes. ETA: In the video for the T3E2 trials, he mentions a 30 cal version was being developed at the same time as the .276 just in case there was a push to keep with what they had. View Quote Everything I said was true and you can easily verify it...just like he could have with a few minutes of google...or if you are concerned ask on many of the gun forums that are specific to the firearm in actual question and the real subject matter experts will give you the correct info. |
|
View Quote Is that you? If so, I'm on it, lol. |
|
To all the hardheads in this thread:
Ian did NOT say the G-3 the G-3 modernizes better than the FAL, he said (and the God-dammed title to this fucked-up thread SHOULD say, OP) "The G-3 modernizes better THAN YOU THINK." The title of the video is called "Modernizing the G3." Here, dammit: ![]() Modernizing the G3 |
|
Quoted: Perfect example...I have to go back "proving" he's false... this is exactly what I mentioned earlier when he gives out bad info...people have to go back and debunk his false info to people (like you) who don't bother to do any research yourself and want it all spoon fed for you. Everything I said was true and you can easily verify it...just like he could have with a few minutes of google...or if you are concerned ask on many of the gun forums that are specific to the firearm in actual question and the real subject matter experts will give you the correct info. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: That actually was my fault, I threw the term "Original" in there instead of stating the "trials version for the requested .276 cal round requested by the military". No offense but thus far you haven't proven any of the falsehoods you claimed he pushes. ETA: In the video for the T3E2 trials, he mentions a 30 cal version was being developed at the same time as the .276 just in case there was a push to keep with what they had. Everything I said was true and you can easily verify it...just like he could have with a few minutes of google...or if you are concerned ask on many of the gun forums that are specific to the firearm in actual question and the real subject matter experts will give you the correct info. Actually your own proclamation was debunked by information from his own videos... So again, you haven't exactly come across as the virtue of accurate information but rather twisting things to fit your box of "He's bad" or "Wrong" for the sake of feeling better about yourself. I treat his videos as entertainment and if I genuinely am interested in looking further, I do my own research. Also you're the one laying the claim of things "he said" but haven't exactly pin pointed out the items. Usually when an individual lays a claim, it is incumbent upon them to prove that claim. |
|
Quoted: Actually your own proclamation was debunked by information from his own videos... So again, you haven't exactly come across as the virtue of accurate information but rather twisting things to fit your box of "He's bad" or "Wrong" for the sake of feeling better about yourself. I treat his videos as entertainment and if I genuinely am interested in looking further, I do my own research. Also you're the one laying the claim of things "he said" but haven't exactly pin pointed out the items. Usually when an individual lays a claim, it is incumbent upon them to prove that claim. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That actually was my fault, I threw the term "Original" in there instead of stating the "trials version for the requested .276 cal round requested by the military". No offense but thus far you haven't proven any of the falsehoods you claimed he pushes. ETA: In the video for the T3E2 trials, he mentions a 30 cal version was being developed at the same time as the .276 just in case there was a push to keep with what they had. Everything I said was true and you can easily verify it...just like he could have with a few minutes of google...or if you are concerned ask on many of the gun forums that are specific to the firearm in actual question and the real subject matter experts will give you the correct info. Actually your own proclamation was debunked by information from his own videos... So again, you haven't exactly come across as the virtue of accurate information but rather twisting things to fit your box of "He's bad" or "Wrong" for the sake of feeling better about yourself. I treat his videos as entertainment and if I genuinely am interested in looking further, I do my own research. Also you're the one laying the claim of things "he said" but haven't exactly pin pointed out the items. Usually when an individual lays a claim, it is incumbent upon them to prove that claim. Using his videos of bad info to "debunk" what I said was wrong is circular logic...and laughable Go open some books yourself and you will see his errors yourself.... |
|
Quoted: ![]() Hence I said "the G3 was Germanys 2nd choice" clearly a direct reference to the G1. The G1 went away not because H&K had a better option. It went away because countries who had been occupied not once but twice in recent memory by Germany weren't to excited about arming them with FALs. They were forced to chose another platform or rely on limited foreign arms for their military. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Modernizes easier? I'll buy that. Modernizes better into a more ergonomic and reliable platform with some effort?..naw https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/403210/20210131_215851_jpg-1808914.JPG The G3 wouldn't even exist if Germans could have gotten FALs. Its always going to be the 2nd choice in the minute of man market. Never heard of the G1 huh? [ https://th.bing.com/th/id/R099b2c87e0b54435f36a1c94083eecd9?rik=BVmuEu%2b8ZZKBuQ&riu=http%3a%2f%2fi.imgur.com%2fvPsYG1v.jpg&ehk=2IaPNowq%2bQKWtf9haZELlHwIACYzsXowbG1xQMNI9cs%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw ![]() Hence I said "the G3 was Germanys 2nd choice" clearly a direct reference to the G1. The G1 went away not because H&K had a better option. It went away because countries who had been occupied not once but twice in recent memory by Germany weren't to excited about arming them with FALs. They were forced to chose another platform or rely on limited foreign arms for their military. FN did not want to license production of the FAL to Germany. FN wanted to sell them all the rifles that the Bundeswehr wanted but balked at Germany building their own. |
