2G-ACM - G3 vs AKM - Introduction & Moving Targets
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- We decided to pit two post WW2 ideologies against one another at this match with two quintessential designs: the G3 and the AKM.
Some of the world went with full size "battle rifles" while others went with assault rifles firing intermediate cartridges, in fact the Soviets considered the AKM a submachine gun.
In this match, the AKM requires 3 hits on each target but he G3 only requires 2. This is an attempt to simulate the effect of the more powerful cartridge.
What was the best choice? Was there a wrong choice?
This is a 4 part series with each stage being discussed, with conclusions, about what we could learn about these rifles and ideas in from a practical shooting environment.
www.patreon.co...
It's all about your army's military doctrine. I was MG3 gunner in German army (in the 1980s) and provided for the "volume of fire" - much better than any AK-derivate could do. To my side were G3 marksmen to cover and support me. I still believe it was a perfect combination. You have to look at your platoon as an organism. It's not the single soldier who counts, it's your team as a whole.
Agree
Interesting that German doctrine really hand't changed all that much from WWII.
BewareOfTheKraut Well that didn't win the war the first time around with the other guys using bolt actions and sub guns, I doubt it will work this time against assault rifles...
+23GreyFox Well if you compare the total causalities against ALL Axis forces in WW2 with that of the Soviets its around 1.5-1.8 to 1 in the Axis favor but I still won't brag about that since that includes the over 3 million Soviet POW's that died under German captivity. Unfortunately for the Germans you don't win wars via casualties, you win wars by accomplishing your political and strategic goals which Germany lost.
@Baron Von Grijffenbourg EXACTLY! Like the spoiled cousin at family events, who is being ignored.
Karl looks like an angry Boer farmer.
I though that he was wearing a selous scouts shirt
Boer means farmer. So that's an odd thing to say. Kinda like 'Panzer tank' or drunk Russian.
Considering how many died in the British concentration camps there's plenty of reasons for anger.
Giving Ian who really dislikes the G3, the G3 is just cruel. It is almost as bad as giving Karl a BAR. :P
He said he's a huge fan of the g3 in the video
+Gelloe Sarcasm can go deep with these guys
+IrrelevantNL Poe's law
G3 is not that bad gun, yes is long as musket, heavy chunk of metal but it s very accurate rifle.
+SimplyMadness edgy RUclips comment is edgy
I don't think we can make any conclusion from this video. Karl is a more experienced shooter than Ian and he was using a weapon he is familiar with. I suspect that if one person had done both runs the results would be different.
This. I wonder why they don't do two people one gun. It gives much more reliable data
Don't forget: with the G3 you can go prone very low, so you're a much harder target to hit! G3-purpose: defend (at least, that's what they taught me in the Bundeswehr), AK-purpose: attack...
Doc Sinclair well your not wrong... lol
Doc Sinclair Exactly. G3 also could take targets hiding behind trees. It is good for jungle warfare. Alpine environment. Some commie would hide thinking he is safe but G3 round cause injury.
@@jyotirmayamohanty5723
7.62×39 is no joke
Karl's post competition assessments are classic.
Ian Had more hits per rounds fired which certainly also counts in a combative environment. Ian hit 7 (?) times with 20rds and Karl 13 with 60rds so theoretically Ian got 21 hit LOL
Survival Russia Somehow it does not surprise me too see you here Lars.
I generally agree with intermediate cartridges as the better solution, but hits by volume of fire also means a higher ammunition consumption. Logistical resupply in the field isn't a guaranteed thing, and blasting all your rounds downrange for a comparable number of hits doesn't sound like a viable long-term solution. Especially if you're planning on an extended period of mobile warfare and aren't able to constantly get massive amounts of ammunition to your bullet hoses.
Completely agree with you. Though it has to mentioned that intermediate cartridges have lower weight thus allowing you have somewhat bigger ammo capacity
Yeah but most rifleman w/ acog would complete this corse with one mag.
I'm not an expert on this kind of thing, so take my comment with a grain of salt, but your comment touches upon something Ian and Karl talked about the past: Marksmanship Vs Volume of fire aka USA vs USSR. Depending in circumstances and resourses available, both doctrines can be sustainable and useful (or not).
