The dust cover thing needs this added Aboard ship the bolts and dust cover were removed from the rifle then placed back together stateside almost always with a different bolt thus the rattling
the bolts had to be removed for shipment when you take the bolt out the dust cover becomes loose this probably was an annoyance so they werent shipped with the guns.
Another thing, the ariskika rifle got its terrible reputation due to American troops confusing blank firing training rifles with the real things due to A. The Japanese made more blank rifles than other nations and B. Them making the rifles too similar to their live fire counterparts
@@adamhauskins6407 Jap rifles were mangled by Marines. That makes me happy. On the other hand, as a fan of milsurps, I kinda want a Jap rifle that WASN'T mangled by Marines. Though on the other hand, if Marines mangled it, tossed off the dust cover and rubbed out the Chrysanthemum, that's a sign of USMC dominance over Japan. And this is why I don't own an Arisaka
I got some Fudd lore and it’s a good one. The ping from the M1 Garand alerted enemy troops that American troops were empty and the enemy would charge and attack. Congratulations on 15k subs you’re a little bit more closer to 100k subs.
Ping!!! New subscriber!!! US Model of 1917 is the best bolt action rifle. Allegedly. I still haven’t fired my UF55 series Mummy Enfield yet. Cosmoline still packed in the action from the factory.
I always thought the "two world wars" thing was both kind of a joke and also a very shorthand way to say the 1911 has a lot of history and success behind it.
For the most part yes, but I have definitely encountered more than my fair share of people who took the term quite seriously. Heck I even use it as a joke from time to time, but I have gotten in arguments with people who truly meant it 😂
My fudd story:was plinking at a comp target 60 yards doing mag drills, double taps,with a AR15. Some carhart wearing old timer was saying if you had a scope you would have to waste ammo trying to hit the target. Told him this is a fun gun not a serious gun he shock his head kinda like in disbelief you own guns for fun. Part 1.
@@HeavyJay1421 My fudd story: took a new lady I'd just started seeing out shooting for the first time. We're shooting my suppressed LWRC M6IC at 25 yards, and she's not doing that bad. Old guy in the next lane has some kind of black powder .45-70, a Sharps or whatever. Not gonna lie, it was cool. But then the range goes cold, I go to change targets, and Elmer there with the black powder is talking with his buddy who isn't even shooting at all. He's gesturing at my rifle (which is a $4000 setup) and he's all "that's not a gun, that's an erector set". Now, because I'd just started seeing this girl, I'm trying not to act like an asshole. So when I walk past him I'm all "it's a whole lot more practical than what you've got". He's all upset and sputtering "OH YEAH, TRY HITTING AT 1200 YARDS WITH THAT!!!!" as if anyone could hit at 1200 yards with a black powder .45-70. So I just laughed. And when we were done shooting, we went to a brewery, and then back to her place. We're still together. And this dumbass went back home by himself to masturbate vigorously to a woodcut of the Battle of Little Bighorn or some such nonsense. Old guns are cool. Pretending they're better than new guns is stupid.
@alanmeyers3957 A modern gun is going to be objectively better than a black powder rifle for literally any practical purpose. There's a reason that we moved to smokeless powder. Black powder rifles are still cool because historical weapons are inherently cool. But they're not practical for any application anymore, any more than a spear is.
Part 2 to my fudd story: thier was 100 yard target silhouette steel he was hitting it with a 308 bolt. Then for fun I brought my 10/22 with no bipod lvpo scope. Missed a few shot and started smacking the target with a 22lr we had to take turns a bit hitting the target them he asked how I was hitting the target at 100 yards with 22. I told him the max range for my rifle is 100 yards. (I know I'm not grouping just hitting)
A revolver is much more immune from proximity failures and gripping failures during close encounters of the grappling kind. Given that I am more likely to end up in that situation than a gang war extended shootout I favor the revolver for my main weapon. However, I am an advocate of carrying a second gun which could be either a wheelie or an auto. Of course there is whippersnapper lore too like Glock perfection. 😊😇
As an Imperial Japan specialist, I appreciate the dust cover inclusion. There is, understandably, a lot of fudd lore remaining in the English-speaking world. Not only from hearsay, but from reliance on wartime US intelligence sources which were, after all, based on incomplete information and only had to be good enough for practical purposes. However, Japanese militaria publications have gone far deeper on this stuff since at least the 1980s. With the original spec documents available online now, primary source research on gear has also never been easier anywhere in the world. Fun fact: Officially, only the Type 30 rifle/carbine were called the 'Arisaka.' I can find occasional contemporary reference to later models by the name in Japanese, but your average soldier spoke of the 'thirty-eight/three-eight' or the 'ninety-nine/nine-nine,' etc.
For more Fudd lore, try that the M1903 was the superior bolt action rifle because soldiers could hit a target 1000 yards away with it. Battlefields aren’t wide open spaces with clearly identifiable targets that sit still for you to treat it like a rifle qual; WWI Doughboys rarely fired at individual targets beyond 600 yards, and WWII had GI’s engage with small arms fire inside 300 yards 90% of the time in the European Theater, while the Pacific had engagement ranges even closer than that. Take away the finely adjustable sights better suited for a clean target range than a cluttered forest or jungle, with an enemy that shoots back and actually uses cover and concealment, and the Springfield is no better than any Mauser type rifle used in either war, and I’d even say US troops were at a slight disadvantage with now ridiculously thin the front sight on it was. Multiple accounts from Guadalcanal noted how Marines resorted to either blackening the front sight with lighters to make them easier to see against a jungle backdrop or using the front sight hood (if they had one) to aim at a Japanese soldier instead of the front sight blade. It’s even a bit ironic considering the USMC noticed the problem, swapped to a thicker front sight in the interwar era, and then decided to go back to the thinner front sight blade just a couple years before Pearl Harbor.