|
Quoted: Not my proclamations...they are the documented facts from historical books...such as hatchers ...etc. Using his videos of bad info to "debunk" what I said was wrong is circular logic...and laughable Go open some books yourself and you will see his errors yourself.... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That actually was my fault, I threw the term "Original" in there instead of stating the "trials version for the requested .276 cal round requested by the military". No offense but thus far you haven't proven any of the falsehoods you claimed he pushes. ETA: In the video for the T3E2 trials, he mentions a 30 cal version was being developed at the same time as the .276 just in case there was a push to keep with what they had. Everything I said was true and you can easily verify it...just like he could have with a few minutes of google...or if you are concerned ask on many of the gun forums that are specific to the firearm in actual question and the real subject matter experts will give you the correct info. Actually your own proclamation was debunked by information from his own videos... So again, you haven't exactly come across as the virtue of accurate information but rather twisting things to fit your box of "He's bad" or "Wrong" for the sake of feeling better about yourself. I treat his videos as entertainment and if I genuinely am interested in looking further, I do my own research. Also you're the one laying the claim of things "he said" but haven't exactly pin pointed out the items. Usually when an individual lays a claim, it is incumbent upon them to prove that claim. Using his videos of bad info to "debunk" what I said was wrong is circular logic...and laughable Go open some books yourself and you will see his errors yourself.... Sorry man but discussions don't work that way. It's incumbent on the individual that makes the claim to back up their claims, always has been and always will be. What you proclaim as "basic fact" other individuals may not know and it is a benefit to educate others. Your attitude on the matter isn't helping anything either, in that you come across as arrogant or straight up jealous of those that you're attempting to critique. You're clearly an educated individual, so I know you understand the basics of discussion and what tends to fly in debates as opposed to getting to make claims with no data. I was not using his videos as evidence to debunk statements but rather pointing out that most of what you stated "He" said as fact was in fact twisted by you to fit your box and wasn't an actual verbatim of what he stated, hence my "debunked" comment. I do not treat the information from his videos as gospel or the hard truth but merely was wanting you to give the videos in which he made the exact claims that you posted, especially considering it's a bitch to find some of them given the amount of videos he has now and some of them being auction house demonstrations as opposed to detailed stripping/detail. Keep in mind, "InRange TV" is not Forgotten Weapons, despite Ian having a presence on it. The fool Karl will be the first to tell you that it is HIS channel and that Ian is merely a guest on it. Information stated on that channel should truly be treated as nothing but entertainment. |
|
Quoted: Wrong. FN did not want to license production of the FAL to Germany. FN wanted to sell them all the rifles that the Bundeswehr wanted but balked at Germany building their own. View Quote The bulk of them ended up going to Portugal, Turkey, and Rhodesia. I think most of the G1 kits that came in to the U.S. came from Turkey. BGS continued using the FAL for a couple more decades or so. |
|
Quoted: Sorry man but discussions don't work that way. It's incumbent on the individual that makes the claim to back up their claims, always has been and always will be. What you proclaim as "basic fact" other individuals may not know and it is a benefit to educate others. Your attitude on the matter isn't helping anything either, in that you come across as arrogant or straight up jealous of those that you're attempting to critique. You're clearly an educated individual, so I know you understand the basics of discussion and what tends to fly in debates as opposed to getting to make claims with no data. I was not using his videos as evidence to debunk statements but rather pointing out that most of what you stated "He" said as fact was in fact twisted by you to fit your box and wasn't an actual verbatim of what he stated, hence my "debunked" comment. I do not treat the information from his videos as gospel or the hard truth but merely was wanting you to give the videos in which he made the exact claims that you posted, especially considering it's a bitch to find some of them given the amount of videos he has now and some of them being auction house demonstrations as opposed to detailed stripping/detail. Keep in mind, "InRange TV" is not Forgotten Weapons, despite Ian having a presence on it. The fool Karl will be the first to tell you that it is HIS channel and that Ian is merely a guest on it. Information stated on that channel should truly be treated as nothing but entertainment. View Quote Maybe if I have time tomorrow I'll go and link all the vids for you. And I haven't twisted his words....I find it odd that you say I twisted his words when you then admitted that you want me to link the videos where he said what I say he said... since you can't find them. Sheesh.... But I'm sure it won't matter as you will probably make up another weasel answer for it. |
|