And then again, "quality" of people using guns is important: It seems to me it's cheaper (and better overall)to spend resources(money)on a supply lines, and logistics, then on teaching every single soldier to be a profound marksman.
Every soldier is a pretty good marksman. In the US army anyway. I just think most need and medium caliber with a few designated marksman sprinkled in the mix.
Agreed. It's just caution on my part. Like all those Soviet infantry divisions in World War Two armed with nothing but PPSh-41s and PPS-43s. That's a lot of ammunition to keep supplied when it's all basically about volumes of fire.
How 'bout you guys run the drill again, but swap rifles.
That would actually be quite a useful addition to these tests. Though, they know their strengths and weaknesses and tend to consider them in their conclusions.
They've done that before, but this is a match where they're probably not the only ones shooting, so I don't think it's feasible for them to run every stage twice.
Yup, Ian is taller and has a higher centre of gravy. Maybe Karl had the advantage cos the wobble effect is less!? Maybe?
Neat format there! looking forward to seeing more of these.
You guys always have the best hats!
I do not really share Karl's conclusion, using more ammunition to archive the same isn't usually a good thing, not even as a machine gunner - there is just so many ammunition you can carry around (OK you can carry around more AK rounds in theroy as long as you don't put them into AK magazines) the point is u usually dont sit on a shipping container of filled AK magazines so if you waste ammo you won't have any left when you need it
KuniCross Unless you are recon or light infantry, you could always resupply back at your platoon HQ. As Karl said, suppressive fire is a benefit unto itself. Machine gunners spend hundreds of rounds and only score a few hits if they are lucky, but that doesn't mean that the machine gun is an ineffective weapon. Those rounds were spent to provide suppressive fire to enable the platoon to advance, and when you are in close contact with the enemy, a more controllable, high rate of fire intermediate cartridge weapon would be more ideal. Along the way, troops can also keep the enemy's heads down with suppressive fire and grenades.
Even though I PERSONALLY choose the .308 answer to this question...I have to draw the conclusion that in this particular test, both answers were equally valid. Neither rifle was demonstrated to be superior in this situation. Of course, shooter skill/familiarity was an uncontrolled variable...anyway, which FAL did you get, Ian?? This just makes me like you even MORE! Not sure how that's possible...
Interesting match. On the one hand, I agree with Karl - more rounds were put on target & more were expended in general, lending to the suppressing fire argument. But some of the advantages one would gain from an intermediate cartridge (lighter rifle & lighter ammo) are offset by the fact that he would have had to carry more ammo in the first place to get the same job done. Ian's ammo is heavier, but less was required on target & on his person. All things being equal, Karl's rifle is shorter, so maybe that's just enough of an edge here & there. Great match idea, guys.
I'm a battle rifle guy, I like a higher caliber doing more damage with greater barrier defeating capabilities: but I think this is a really good point of debate between intermediate caliber and rifle caliber. In battlefield terms and conditions: the AK produced a greater degree of suppressive fire and more enemies either incapacitated or severely inhibited by being wounded.
G3 run would lead to 7 enemies wounded or KIA.
AKM run would lead to 15 enemies wounded or KIA.
I still prefer greater range, particularly with optics, and greater barrier defeating capabilities of a full power cartridge - but I can see a good argument being made for the intermediate cartridge.
I love the Brazilian rubber plantation owner hat. Tight!
Let's see: (13/60)*100=21,67% accuracy for Karl and the AKM. (7/20)*100=35% accuracy for the G3. I don't know, seems like the G3 takes the cake. Of course that is without considering how many times you have to hit the target. If you consider that Karl had to hit 3 times, it looks like he's killed 4.33 targets. Ian had to hit 2 times, so it looks like he killed 3,5 targets. If you bring up Ian's number of rounds, he would have hit 21 times, which is 10,5 targets. More accuracy = more targets killed or more rounds down range = more targets killed.
Watching the energy effect on the camera at the end of the video from the other shooter is very interesting....
I actually think the AKM won. I'm with Karl here.
Also, you guys should do this with an SVD, or some sort of DMR configured gun.
idiot
love the hat Karl!!
It's a pretty good hat.
If you want to compare two rifles, then you should have one shooter shooting both, not have two shooters. Because that's not a rifle comparison but a shooter comparison.