@@Verdha603 This. I'm a Marine myself, and I love the Corps, and we objectively did win a victory over the Germans at Bellau Wood. That being said, yeah, Marines weren't picking off individual Germans with iron sights at 800 yards, because that's not realistic. Most of them were dumping mags, and getting any hits by rifle fire by luck. Yeah, the Corps won there, and they fought hard, and like anyone else who has fought Marines, the Germans were impressed. And here lies my pet peeve. "Teufelhunden". Besides the atrocious way the Corps pronounces this (it should be "toyfelhoonden", not "toofelhuhnden"), it's still bad German. A German who wanted to say Marines fought like devil dogs would've said "Teufels Hünde". And there's no evidence they even said that, and the "devil dog" bullshit predated Bellau Wood anyway
I appreciate your communication of the fact that Japanese military gear was property of The Emperor. One way to distinguish a battlefield capture/bringback Japanese weapon from a surrendered Japanese weapon is the the Imperial Chrysanthemum is usually intact on bringbacks, and almost always defaced or ground off on surrendered weapons. Just some random things I've read that float above Fuddlore.
Thank you kindly! I’m in Oregon, near Portland (unfortunately) love the state but hate the politics. On the guns with chrysanthemums I have been very fortunate, got both a Type 99 and Type 38 with the mum 👍🏻
Eh just because the mum wasn’t ground off doesn’t mean it was a battlefield pick up. My great grandfather brought back an Arisaka from when he was stationed in Japan, thing is according to my great grandmother he got it from a warehouse filled with the rifles, not by capturing it. I’ve heard similar statements elsewhere.
I agree with you on glocks and revolvers, I've had revolvers with timing issues, indexing and internal issues that are completely stuffed. Generally I've found revolvers to be worse than self loaders, but I deal mainly with old trashed guns that haven't been looked after. I personally don't like glock at all.. but I carry one everyday at work and I know it will work everytime
Here in Canada, it is funny to ear people talk about the sporterized . 303 Lee Enfield that they own was issued to there grand father in ww2 and the army let them keep it. The reality was more that grandpa bought it in the 50s, they were plentiful and inexpensive
@@dandesch Sporterizing an SMLE, no matter what model, is a crime against humanity. I have a No.1 Mk III*, I'm trying to negotiate a purchase of a No.4 Mk I, I love the cock on close mechanism, and the Short Magazine Lee-Enfield is arguably the best bolt action battle rifle of all time. Sporterizing it is like drawing a dick going into Mona Lisa's mouth. Disgusting.
@@ObsidianFanedon’t know about in Canada but you hear it quite a bit here in the states about a variety of rifles. A few men snuck their rifles home after the war but that was theft of government property and most didn’t do that.
You’re not wrong, it just amazes me how persistent some of those old tales are. Half of the Fuddlore I’ve heard was being told to me by someone closer to my own age (the other half from a select few genuine “fudds)
@@GreatNorthwestWeaponry It's the sunken cost fallacy, man. Someone goes out, drops a grand on a Springfield Armory 1911, or a colt revolver, and now they need to justify to themselves that it was a better purchase than a 500 dollar glock (when pragmatically it just isn't, but we both know this)
@@FirstnameLastname-le9hqI don't need to rationalize my choices. I made them based on my priorities and being a conformist was not one of them. I don't have a Colt but I have a couple of revolvers and they were chosen for rational reasons as was my 22 auto pistol. I also had rational reasons for not buying a Glock. Grip doesn't fit me, don't like the trigger, don't like striker fired actions especially with fake safeties. One of the things I like about my 22 auto is that the design is less susceptible to proximity failures than most. I may buy a center fire auto at some point as a backup gun. Something like a CZ 75 compact is a possibility. Back in the day the old all metal S&W autos really fit my hand well and I rather liked them. However, after I had a long hiatus due to poverty issues I am gradually rebuilding my collection and brass flingers just aren't a high priority at the moment.
I agree about revolvers vs semi autos jamming. But you are over looking with a semi a misfire needs to be manually cleared a revolver just pull the trigger again. This is part of the reason I carry a revolver rather than a semi
My favorite has to be the Myth about how the slide stop slide release will damage the slide catch. Just a few hours ago one of my supervisors ( 22 year old female) at my armed DC SPO job , chastised me for using the slide stop slide release because According to her, you can damage the firing pin 😂, mind you I'm 30 year's old, been shooting since I was 4, have been in this field since I was 22, I train regularly, and I have a general interest in firearms , lol maybe even an obsession 😂. Now I'm not saying that I'm a firearms expert pr that I know everything on the subject, but what I do know is that I'm far more knowledgeable than she is, to the point where I've probably forgot more information on the subject then she's processed. Rant over, great video .
Kinda the opposite, but the Army in BCT being obsessed with getting rifles carbon free led to people using steel pieces to scrape at the bolt and BCG, which slowly runins the Parkerized finish
There are plenty of examples of Type 99s that would have been made with monopods, dust covers, cleaning rods and AA sights and all of those parts have been stripped off. Plenty of those rifles also have all of their screws still factory staked in place so hadn't been messed with otherwise. There is good circumstantial evidence that the Japanese were taking those parts off of early rifles in the scrap metal drives very late in the war. I've also seen recent pictures from Iwo Jima with the rusted hulks of rifles stacked up that still retain their dust covers and monopods. So I don't think this was something that the Japanese soldiers did themselves, but more like sending those to strip parts from rifles warehoused in Japan. The vast majority of bringbacks came out of Japan post surrender and aren't actual battlefield pickups hence why rifles retaining their monopods are less common.
Yes. The fact that people to this day still believe that is mind boggling. It's a completely closed bolt system you can dump mud/dirt all over it and it will still function.
The m16s used in Vietnam were known for frequently jamming as it was originally meant to fire cartridges with lower pressure (wich seriously fucked the rifle) and sometimes wasn‘t sent with cleaning supplies due to it being a “self cleaning“ system (wich colt claimed). The fudd lore about the M16 is based in reality, though all of the issues the early M16s had were later mostly fixed.
First time on this channel and I am already very, very jealous of the room you are in. How I was taught: Revolvers malfunction less, but when they do, it is usually catastrophic to the point of making the weapon useless. Semi autos malfunction more but are often quickly fixed by racking the slide or something similar.
Congrats on 15k subs! Love your videos and this is a great one! I wouldn’t call this one Fuddlore, but we need to talk about the “low serial number” 1903s…
Once upon a time an old fudd told me you can't kill a coyote with a 30-30 rifle at 100 yards and you can't hit the side of a barn with a 1911 at 25 yards.
That is quite the proclamation 😂 think I’m gonna shoot and post a part two for this video today, getting lots of good recommendations to add to the list
Calling someone 'racist' in the 2020s no longer means anything. It's basically on par with calling someone "communist"- anyone who says a thing you don't like. Why people still get riled up by it is beyond me.