Quoted: I watch his stuff intermittently, what has he gotten wrong that makes y'all react so strongly? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I agree especially if he's talking about something with little info available.and he makes a speculation... but not when it's things that are commonly known and he gets it wrong. Inexcusable...period I watch his stuff intermittently, what has he gotten wrong that makes y'all react so strongly? Probably mis-stated the year a MKII Enfield sling swivel changed. The horror. ![]() ETA - yeah, pretty much exactly that pedantic. Ya'll know that just because it's in Hatcher or some other book doesn't mean it's any less fallible, right? Those guys were also working from the sources they had available, same as Ian does today. In some cases being closer to the events made for more accurate info, other times subsequent investigation from parallel sources contradicts the old common knowledge. None of this would be an issue if a university would have the balls to stand up a firearms history department, right? |
|
Quoted: Regardless of the channel if it comes out of Ian's mouth then he owns it. Maybe if I have time tomorrow I'll go and link all the vids for you. And I haven't twisted his words....I find it odd that you say I twisted his words when you then admitted that you want me to link the videos where he said what I say he said... since you can't find them. Sheesh.... But I'm sure it won't matter as you will probably make up another weasel answer for it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Sorry man but discussions don't work that way. It's incumbent on the individual that makes the claim to back up their claims, always has been and always will be. What you proclaim as "basic fact" other individuals may not know and it is a benefit to educate others. Your attitude on the matter isn't helping anything either, in that you come across as arrogant or straight up jealous of those that you're attempting to critique. You're clearly an educated individual, so I know you understand the basics of discussion and what tends to fly in debates as opposed to getting to make claims with no data. I was not using his videos as evidence to debunk statements but rather pointing out that most of what you stated "He" said as fact was in fact twisted by you to fit your box and wasn't an actual verbatim of what he stated, hence my "debunked" comment. I do not treat the information from his videos as gospel or the hard truth but merely was wanting you to give the videos in which he made the exact claims that you posted, especially considering it's a bitch to find some of them given the amount of videos he has now and some of them being auction house demonstrations as opposed to detailed stripping/detail. Keep in mind, "InRange TV" is not Forgotten Weapons, despite Ian having a presence on it. The fool Karl will be the first to tell you that it is HIS channel and that Ian is merely a guest on it. Information stated on that channel should truly be treated as nothing but entertainment. Maybe if I have time tomorrow I'll go and link all the vids for you. And I haven't twisted his words....I find it odd that you say I twisted his words when you then admitted that you want me to link the videos where he said what I say he said... since you can't find them. Sheesh.... But I'm sure it won't matter as you will probably make up another weasel answer for it. Some videos were found with information from it ran contrary to your statements of what "he" said, hence my request for you to find the one that you proclaimed it was made in. Sheesh, is that such a ridiculous request? Again, given the plethora of his content, I won't be able to track down every single damned video to pinpoint the exact one he -may- have said it. I was actually trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, as the other videos found didn't have a verbatim statement that you posted. Assuming you actually find the videos and do post/give them in some way showing the exact claims on all that you posted, I'll give a thanks and accept the man gave out incorrect information. I've read books with incorrect information printed in them too, no one is perfect. |
|
Quoted: Probably mis-stated the year a MKII Enfield sling swivel changed. The horror. ![]() ETA - yeah, pretty much exactly that pedantic. Ya'll know that just because it's in Hatcher or some other book doesn't mean it's any less fallible, right? Those guys were also working from the sources they had available, same as Ian does today. In some cases being closer to the events made for more accurate info, other times subsequent investigation from parallel sources contradicts the old common knowledge. None of this would be an issue if a university would have the balls to stand up a firearms history department, right? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I agree especially if he's talking about something with little info available.and he makes a speculation... but not when it's things that are commonly known and he gets it wrong. Inexcusable...period I watch his stuff intermittently, what has he gotten wrong that makes y'all react so strongly? Probably mis-stated the year a MKII Enfield sling swivel changed. The horror. ![]() ETA - yeah, pretty much exactly that pedantic. Ya'll know that just because it's in Hatcher or some other book doesn't mean it's any less fallible, right? Those guys were also working from the sources they had available, same as Ian does today. In some cases being closer to the events made for more accurate info, other times subsequent investigation from parallel sources contradicts the old common knowledge. None of this would be an issue if a university would have the balls to stand up a firearms history department, right? The ones slinging the most mud appear to be the ones jealous of what he gets to do. I don't blame them, must be nice to travel the world and make videos with some surface level and potential deeper level information on rare as well as common firearms of the world. Wouldn't that be nice.... A university with a firearms history department.... I'd pay for that. |
|
He really should start citing his references.