If the AK "won the stage" for getting more hits, then the stage shouldn't require it to hit 3 times to the G3's 2. I am curious as to how close the times would be if you were allowed to finish the course.
I am an iranian and believe me if you ever see what can a g3 hit cause on a regular soldier you won't brag on which is better
I don't say AK is bad since me myself am experiencing both of them and both have their strength and weaknesses but overall G3 is a monster killer
Yes it will jam if you don't taking care of it regularly and clean it more often but if you keep it clean and tight he will just destroy your target
Its destructive power is beyond what ever any AK can accomplish
And i am completely disagree over targeting and accuracy superiority of AK over G3 in fact its the opposite
In my experience G3 is far more accurate than AK
Maybe because i used much older AK versions(47) i don't know
I love Karl's hat.
It is not as easy as it may look to rule volume of fire over precision and superior energy. It depends on many more factors. Each of these hits, intermediate cartridge or high energy cartridge, would surely ruin your day. On the other hand, there is always the possibility of secondary projectiles with narrow misses !
War logic tells that it is not really intended to kill your opponent. Wounding him seriously would inflict much more trouble than killing him. For a killed soldier, all you need is a body bag; for a wounded one, you will need a lot of people and infrastructure to take care of him.
Or take the environment: A soldier behind some sort of wall will be safer from the AK's bullets than he would be from the 308.
As Einstein said: All is relative...
That moving platform is a great training tool thanks for showing that!
Makes a good argument for optics,and muzzle devices.
In my experience, from sim rounds to live rounds to paintballs, when it comes to two enemies who both know what they're doing, it's generally the guy who can put more rounds downrange the fastest that will win.
hey guys. greetings from germany. thnk you for bringing hs this amazing content. i would realy enjoy a vid of a full competition run in as good as full length.maybe as a special of some kind as this is almost the only way for us in G to enjoy this kind of matches. keep it up and thanks for letting me see the place i grew up in 😊
I love creative stages in club matches. Used to shoot run and gun pistol a lot years ago. Some months there was rifle or shotgun added in. Club had 4 bays, mix of steel and paper (each paper target was a double tap and was scored) . They got creative. Some steel was at 30-35 yds, papers were often 2 or 3 at a time, various distances, lots of barricade shooting, etc. Ultimately i stopped going because it was a 3 hr drive 1 way and not worth going by myself after my shooting buddies moved away or died. :( Great practice though
Real test of mind, body and machine here. I really like this training. Static has it's place, but there is where it's at.
+Uniform Tango 74 Thanks! We try. :) ~Karl
That’s exactly the sort of ranges the intermediate cartridges were made for. 50-200 meters is the majority of small arms engagements. At those ranges the intermediate takes it. Especially given the fact that there’d be a squad or platoon of guys with you all laying down those rounds. The extra hits win.
Well let's imagine us getting shot at by Ian & Karl. If there is a veteran in the comments, can one really tell the difference being shot at with an AKM and a G3? If one cannot really tell the difference, then Karl's volume of fire argument kind of make sense? And as for being shot, the casualty probably isn't too concerned nor aware that he has been shot at with a AKM or G3? Damage notwithstanding, the casualty is probably out of action for the time being. Again, damage to cover notwithstanding, the immediate effect is suppression, allowing your forces to close in...
the huge diferance being the down range target is the idea your against more then one target.....308 being more powerful , quick sucecutive shots will more likely disorentate an aggressor then slow shots.....my argument falls apart with accurate on target hits, on the first and following shots.
Ian once said the HK-91/G3 is his mot less preferable auto gun to shoot...!
I really dig these kinds of videos...I own several ak variants, as well as a G3 clone...and love them both.I would hate to choose between them, it depends on the task at hand....ak is lighter,more ammo--but G3 makes me smile more...inspires more confidence and mine is accurate as hell...harder hitting.....:)
comparing 2 weapons is one side, but you always have to look at the infantry tactics of both sides too. german bundeswehr for example has the mg3 for suppression, the g3 has a different role than the ak has in the russian military. and also german soldiers are trained to use less ammo.