Revolvers can absolutely bind, that is a bit of fuddlore anyone who's ever used literally any revolver knows is false, so i wonder where it even cones from.
One thing about a revolver, if you have a misfire, just pull the trigger again, with a semiautomatic pistol, a defective cartridge requires that the slide must be manipulated somehow. Which action might be easier and more instinctual to perform in high stress situation, and needs no practice or training?
Ive had revolvers, glocks, ARs, AKs, 1911s, pump actions, bolt actions, lever actions etc malfunction. manurhin m73 and SCARs has a pretty decent rep but I don’t have either. But id agree on average revolvers rend to be better then 1911s. I often carry a revolver since animals are here as often as people so magnums can help, also i think they are cool.
Fudds exist as does Fudd lore. Some of it is pretty comical. Some just stupid. But I don’t think all of it is meant to be taken seriously. Your first example, for instance: Some might consider me a bit of a Fudd. Not from an ideological standpoint but just because I’m getting older and I like old-timey guns. I know I’ve uttered the phrase, “The Colt Government Model won two world wars.” I’ve always seen that as a bit of colorful hyperbole. It never occurred to me that anyone would actually believe that the 1911 was the deciding factor in those victories. I don’t know; maybe I give people too much credit?
I think most people view it the way you do, but there definitely are people who take it very seriously in my experience. I will grant that most are saying it as hyperbole, but not all
There is so much “Fuddlore” about the 1911 and .45 acp that you could spend hours on it. They used to say the recoil was so stout that recruits couldn’t handle it so the came up with the M1 carbine. Now they call it .45 AARP and say the recoil is weak. As far as Browning Hipower vs 1911. J M Browning designed it about 30 years later, so it is improved. Won’t even go into .45 vs 9mm.
Id heard that when captured weapons were brought back by soldiers they had the bolts removed from the rifles for safety reasons on the way back. It would be easy to misplace or just not include a nonessential part when putting them back together later.
I worked in the firearms industry for 18 years. A semi auto handgun is like a stick shift transmission, it requires more training. Is grandma going to do jam clearing drills? Revolvers are considered the automatic transmission of handguns. Put it in gear and go.
One point about Revolvers and bolt action rifles vs. Semi-automatic rifles and pistols- the former are not ammunition sensitive; you have a lot more options while retaining reliable functioning. Does pointing this out make me a Fudd?🤔
Your 100% right. Type 38 and Type 99 dust covers do not rattle as long as their matching to the rifles, which most don't now. The rattling dust cover is really a post WW2 thing. I highly doubt anyone actually believes that the 1911 won 2 world wars but I could be wrong. I think that is more of a tongue in cheek type thing or they just mean that the 1911 just happened to be on the winning side in both world wars. You should do more videos on gun myths. Most guns out there have at least one myth attributed to them unless they are really obscure. My favorite myth is the proper pronunciation of the M1 Garand. The real pronunciation is M1 rifle because that's what it actually says on the rifle and that's what people actually referred to them in WW2 and Korea. M1 Garand is a collector term that came after its military use. I say M1 Garand in public just so people know what I'm talking about but I hate using that term.
I do know two dudes that will genuinely argue that the 1911 was what determined our victory in both World Wars and I find it hilarious. Thanks for watching!
Great video, and congrats on the subscribers! I just subscribed myself. I agree with you on this. Only push back I would give is on the 1911 being wholly outdated for use in the modern area. While double stack 9s are in almost all cases better for combat roles (i.e better to have more ammo if you don’t know when you’d be resupplied, or likely to be in an extended gun fight), id say it still has a place in defensive roles where round count is much less likely to play a role. But like you said there is some opinion involved in this topic. I’d still prefer my Browning HP or other 9’s if shtf but the 1911 comes with me for self defense. Maybe I got lucky and got a good 1911 from the factory but I haven’t yet found another pistol in .45 with the same combination of accuracy, reliability, slimness, manual safety (and few other features) than my Colt. Just my two cents. Congrats again👍
Thank you kindly! The funny thing about the 1911 is my best modern handgun was a Sig 1911, but after owning two that were sub-par at best I started thinking the first one may have been a fluke. Thanks again!
Revolvers are attractive because there is no magazine to fail, no continuous expense for magazines. Reliable? In 2024-25. Both types are reliable in quality guns. The only gun I have ever had COMPLETE fail, was a revolver. This was a manufacturing issue and solved by the maker. Glad I wasn’t in a fight when that happened though!
I'm interested your response to this statement: "Within a scenario that doesn't include extreme conditions like mud, sand, etc., a well cleaned and maintained revolver from a modern and reputable manufacturer is slightly less likely to fail (fail meaning a stoppage between rounds requiring the shooter to perform an action other than continuing to pull the trigger to fire another round) than a well cleaned and maintained semi-automatic from a modern and reputable manufacturer."
You’re not wrong, but I honestly think 100 % of any and all Fudds I’ve ever encountered were older white dudes. Usually in a Cabela’s, Sportsman’s Warehouse or at a random gun store or shooting range
@@GreatNorthwestWeaponry that has been my experience as well. But the term is not racial and whoever accused you of that doesn’t know what they’re talking about and sees everything through a racial lens. “Fudd” has equal racial implication to “Internet troll” (i.e., none).
@@GreatNorthwestWeaponry You don't live where I do apparently. Some of the biggest fudd foolishness I deal with on a regular basis is middle aged black men who want "Dillingers", by which they mean "derringers". I work at a gun store, and I've heard it so much that "y'all got Dillengers" is a line that immediately makes all my coworkers laugh. These are always black men in their 50s or 60s, usually "instructing" younger women who I assume are their daughters. "Get yourself two Dillengers, .32 or .38! That's the best defense you can get!". This isn't to say I don't deal with white fudds too, because I do, and they're every bit as obnoxious. The white fudds tend to love revolvers, and specifically to think a .22 revolver is "the best gun for my wife" (it's not). But black fudds do exist, they are immensely fond of derringers, most of them call them "Dillengers", and they are every bit as retarded as any other fudd is.
Nova Scotia fudd-lore: one needs a 5 shot magazine for your bolt action 303 Lee Enfield for big game hunting in that province. This lie has real feet in the Maritimes.
A British Columbia Fudd lore on the .303 is that its the only rifle allowed to have 10 rounds of center fire in its magazine because of the vast amount of them in Canada.