Then we could all argue whether he should use APA, MLA or Chicago.... |
|
Quoted: Probably mis-stated the year a MKII Enfield sling swivel changed. The horror. ![]() ETA - yeah, pretty much exactly that pedantic. Ya'll know that just because it's in Hatcher or some other book doesn't mean it's any less fallible, right? Those guys were also working from the sources they had available, same as Ian does today. In some cases being closer to the events made for more accurate info, other times subsequent investigation from parallel sources contradicts the old common knowledge. None of this would be an issue if a university would have the balls to stand up a firearms history department, right? View Quote Well Considering General Julian Hatcher was directly involved with the production of the M1903 , development of the M1 and its production, and is a firsthand source of information concerning the M1 and M1903 rifles no he wasn't fallible when it comes to the subject of the M1 or M1903. In fact Julian Hatcher is what many folks would refer to as a subject matter expert. |
|
Some of you should try producing a 10-20 minute video every day for years without getting the occasional piece of trivia wrong.
|
|
Quoted: Probably mis-stated the year a MKII Enfield sling swivel changed. The horror. ![]() ETA - yeah, pretty much exactly that pedantic. Ya'll know that just because it's in Hatcher or some other book doesn't mean it's any less fallible, right? Those guys were also working from the sources they had available, same as Ian does today. In some cases being closer to the events made for more accurate info, other times subsequent investigation from parallel sources contradicts the old common knowledge. None of this would be an issue if a university would have the balls to stand up a firearms history department, right? View Quote Yep. Loss of documentation is what got him started on the journey. He's trying to save this stuff for the future. |
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted: Well Considering General Julian Hatcher was directly involved with the production of the M1903 , development of the M1 and its production, and is a firsthand source of information concerning the M1 and M1903 rifles no he wasn't fallible when it comes to the subject of the M1 or M1903. In fact Julian Hatcher is what many folks would refer to as a subject matter expert. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Probably mis-stated the year a MKII Enfield sling swivel changed. The horror. ![]() ETA - yeah, pretty much exactly that pedantic. Ya'll know that just because it's in Hatcher or some other book doesn't mean it's any less fallible, right? Those guys were also working from the sources they had available, same as Ian does today. In some cases being closer to the events made for more accurate info, other times subsequent investigation from parallel sources contradicts the old common knowledge. None of this would be an issue if a university would have the balls to stand up a firearms history department, right? Well Considering General Julian Hatcher was directly involved with the production of the M1903 , development of the M1 and its production, and is a firsthand source of information concerning the M1 and M1903 rifles no he wasn't fallible when it comes to the subject of the M1 or M1903. In fact Julian Hatcher is what many folks would refer to as a subject matter expert. He's also been dead for sixty years, so he can't curate his own website about the topic. He also wasn't the only person involved. He also didn't document *everything* (just a shitload). He was also human. History is messy. And some people are insufferably jealous & bitter. You know, Ian has comments open on his site; maybe drop your encyclopedic knowledge there to correct him when he's mistaken on occasion. God forbid he ever misstate one figment of minutiae on a huge, sprawling, highly technical topic, for your unpaid entertainment. ![]() It's not a matter of fanbois & haters, this is just...sad. Comic book nerd shit times a thousand. ![]() |
|
|
Quoted: Nah I'm just going to refrain from selling myself as an all knowing gun expert. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Some of you should try producing a 10-20 minute video every day for years without getting the occasional piece of trivia wrong. Nah I'm just going to refrain from selling myself as an all knowing gun expert. He does, huh. Are you one of those guys who's actually pissed he didn't reject the 'gun Jesus' joke years ago? In prior threads such people; -Assured us he made it up himself -Claimed it was actual sacrilege/heresy -Said he used it as a false claim of infallibility ![]() |
|
The British SAS enjoyed the G3 in different guises for a long time including the MC51 which was in effect a MP5 in 7.62.
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.