HMMM that a tough one. Its volume of fire vs accurate precise shots. I am going to go with Karl and his volume of fire because to many times in Wargame Red Dragon I send an elite very accurate infantry squad in only to be beaten down by volume of fire.
Jeeeeeeeeessus that moving bridge platform looked like a nightmare. Have you ever dealt with a less favorable shooting situation, guys?
edit: Also, Karl, you're looking great! Damn, man, the weight loss is really noticeable in the face. How you feeling? Good, I hope.
I am not convinced by most of the arguments that the AKM "won" this stage...
Yes more rounds were spent and that would have an effect! However there are a few points to counter, first is that there were no return fire, suppressing fire is effective, however the times you need to reload, gives an opening for shooting back with effect.
Second these stages only really count in an one on one situation, and in real life (as you are prone to argue for) it would be units fighting. Making the reload less of an issue, but the return fire argument keeps being there (more targets, more firepower).
Also being hit by either the G3 or the AKM would be "unpleasant", at that range it would be deadly either way... What do speak for the AKM, is the amount of bullets at the ready... 30 rounds instead of 20 has to count, so on that point I would say the AKM won... But the G3 did not seem like it was at a great disadvantage on this stage.
the more rounds down range argument is also flawed simply because Ian was intentionally shooting slowly.
Sinister Thoughts he was waiting for the platform to stop shaking. saying "i was able to fire more rounds cause i pressed the trigger faster than u so i win" is pretty stupid.
+Sinister Thoughts it is completely obvious that firing the AK faster at the expense of accuracy was intentional. Ian could have easily put down the same volume of fire.
I'd say the most important point is the start of your second paragraph. More hits is more hits, and your target won't be shrugging off a hit from a 7.62 any quicker then he would a 308.
And likely had more misses as a result, due to the recoil and even more wobbly platform. What he would win in volume of fire (And still not be able to match the AKM, with his 20 round magazine to the AK's 30) he would lose in accuracy, which is precisely why NATO retired the rifle calibre standard in favour of the smaller intermediate cartridge standard.
Really, the only point that could be made in favour of the rifle round is ammo conservation (Shooting slower means less rounds wasted), but that's cancelled out by the fact that you can carry less rounds overall (Because they weigh more), that it can be achieved with firing discipline (If the shooter is skilled and know they can afford it, they will take the time to line up a shot before firing) and lethality/penetration at long ranges; Which in modern military doctrine is determined to be less important than volume of fire/follow up fire in infantry engagements, with precise long range fire (Exceeding 600 meters) being relegated to a specialist role (Marksmen and snipers).
In an infantry engagement context, the AKM is a better weapon than a G3.
it would depend for me on if the target is wearing armour. I'd say the battle rifle is more useful here in a small unit limited resupply light infantry role. with mechanised large resources role.the ak increased round count is fine.
Thanks for the great videos.
The argument is interesting, but I think it ignores a fundamental fact of the battle space to use the current term. There are other threats such as land mines, etc. I have read that the Taliban in Afghanistan use rifle fire as a herding device. The idea is to chose a battle space where there are pre-implemented explosive devices and then use rifle fire to force the opposing force to move into the danger area. I know from Viet Nam that such a tactic works.
Once you start to view a rifle as a hand-held artillery device, your tactics change. I think the major idea that changes is the concept of a hit, and that is the crux of Karl's argument. In a military situation, one is trying to suppress enemy fire, cause enemy casualties, and for the enemy to give ground. This is traditional theory. This theory is also why a big traditional military has trouble fighting guerrilla forces. In that situation less fire that is precise is much more publicly acceptable and would favor the more restrained battle rifle concept.
I think that Karl and Ian did a great job of illustrating why finding a general military theory that fits all is extremely difficult and why we require soldiers who are brave, well-trained, and most of all adaptable. These are special people and deserve our respect.
Excellent video, that bridge prop does look like a lot of fun. I'm with Karl, I give the nod to the AK/intermediate cartridge as the better rifle in a fighting environment. Keep up the great work guys.
I would like to see this test done with an AKM wearing a red dot and a G3 wearing a red dot. My guess is the AKM would win again and would widen its margin of "victory". This is a very interesting test, thanks for sharing
Jeremy Hurt AKM equivalent is MP5
I think the G3 could have performed slightly better in standard A3 configuration.