Pistols played a larger part in trench warfare than people give credit for. Pistols also played a large roll in WW2 and Korea. The use of pistols in warfare really had begun to dwindle during and before the Vietnam war.
Nobody knows what self defense situation you will come across in the future. In any fight those who have the advantage wins. In a gun fight its speed, accuracy and fire power. I would also say there's no such thing as the best self defense gun. Its down to your taste and what threats you think you might encounter. Mr Thud in the woods is going to have a different threat to Quantarious in the Ghetto
I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of 1911 pistols stayed in the holsters of officers throughout the entire WW1 and WW2. Also revolvers reliability is greatly overrated. Had one that needed to be fixed after it went out of timing.
Ah the old “Jap Crap” legends (their words, not mine) definitely heard that circulated a bit. I will grant that they often don’t function as well as early examples, but they are only truly unsafe if you don’t know how they operate (the Nambu Type 94 is the prime example of this)
@@samiam619that was really genius engineering on the Japanese part, make a training rifle able to load real ammo that will blow it up. Maybe it was actually a last ditch suIcide grenade
@@Nathan-jh1hoI mean those were never meant to be near real ammunition and Japan has never been a society where the common person had access to arms and ammunition.
The 45 throwing some one out of a trench. Maybe a miss and they jumped. I think a revolver is more reliable than a auto. If there left in a drawer and not mataind. But last week had a czp07 chunk a trigger bar spring at me. Never had a revolver throw a spring at me.
You’d be surprised how many people have actually argued me that it’s a valid point though, the meme started somewhere lol. To most people though yes, it is a joke
I found this video thanks to a "pretending to be fudds" group I am in. You sold me on this the second you mentioned someone commented and claimed that you are a racist for using the word "fudd". As a Canuck, fuddlore is EVERYWHERE up here, to an annoying degree.
@@GreatNorthwestWeaponry The ones I hear the most often up here are the following: "All you gotta do is rack a pump shotgun and it'll scare the bad guys away!" "Dat mossberg foreend is so damn rattly it'll scare the deer away!" "5.56 is just a poodle shooter! Back in MUH day we used the ol' FNs! (Our FN FAL Variant, the C1 rifle) and dem things were WAY better and had more STAWPPIN POWAH dan those GAHBAGE C7s (M16 variant) with dem plastic stocks and plastic mags (We adopted thermold mags with the C7. Huge mistake)!" "Dem commie guns are gahbage rods dat can't hit a broad side of a barn!" "Revolvers never jam, sonny!" "5.56 is designed to wound, not kill!" (I Was seriously told this during my basic training, couldn't help but roll my eyes after hearing that. They kept repeating average number of rounds fired vs kills as proof that 5.56 is too weak, despite our doctrine literally requiring us to fire multiple rounds just to keep a guys head down) Shockingly, a LOT of fuddlore has it's origins from the military and law enforcement world. And some of it has SOME basis in fact, but is either no longer accurate OR was never true to begin with.
@burnyburnoutze2nd that is what makes this complicated to talk about for a civilian like me, enough of these myths have military origins that without fail someone will think you are disrespecting the military by calling it out as false. See the segment about Arisaka dust covers, there are swarms of people that come out shouting “but my grandpa was there and he said…” etc. The fact is, being in the military or police doesn’t automatically make you an expert in firearms history. I know plenty of military and police veterans that are, but I know plenty that aren’t. Side note, I may have to reference a few that you listed next time I do this, there’s some gold in there lol
@@GreatNorthwestWeaponry I learned that the hard way after joining the Canadian Forces that just because someone is military or law enforcement, that it doesn't automatically mean that they are firearms experts. The vast majority of people who join military or LEO have little to no firearms experience whatsoever. There's even some military lore that is the cause of things like hating a certain service weapon because it has stoppages constantly. In our case, the browning Hi power pistol, which is only recently started getting replaced by a Sig Sauer P320 variant. The ones we use are all John Inglis produced 1944 to 1950s era guns that have been used and abused constantly for 80+ years, it's a friggen miracle they even function at all after all of that haha. Because of that, many guys whos only experience with the hi power is a negliected and abused 1940s era gun hate the hi power in general, in a very similar veign to vets who hate the M9 and Beretta 92 family entirely for similar reasons.
I am curious about revolvers and their reliability. Typically revolvers are going to have a catastrophic failure when they fail where as auto loaders most often will have magazine failures. Are revolvers for some reason more likely to have that catastrophic failure and if so why? If a catastrophic failure is as likely to happen in a revolver as in an auto loader then wouldn't a revolver be considered more reliable since, as you said the more moving parts the more likely to have problems? I personally have had many magazine failures, yes even with OEM Glock magazines, and have never had any catastrophic failure in either a revolver or auto loader. I have put in the realm of at least 2000 rounds through the majority of my firearms, both revolvers and autoloaders. Please correct me if I am wrong on this.
Magazine failures are definitely more common than catastrophic failures, I suppose the point I was driving at is that revolvers aren’t infallible. Particularly in mud. In more controlled environments they are definitely less likely to fail, but in a less controlled environment the likelihood of a failure is both greater and more problematic
@@GreatNorthwestWeaponry that I can absolutely agree with I’ve just always heard the fudd lore and then heard rebuttals and I guess while I don’t carry a revolver because of lower capacity, the double action trigger, and slow reloads I also have to admit that I’ve never had any malfunctions with my modern revolver’s…likewise I’ve never had catastrophic malfunctions with any auto loaders…thank you
Revolvers aren’t any more of less likely to have catastrophic failures than a pistol. The difference is that if something breaks in a revolver, you generally aren’t going to get it up and running again. I’ve had a spring break inside the frame that made it so I had to take the frame screws out and replace the spring before the hammer would cock. I’ve had multiple cases of the ejector rod loosening up and jamming the cylinder up. And on the newer S&W’s with the “safety lock”, I have seen a .44 Magnum lock itself up from recoil and needing the user to dig out his key to unlock the revolver. The general difference I point out between the two is this; pistols are more likely to have a malfunction, but most of the time it will be one you can correct (ie tap and rack, change magazines, etc.). A revolver is less likely to malfunction, but if it does, it either keeps chugging along (ie bad ammo means you just pull the trigger again and the cylinder rotates go a good round) or it is now just a steel club (ie internal spring broke or ejector rod is loose and now the revolver can no longer fire, and needs you to sit down and open it up or you need a gunsmith to help you).
