This a very fascinating conversation.
This a very fascinating conversation.
Very interesting vid. Thanks for sharing.
I doubt it'd made a diff when Custer said "Where the fuck did all these Indians come from?!?!"
"And how we burned in the camps later thinking, what would things have been like, if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain, whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"
no matter, all would be obsolete come 1886.
PRAISE KEK
FATHER OF CHAOS
BRINGER OF DAY
IN THY WEBBED HANDS WE PLACE OUR FAITH
SHADILAY, SHADILAY!
That's what a lot of the anti-gun assholes think... that the Second Amendment only applies to muskets.
Based on that thinking, the First Amendment should not protect Internet traffic... after all the Founding Fathers could have never envisioned today's communication technologies.....
Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!
Apparently you didn't actually read Krupski's comment LOL. I rarely if ever defend Krupski, but he was opining about how anti gunners distort the 2nd amendment to only mean muskets and declare any firearms technology later than that as being 'unsuitable for civilian ownership', and then he posted in PURPLE (the color of sarcasm) his own point on how that type of logic would apply to the first amendment.
He wasn't necessarily talking about the video, just a natural digression as to how anti gunners wouldn't allow ANY sort of adoption of better technology ... at ANY time....
Usually Krupski's weird non sequiturs freak me out, but he didn't do that ... this time
I think that the bolt action is a superior design myself. So I agree that when bolt actions with blind magazines became the norm, it would replace the lever action. The bolt action can take much more powerful cartridges safely. Also I've never understood the appeal of the lever action. I don't like firing them and the lever is not that comfortable to cycle (on the fingers).
"I'm fucking furious, I'm violently angry, and I like it. If you don't know what that feels like then I feel bad for you"
once smokeless came about in 1886 the speeds/engagement ranges rifles produced outclassed almost anything you could deliver in a lever action.
PRAISE KEK
FATHER OF CHAOS
BRINGER OF DAY
IN THY WEBBED HANDS WE PLACE OUR FAITH
SHADILAY, SHADILAY!
No army in the 19th century wanted to be the one with the less powerful, shorter ranged rifles. No army in the first half of the 20th century wanted that either!
The Ottoman Empire, I believe, did adopt lever actions in the 1870's but eventually they switched to bolt actions.
The Soviet adoption of the M1895 lever action in 7.62 x 54R is an interesting exception. That saw action in WWI.
The other aspect of this was the thinking that a soldier with a high-capacity magazine would "waste" the ammo. This thinking prevailed into WWI which is why the magazine cut-off feature was present even at that time...
~Nemo me impune lacessit~
"And how we burned in the camps later thinking, what would things have been like, if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain, whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"
Bookmarks