That folding buttstock, the tropical handguard with bipod. And the carrying handle and the awful sling made the gun more heavy and more difficult to use.
It seems like the bridge at least slightly favored the .308 rifle, as you could afford to wait slightly longer for the platform to stabilize, since you had to take fewer shots and get fewer hits.
Damn, Karl went legit with his new haircut. I always loved the old style, personally.
I'm a G3 fan .Heres how I see 60 rounds vs 20 rounds.As the old saying goes you can't miss enough to win a gun fight.
How does 60 rounds fired + 13 hits = 5 misses? How are misses calculated/what qualifies as a miss?
+Sean Claiborne The minimum amount of required hits were not obtained within the provided time. ~ Karl
Poor Ian. Having to use the G3.
Loved it, loved the swingin' platform! Test didn't seem decisive (kind of a draw even) but, it sure looked challenging and fun! Re the AKM in "more hits plus suppressing fire" rationale, that lands me at the AK74 just after another big conflict.
In my opinion, and i´m owner of both rifles, the AKM wins this competition. But on this close ranges below 100metres, the G3 can´t show its advantages.
You must see, the doctrin of the west german army was it to slowing down the enemy and geting back. In this doctrin its necessary to put effective fire on the enemy as early you can(when the enemy is far away), so the enemy is spreading out befor he can bring on effective fire on you. The G3 was the rifle for it. But in close combat environmment as usefull as a full-size SUV in a german city.
When i shoot my G3, i only use the 50m sights, when i have a scope on it. With open sights, i allways use the 200m sights, also in close conditions.
Great competition, thanks for the video!
Hans Holt That doctrine is only really valid in extenuating circumstances. In a typical spearhead assault, Soviet motorized rifle companies drive up around to 300 meters from the enemy's trenches and foxholes before the infantry dismounts. Soviet infantry mostly stay under armour until they are needed.
Tell Ian not to forget his F>A.L. The Right Arm of the Free world must save the day. Lol. Thanks, keep up the great work.
that platform chain-ged everything
Context provides the answer. If you are part of an organized force of greater than 4, intermediate (5.56 is superior to 7.62 for most purposes) wins. If selecting a personal weapon for defense in extralegal environments AND you don't anticipate humping cross country, terminal ballistics take over - Battle rifles and black tip ammo. Keep a loaded battle rifle in .308 or 30-06 in your basement and an AK or AR in the car. 7.62x39 is a good round for vehicle guns. 5.56 if you might have to hike... help me fix my logic if I'm missing something.
That bridge prop... the InRange Hammock?
Fucking love this channel
Everything you guys said about this case is completely right , but both AK and HK are daily using in Iran' A.R.M.Y in many years within many tactics and situation harder than this , I guess Ian wrongly get handled or move with G3 and if he felt prone upon the timber then he will had more chance than AK ! for example in iran they're change the G3 mag and charged less than 3 sc shooting while they are riding a horse or from up with chopper . Good luck guys , I love your channel
I want Karl's hat
They're at every Mexican swap meet in the Southwestern US. :) ~K
You guys should put an InRangeTV logo on them and put them on the website!! The Southwest is a bit of a drive for me lol!
A hit with a 7.62x39 at 150yds will do so much more than change a mindset! Sure 7.62x51 hits harder but against meat at 150yds the difference is irrelevant.
Rifles are not the only weapons on a battlefield; the advantage is if a full-power or intermediate cartridge fits better in a military organization's combined arms doctrine.
I agree with both sides of the argument But, have grown up and lived by the thought that Accuracy, Accuracy, Accuracy counts. Being a 20+year N-SSA shooter, I am sure, sways my thought process but still would prefer a full size round to go into hostilities with over a medium any day. Hell, a Ma duece is mighty good at keeping heads down with or without hits on target.
I will never understand left handed shooters! great video, I would love to shoot that course
Ian seemed to be stabilizing himself on the left side "rail". But damn that recoil on G3 is pretty mad.
AK: 12 hit out of 60 rounds = 21% hit rate.
G3: 7 hit out of 20 rounds = 35% hit rate.
The G3 hits more often and the .308 is known to be a one shot incapacitation. While intermediate rifles are known to need multiple hits to stop assailants, especially those wearing 2A or more where .308 is still effective.