I carry a 2.5 inch S&W Model 19 .357 Magnum for self defense. Is it the best choice? No. But it is the best choice of what I own that can be concealed. Yes, if you dunk a revolver in muck it'll likely not work but mine will probably never get there.
Thank you for the reply. I'll be looking forward to seeing more of your content. Is a 6-shot da revolver the best defensive handgun? No, not for many people but it works for me. Mine has an extremely smooth da trigger pull and I can hit what I'm aiming at firing in double action. Also it's always ready, no worries with safties or safe-action-triggers that may not be so safe. Finally, this particular revolver has saved me from two robbery attempts without a shot fired. I'm not trading it for a Glock 26 any time soon. 😀@@GreatNorthwestWeaponry
There is no such thing as a best choice but that is an excellent one. Tis reliable, effective, and flexible. Take care of your tool and it will take care of you.
So first off. It's very common for gun owners to be out right rude over simple disagreements. THAT BEING SAID. Id like to dispute what you said about revolvers. And ill try to not make this overly long winded. The reason revolvers are considered more reliable than automatics is the simple operation. You won't get a failure to feed on a revolver. Won't get a double feed. You might get a failure to fire. When it happens, pull the trigger again. You COULD get a failure to extract, but that is exceedingly rare if you eject the rounds with the muzzle up, and it is impossible with a moon clipped revolver like the 1917 (my favorite military pistol btw) and the idea that mud and gunk would destroy the barrel is possible however I'd argue unlikely with a magnum revolver, both because the magnum revolver throws more carbon put of the cylinder gap pushing debris away, and because they are built to higher qualities than pre1935 revolvers. Additionally, I've heard that in ww1 or 2 can't remember, the USGI would occasionally tie the magazine to the pistols lanyard loop on the 1911 because in the excitement of close combat, it was common to dump the magazine. That issue didn't exsist with the 1917 Also, I've had quite a few glocks that have jammed. Everything from stove pipe to double feed. And yes, oem mags, slide, barrel, the works. So in conclusion, my point being. Revolvers ARE more reliable. If even by .001% more reliable than a modern semi auto. I think alot of people think revolvers are less reliable because they try to maintain it the same way they maintain an auto. No, you don't just oil it and run the revolver. You have to keep the carbon from building in the key areas. That would cause a jam. Which, a jam on a revolver equates to a harder trigger pull, and eventually a full lock up. I've done it. I'm not saying revolvers are better, but for me they are better. Both have short comings, autos and revolvers. Whichever one you're willing to deal with is what you should carry. I don't make a habit of telling people what they should do, rather what I do.
@GreatNorthwestWeaponry I always wanted one, but I simply can't decide on the s w or the colt versions. I do a left hand reload (I do have a short video on it) so I guess the s w would be the way to go. Really wish a company would recreate the 1917, with a modern magnum frame chambered in 45 win mag. But I digress lol
Another benefit of the S&W is that it can function without a moon clip, the cylinder chambers are necked down to keep the casings from slipping too far forward (you’d still have to individually remove each casing if you tried this considering the lack of rims, but with the Colt it isn’t an option) I also just prefer the S&W positive extraction over Colt’s, which I’ve always experienced to be rougher and more likely to fail but that is at least partially a personal opinion
The most prolific "Fuddlore" around the 1911 is that its in any way a good choice for home defense or carry today. Its been obsolete for 70+ years but a lot of boomers still carry them and actually think they're competitive with a Glock or sig or whatever lol
They're in the same category as revolvers to me. Are they cool? Yeah! Are they fun to shoot? Yeah! Can they be accurate and effective? Yeah! Are they going to be as effective of a self-defense firearm as pretty much any solid double-stack 9mm? Yeah, probably not lol.
Depends on what competitive means. Race gun type competition no it’s not. I shot my first Glock in 1984 while working with the Austrian Army. I was SF back then. I had the very first production polymer pistol HK in 1989. I know more about modern firearms than you’ll ever know. 😂I would absolutely use a 1911 for home defense.
I’ve seen how fuddlore develops. It usually starts with a gun that’s out of spec and does something wrong. Then they never shoot that type of gun and assume it’ll always do that. For example, some .32 smith and Wesson revolvers can chamber .32 acp because their revolver is out of spec.
Can't deny Alvin York though. I don't think anyone seriously means it actually won the wars. Not only ignorant, but childish. No doubt a 45 has better affect than a 9.
So I'm not going to entirely disagree with you about the dust cover and how it wasn't usually discarded. But what I will say is that I can 100% imagine the odd scenario where an IJA/IJN soldier chose to remove and pocket the dust cover simply because it did make a rattle while doing such things like marching, ambushing or stalking the enemy. Stuff thats not exactly a firefight, but still tasks that a soldier is commonly expected to do with a reasonable degree of noise discipline. I do not subscribe to the idea that Japanese soldiers threw away the dust cover though, I agree with you fully that you would have been severely reprimanded if you were caught doing that. I subscribe to the idea that in this case, it would have just been merely pocketted. Probably worthwhile to add that the Japanese soldier was fighting in some of the most inhospitable battlefields man has ever fought in, so I wouldn't put it past the possibility that abuse, debris and the hot/humid conditions eventually did make the dust covers rattle louder than they should have. In my 6 year tenure with the Australian army as a combat soldier, I can quite clearly understand the need for noise discipline with your kit. For instance, anything that flapped around in the breeze or clanged or rattled, was wrapped up and tapped down. Your feet make a lot of noise already when stalking through the bush and even the most quiet metal rattle can be heard from a surprisingly far distance and makes one even more obvious.
ive worked on my revolver a lot. ive learned a lot about them. for you fudds theres a funny thing about how a revolver works for one it has a bolt in the frame this bolt is pushed up by a spring when the hammer is cocked and it finds its place in a indent in the cylinder and it looks the cylinder in place for firing. if mud was to get in these indents or on the bolt or on the cylinder it would impede this process potentially making it impossible to cock the gun. Every time you cock the revolver a hand in the back of the frame moves up and pushing the cylinder to the next round if mud or dust got in this area (which it easily can unlike a semi auto everything on a revolver is exposed virtually) its gonna fuck the gun up. like the author of this video sad if you have any of the issues your basically shit out of luck theres nothing you can really do in a combat or serious situation if this happened to you. if you tried to pull the hammer back with all your might ill bet that youll break the internal parts in the gun.
note im not saying revolvers are unreliable they very much are ive never had this happen to me personally hunting shooting or otherwise. Im saying it is very possible to have a jam. the only pistol ive had jam is a semi auto but again that doesnt mean revolvers are automatically a better tool or weapon.
Fortunately I don't make a habit of rolling around in the mud. This brings up a point that is often missed in these discussions and that is mission. People are fond of saying that all militaries and cops use autos for a reason and therefore we should too. Well maybe but our environment and missions are radically different so a more careful analysis is needed.
I believe that people when they talk about the 1911 and say two world wars it’s a figure of speech but with that said the 1911 isn’t going anywhere it’s still being used today by military,police and personal defense as you already know an on a side note in a home invasion one guy gets shot at the rest scatter at least most videos I seen
Eh, Browning Hi-Power is a cool gun for sure, and there's an argument that it's better than a 1911, but I fall on the 1911 side of this argument. I carry a P365 X-Macro, my full size go to is a Glock 34, and of all my handguns, I have 9mm, 10mm, and .22LR (and think that .45 ACP is an obsolete cartridge that remains relevant only because of historical platforms like the 1911 and Thompson SMG). But my argument for the 1911 over the Hi-Power is this: Staccato. Springfield Prodigy. Stealth Arms Platypus. Atlas. Watchtower Apache. Bul Armory. Even Tisas and Rock Island have gotten into that game. Sure, we've seen the SA35 and similar reboots of the Hi-Power, but NOTHING like the modern treatment the 1911 platform has gotten. And a lot of these modern 2011 pistols are VERY good guns. Polish it up a bit, chamber it in 9mm (for the most part - they also make 2011s in 10mm and even .45 ACP), and it becomes a perfectly valid modern pistol. In fact, the best triggers I've felt on a handgun, outside of a Laugo Alien, are 2011 triggers. That being said, all the pistols I currently own are striker fired, all 9mms except for my 10mm bear gun (my .22s are both revolvers), and if I could only own one handgun it would probably be a Glock 19.
The .303 is a rare cal, are you sure about the bullet casing ? Length and diameter are of course not the problem, but the weight and thickness of the copper sleeve wall must not deviate
On the revolver looking at it from when the police in this area really started the swap over. I started on revolvers still like them better and really think there better for most people for defense. Now heres why. Most people i saw in ccw classes. Really were not getting trained, they were getting them to leave in the,house, or glovebox. If you dont matain them if you let them go 100% dry And dont traine to handle the auto. The revolver i believe is more reliable, but the no bang drill tape , rack bang vs pull the trigger again. Ease to see if its loaded/ unloaded Now if you put in the time yes the. Auto is normally better Unless you add in power 357mag, 41mag,44mag
I'd say it's completely the opposite. Modern autoloader pistols are extraordinarily reliable even with no maintenance. Shooting a revolver fast and hitting anything is not easy at all, it takes a lot of practice to be able to shoot a DA trigger and actually hit something. A short crisp trigger on a semi auto is much easier to use without practicing.
I don't know why I can't reply to you old notebook I guess. With out practice I don't think the trigger matters on a hand gun its going to be hard to shoot. When I am talking lack of maintenance I am talking decades not months. And yes it does happen not long ago I was asked to check a colt 25 it was the ladies mothers gun. It had rust on it. So I cleaned it. The ammo was so old you could pull the bullet by hand. She wanted it back in shooting condition. Neighborhood getting worse. It probably been in that drawer since the last time her dad had it out. He died in 73. To 24 no oil except what was put on the towel it was in. I have seen other guns and quite a few revolvers. I cleaned one for a cousin that her grandmother had. It was a old top brake Iverson Johnson 32 short. The ammo was some where pre ww2. It would work . And yes even today people get a house gun and leave it in a drawer. I know a lady that I went with in 92 to get her s@w its not been out since 93. The failure drill is simple in a revolver To check if its unloaded is simpler. I am not talking about gun people not even talking about the acasional shooter I am talking buy forget until needed or a heir finds it. And you would be surprised how much that happens. I have went on about 20 calls where someone found a gun in moms house or grate aunts or what ever. We didn't know there was a gun in the house. We don't know what to do with it. Some times you can show them and they want to keep it. Some would request you to take it and turn it over to the sheriff department.
@tbjtbj4786 Yeah still my point applies, take one of those people out with a target at even 7 yards and let them shoot their revolver at it and see if they can even get 2 rounds within 5 inches of each other. My mom rarely shoots but since I got her to give up on her Dan Wesson and get a Shield EZ 9mm, she can go to the range and at least put all 9 (more capacity and more powerful) rounds all in at least a 5 inch circle. Revolvers are hard to shoot and easy to miss with, I have seen someone try to shoot a 5yd man size target and only get 3 of their 6 rounds on the target, and that's on a calm flat range with no stress.
Most people i have seen are not really that bad with the revolver. No I not saying you lieing nothing like that. Its just different experiences with different people. I have never considered a revolver hard to use. But I am old enough my first duty gun was a 686.. But I will give you there easier to pull the trigger on. But reliability and ease of use. I think still goes to the revolver. But with the trigger pull my favorite autos are probably the worst trigger for a new person The da/sa preferably a s@w 3 gen or a cz type.
@tbjtbj4786 Let me also add revolvers are not useless, but they require someone who has the desire to practice a little bit with their gun regularly. Even for someone who does practice though, they're still suboptimal to basically any autoloader except for magnum cartridges for hunting and there are wildcat loads that contest that
My stepdad, a WW2 field vet said guns were better used as a backup option because they could freeze or misfire, so most of his gun use were riffles and machine guns, he was better at hand to hand so nightmares of your kills was common, the realism frightening. most people don't understand how best to use a gun when they've never owned one. He's tell me.
Forget the mag, more moving parts. 1911s jam considerably more often than modern Glocks, Walthers or most other modern pistols and that just is what it is
Nope, I’m saying it was fielded in relatively small numbers and that is a matter of fact. I am also stating that numbers of enemies killed by pistol shot are low enough to be a rounding error in any war in which pistols were used in large numbers, and that is also a fact. The vast majority in WWI were killed by artillery, and almost all of the remainder by rifle/machine gun fire.