Suppressive fire could be a factor in battlefield lethality, but I think a higher hit probability combined with higher likelihood of incapacitation is the way to go.
In contradiction to all evidence, my vote goes to the AK. As most of the time you will not be using your rifle so I'd rather it be light, hardy, and ammo in good supply.
Does anyone know what that AKM is? What company made it and what model it is?
I don’t know for sure but in most videos when Karl uses a AKM he uses his Romanian parts kits one that was actually built by Ian
Well guys your discussion about more hits is kind of doctrine of two forces (Soviet and Nato ). One is mid rifle caliber (akm) other is full rifle (G3) and Soviet block doctrine is a shooting a spray of bullets to target, when is moving or not. While Nato ( and you correct me freely ) doctrine is shoot on target whit one or two shots. And I glad when Karl said that his misses are closer, shooting whit iron sights only whit AKm at that distance ( and heat) is not easy. I dont say that G3 is worst rifle ( or shooter) it has better sights and bigger recoil.
Is Karl being facetious when talking about how much Ian loves the G3 at the beginning? I honestly can't tell with his deadpan style of humor.
Yes.
PlanetRigo
I unfortunately haven't seen as many of InRange's videos as I'd like.
Within the rule set of this stage, which I suspect are Karl's, including the 2 vs 3 effective shot parady of 308 to 762x39, this was absolutely a tie. Yea Ian for catching up to Karl! All these other arguments are irrelevant to that fact. The problem seems to be, as I read other comments, is that in trying to turn this into a more real tactical scenario outside of the setting of ths stage, whether or not that parady is real. Unfortunately this debate over their relative effectiveness is another that will probably continue, ad-nausium until the end of time. 9mm vs 45acp, coke vs pepsi and bolt guns are obsolete as the standard go to combat rifle! The other issue I have is the number of rounds fired per hit and how that works out as percentage of the soldiers battle load. I don't have the exact numbers to plug into that equation but it doesn't look good for Karl. He has stated that ammo is life on the battle field, at that rate of fire to Ian's looks like Karl is gone 1st.
A hit from any 30 cal high powered rifle is going to ruin your day
+alaskajohn907 That's really not necessarily true. ~Karl
Lol, Karl looks like something out of some future, post apocalyptic Western. Awesome look.
4:57 the hop 😂
For the purpose of "this" debate about the merits of battle rifles versus intermediate cartridges, I don't think it's appropriate to compare the 7.62x39 to 7.62x51; it would have made more sense to use the 7.62x51 vs. 5.45 IMO. The AK-47 is so widespread for many of the same reasons that the FAL is, and there's also the fact that Soviet Union transitioned to the 5.45 (for what I understand to be similar reasons to why NATO went with 5.56). I'm far from an AK-47 fan, but in this match I think that Karl is actually at an unrealistic *disadvantage* by needing 3 hits instead of 2; in this stage he straight up out-shot Ian, from how he handled the swaying of the bridge, initially, with his chosen stance, (he switched barrel sides without hardly even moving, let alone making the bridge sway much, while Ian threw the bridge into a swing every time he moved) and even with fire discipline as he "rode" the bridge. Maybe on future stages we will see a bigger impact of the two cartridges, but in this stage it looks to me like skill was the winner, not chosen weapon.
It depends on the battle. For most I will say volume of fire if logistics support it. Precise shots if lower recourse. Also I have no war cred, so I'm just guessing on info given.
My personal experience shooting stuff on a junk pile on private property has been 556 (didn't have a 762x39 that day) is kind of a piss poor penetrator. I mean I guess its really lethal in flesh, but if they have any kind of cover, like an old oven, its probably going to work pretty good. But 308 just seems to truck right through. I know that's not scientific, but it made me feel that a guy with an AR15 would be at a disadvantage to a guy with a FAL or something. I wasn't using that 62 gr steel core stuff. I was using 55 IIRC so maybe that has something to do with it.
Nice Selous Scouts shirt.