Basically if the 1911 is getting used, it's a desperate measure by officers or vehicle drivers to survive, and alot has gone wrong before the pistol ever gets drawn. Nobody wants to bring a pistol to a rifle fight. So the only reason you would use the pistol is if you didn't have a rifle to begin with, or you lost yours for whatever reason.
First off congrats on ur accomplishment of all your subscribers, but I strongly disagree on the fact that revolvers can't be repaired or if the barrel splits, at the armor level ,and any well trained gunsmith can repair the piece. Bottom line is anything man made can break and fail. Doesn't matter if it's a revolver or a Glock, I feel just as secure using a revolver as I would a glock, one is not superior over the other. I'm a trained Gunsmith I can try to fix any gun. Maybe I'll succeed may not
Oh it definitely can be repaired, I guess what I was driving at is IF a revolver fails it is more often something that the average gun owner can’t fix on the fly or easily clear in combat. Thanks for watching!
Unfortunately, this is also fuddlore. Modern striker fired pistols are much more user-friendly than revolvers. Modern striker fired pistols: 1) You insert the magazine, rack the slide, and pull the trigger. 2) When the gun is empty, you push a button, insert a new magazine, pull the slide to the rear, and pull the trigger. 3) If the gun isn't empty but you want to top it off, you push a button and insert a fresh magazine. That's all. Easy. Now, let's look at revolvers: 1) You push (or pull, in some cases) the cylinder release, manually open the cylinder, insert each round individually (unless you are using speed strips or a speed loader-both of which are finicky and difficult to use under stress, and depending on your grips, you may not even be able to use a speed loader-but if you do, it adds another step to learn and remember-actuating the release on the speed loader), close the cylinder, then pull the trigger. 2) When the gun is empty, you repeat all of those steps, however many it ends up being PLUS bop the ejector rod. So, six steps at minimum (if you're using a speed loader), which is twice as many as the three steps it takes to reload an auto pistol. 3) If you want to top off your revolver, repeat all steps in #2. Minimum of six steps vs. the two it takes to top off an auto pistol. First learning curve point goes to auto pistols. So we've covered loading and reloading, but also bear in mind that with a revolver, you have to go through this entire process every six rounds (five if you're working with a J frame), whereas you only have to fiddle with it every 15 rounds (give or take) with a striker fired pistol. Consider the amount of focus that is being hogged up by doing all of those steps three times more frequently than with an auto pistol-especially under stress. Now, onto the subject of shooting the thing: 1) Hammers. Do we always cock them, never cock them, or only cock them under certain circumstances? The hammer is a whole other mechanism (that striker fired pistols remove from the equation) that can cause confusion and difficulties for the layman shooter because it directly relates to... 2) The revolver's trigger pull, which in double action can be INCREDIBLY difficult for a new shooter to get the hang of. And let me tell you, if you go to the range and practice shooting single action, you aren't going to hit anything you intend to if you ever need to use your revolver in a hurry and under pressure. Point being, you have to master your trigger in double action-for consistency, if nothing else. Again, the learning curve point goes to the easy to learn, consistent trigger pull of a striker fired pistol, being short, of a reasonable weight, with a reset that isn't situated at the farthest possible stage of the trigger pull, and all of that not being contingent on adding the extra step of cocking the hammer. SO, once they've mastered their double action trigger pull, they still aren't going to hit easily because... 3) Most revolver sights suck-especially the blade and trough sights found on most self defense or duty revolvers. Often, these sights can not be upgraded to something more user friendly without sending the revolver off to a gunsmith because the sights on these types of revolvers tend to be milled into the gun vs say, a glock, where there are probably a hundred aftermarket sights available that are basically drop in with a few simple tools. 4) Not only are defensive revolver sights generally awful, but they usually come attached to a cartoonishly short barrel, which means an incredibly short sight radius that amplifies every slight sight alignment error, thereby dramatically increasing misses, and often, missing by a lot. What I'm getting at is that this little nugget of fuddlore needs to go away. I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard some guy say that a snub nose J frame is the perfect gun for his wife because its easier to operate than an automatic. Buddy, I promise you I've told them all the same thing-if a woman can operate the controls of an automobile, she can certainly operate the few simple controls on a Glock. Hell, she can operate the controls on an automobile while doing 75 mph through traffic while putting on makeup, changing stations on the radio, and drinking hot coffee...lol. There are three controls on a glock, and you really only need to use two of them. Of course, these are the same guys who tell their wives to keep the gun in her purse. You know, that bag that they can never find anything in when they need it😅 Fact is, the most likely crime that will be committed against them is having that purse stolen, so that's reason enough not to keep your gun in there, but I digress... Now it probably sounds like I'm anti-revolver, but I assure you that I'm not. I love revolvers. I love shooting revolvers. I love collecting revolvers. When I get home, I take off my Glock 19 holster and put on Ol' Trusty-my 3" S&W performance center model 60. I have spent a lot of time and ammo training with that gun, though, and I can say with certainty that becoming proficient with it came with a MUCH steeper learning curve than my Glocks. So, sorry for my rambling on. I'm not trying to be a smarmy asshole. I'm just a guy on a mission to dismantle fuddlore in all it's forms and hopefully, someday, we can look back on it as a quaint memory from gun culture past. Cheers🫡
@ I understand that, but some people find buttering toast a challenge. I am not saying the wheel gun is “the” answer. I am saying in some situations it is a good answer.
I’ve never had a revolver malfunction…. I don’t think that’s fudd lore… I think you’re over drawing your opinion. There’s speed loaders and moon clips that can be loaded faster than a mag or as fast. Miculek won many competitions shooting his revolver against speed guns. It’s the shooter not the firearm.
Moon clips and speed loaders are going to be slower than a magazine for 99.9% of people. Using Jerry as a point is null and void. He's a freak of nature and makes even movie villains/heroes look slow and less skilled. Revolvers can and will malfunction, albeit less often than a standard semi-automatic pistol. However, the issues revolvers have can be more severe and cause the gun to be non functional. Debris in the barrel or cylinder, timing issues, frame stretch, can all cause catastrophic failures. The only catastrophic failure that happens with semi-autos is squibs, and that can happen with any gun. EDIT: similar to the AR vs AK debate, a revolver is not a closed system like semi-autos. Dirt, dust, debris, etc. can get in and disrupt functionality, that's alot harder to do to a sealed system. If it can't get in, then it won't cause and issue.