Within 170 yards intermediate cartridges are still booking with enough energy to cause some real damage, so to me its more like Karl was effectively/practically neutralizing 13 targets despite the 3 hit per target requirement. I think the difference between the two becomes more pertinent at further distances (300+ yards) which is the edge of 7.62x39 effective range. gundata.org/blog/post/7.62x39mm-ballistics-chart/gundata.org/blog/post/308-ballistics-chart/
However, in a squad with Karl laying down suppressing fire with intermediate firepower and still getting hits while Ian hammers away with a full.308 would be a bad day.
The swinging bridge needs to be used more... it’s 2021 now and I don’t think I’ve seen it much since😢
The range threw it away. :(
@@InrangeTv Ugh!!! 🤦🏻♂️
I love what you and Ian do... from the matches to the old west vignettes to testing WW2 explosive ammunition...
I always can’t wait for the next video!!!
0:45 Hi guys! Thanks for tuning in to another video on ForgottenMagazines.com, I’m Ian . . .
Was that the Bridge to Ramagden, or too far, or over the river Kwai, or the one Billie Joe McCallister jumped off of ? Rounds whizzing past, do make you duck, but hits sting a little..Hits count, misses don't..It's a tie..
also I think the discussion at the end between Ian and Karl just shows the ideological differences between military doctrines. Massive walls of fire versus the individual marksman. Fewer more well placed shots or sheer volume of fire? I don't know if there is a correct answer for every situation.
Ian wins the best hat contest! Karl stole that hat from that Festus guy from "Gunsmoke"
I'd say that the moving platform also simulates shooting from a boat/ship.
What caliber is going off around 07:27 that shakes the camera that much?
Btw, in my opinion a hit with a lighter caliber still incapacitates most soft targets. Incapacitation is almost as good as pure knock-down power due to the fear response.
Stage Idea: You have to penetrate a token plate of armor to the real target behind it (Maybe just taping the target to the armor will suffice) for the shots to count. This favors those heavier rounds.
Whatchoo think?
I can't recognize Karl without the facial hair or round sunglasses
Karl has a point with favouring the AK due to the suppressive fire idea but what if the combatant has a limited supply of amunition .... or has to carry whatever he needs by himself by foot?
I'd rather carry 1/3 308 then 3/3 7,62x39
You might want take a look at the rhodesian cover and drake shooting.
The point with "rounds down range count" can be true, but doesn`t have to be true. An actual example would be the syrian civil war and the way "normal infantery (more often than not spray&pray)" vs "snipers"(aimed shots, often as a kind of cover group, not necessary what we understand as a sniper, not necessary with a scope) operate.
Range and stopping power is also a thing (which was shown in rhodesia).
I'm glad Ian got a gun he enjoys for a change, it must be nice for him.
on a target range i can not think of any benefit less than 400y shooting. Maybe pushing an object by striking it with hits. Destroying a concrete wall?
This is good stuff!
wouldn't the better rifle depend on the doctrine of the army using it and which rifle is better suited to that doctrine?
Spotters should be calling the misses with clock positions.
Intermediate cartridge beats battle rifle cartridge in every way till 300meters
762nato 1000 round box is 32 kg
U can't carry 500 rounds of ammo with a G3 max out 300 rounds ammo per operator
With 556 or 762/39 u actually can carry 500 rounds of ammo per operator
762 guy carrying 300 rounds can't play suppress fire due to.limited rounds
Both rounds kill
Intermediate round is a more sensible approach
"More bullets!" :)
I think the AK-47 shooter had lots of misses because of the both knees down shooting position. That was definitely a bad choice. Best choice in that scenario with the barrel, would be to shoot normally right handed on the right side of the barrel, and switch shoulders and shoot on the other side of the barrel.
would Ian have done better if he was right handed ? I'm curious how changing the dominant hand would have affected performance.
G3 can throw brass viciously, but Ian knows how to hold it accordingly. I doubt it affected his accuracy all that much, just made things awkward.
Do you guys have any insight/feedback on the C39V2's? What i'm getting at is club shooters that are using them out there and any failures/excessive wear?
Haha, these two, along with a classic MP5 and a 1911 are the guns that I'd love to have in a gas blow back version for Air soft.;)) Well an AN-94 as well...
Is that a Selous Scouts emblem on your shirt?
I am sorry I missed that. I would really like to see how I'd do on that stage. Are you going to use it in this months match?