Bro.. you were doing so good. “I wouldn’t trust a revolver to save my life” You do realize the police carried them right? In like. 10 plus different countries, across two oceans. For over 100 plus years now. Considering some police and law enforcement STILL choose to carry them. You had to know that wasn’t even slightly a good opinion based purely off human history.
Just becuase some agencies still use it, for may cover of your self defence needs, doesn't mean there aren't far better choices for the same price I've seen Mosin Negants still getting used by many militaries, including Russians, doesn't mean it's a very viable choice
Of course there will ALWAYS be a better choice. You have an AR-15, I’ve got an M240. This guy has a revolver. This guy has a Glock. This guy has a savage 338 lapua. This other guy has a .50 cal. Guns are separated into categories for a reason. This isn’t a tier list. Guns do not belong on a tier list. They are built for purpose. Grizzly bears get put down with lever guns. Bad guys either get an autoloading pistol or rifle. Some people just want pocket pistols. Some people want a 500 S&W magnum. If the gun is still being produced. En mass. It has a purpose. Better or not holds no weight when the categories for guns is so unbelievably broad you can’t even attempt to have a tier list. They’re still making them and people are still buying them.
I think the real thing is to look at the weapons that special forces select. As I am British I wall frame the reply relevant to the SAS and SBS. The selection of weapons by special forces is not based on cost but on which weapon is best for the mission thus the SAS used Hi-powers as their back up weapon for hostage rescue in the 70s and 80s. Why because it was the best weapon for the task. They often would get weapons specially made for a role in a mission where the total number produced would be very low numbers like less than 50.
The dust cover thing needs this added
Aboard ship the bolts and dust cover were removed from the rifle then placed back together stateside almost always with a different bolt thus the rattling
Very true
Also why mismatched bolts are very common.
the bolts had to be removed for shipment when you take the bolt out the dust cover becomes loose this probably was an annoyance so they werent shipped with the guns.
Another thing, the ariskika rifle got its terrible reputation due to American troops confusing blank firing training rifles with the real things due to A. The Japanese made more blank rifles than other nations and B. Them making the rifles too similar to their live fire counterparts
@@adamhauskins6407 Jap rifles were mangled by Marines. That makes me happy. On the other hand, as a fan of milsurps, I kinda want a Jap rifle that WASN'T mangled by Marines. Though on the other hand, if Marines mangled it, tossed off the dust cover and rubbed out the Chrysanthemum, that's a sign of USMC dominance over Japan. And this is why I don't own an Arisaka
I got some Fudd lore and it’s a good one. The ping from the M1 Garand alerted enemy troops that American troops were empty and the enemy would charge and attack. Congratulations on 15k subs you’re a little bit more closer to 100k subs.
Yeah that one’s a classic, may have to bring it up on the next video like this. And thank you!
Ping!!! New subscriber!!! US Model of 1917 is the best bolt action rifle. Allegedly. I still haven’t fired my UF55 series Mummy Enfield yet. Cosmoline still packed in the action from the factory.
I can’t remember who said it “you just shot 30-06 everyone is deaf” but that shit was funny he was regarding the myth
@ Plus it’s not just you that’s shooting it’s everyone and I can’t even imagine being that close to hear the ping.
Yeah, but the g i caught up to that and had their own little tricks the same in the Pacific😅
"If every bullet hit every man, where would the king get all his soldiers from?"
-Fridericus Rex Grenadiermarsch
“A 50 BMG will rip your arm off with a near miss!” Is my favorite one
We should really quote “the reaper”
Congratulations on the subs!
Thank you kindly!
I always thought the "two world wars" thing was both kind of a joke and also a very shorthand way to say the 1911 has a lot of history and success behind it.
For the most part yes, but I have definitely encountered more than my fair share of people who took the term quite seriously. Heck I even use it as a joke from time to time, but I have gotten in arguments with people who truly meant it 😂
My fudd story:was plinking at a comp target 60 yards doing mag drills, double taps,with a AR15. Some carhart wearing old timer was saying if you had a scope you would have to waste ammo trying to hit the target. Told him this is a fun gun not a serious gun he shock his head kinda like in disbelief you own guns for fun. Part 1.
@@HeavyJay1421 My fudd story: took a new lady I'd just started seeing out shooting for the first time. We're shooting my suppressed LWRC M6IC at 25 yards, and she's not doing that bad. Old guy in the next lane has some kind of black powder .45-70, a Sharps or whatever. Not gonna lie, it was cool. But then the range goes cold, I go to change targets, and Elmer there with the black powder is talking with his buddy who isn't even shooting at all. He's gesturing at my rifle (which is a $4000 setup) and he's all "that's not a gun, that's an erector set". Now, because I'd just started seeing this girl, I'm trying not to act like an asshole. So when I walk past him I'm all "it's a whole lot more practical than what you've got". He's all upset and sputtering "OH YEAH, TRY HITTING AT 1200 YARDS WITH THAT!!!!" as if anyone could hit at 1200 yards with a black powder .45-70. So I just laughed. And when we were done shooting, we went to a brewery, and then back to her place. We're still together. And this dumbass went back home by himself to masturbate vigorously to a woodcut of the Battle of Little Bighorn or some such nonsense.
Old guns are cool. Pretending they're better than new guns is stupid.
@@MrEvanfriendthey’re not better for the intended purpose, however I have to disagree about the 1200 yard’s statement.
@alanmeyers3957 A modern gun is going to be objectively better than a black powder rifle for literally any practical purpose. There's a reason that we moved to smokeless powder. Black powder rifles are still cool because historical weapons are inherently cool. But they're not practical for any application anymore, any more than a spear is.
Part 2 to my fudd story: thier was 100 yard target silhouette steel he was hitting it with a 308 bolt. Then for fun I brought my 10/22 with no bipod lvpo scope. Missed a few shot and started smacking the target with a 22lr we had to take turns a bit hitting the target them he asked how I was hitting the target at 100 yards with 22. I told him the max range for my rifle is 100 yards. (I know I'm not grouping just hitting)
i don't like the term "fudd"
elmer fudd was a good man
trolled by bugs bunny reguralry but good
At least we can all agree Bugs was the real villain 😂
A revolver is much more immune from proximity failures and gripping failures during close encounters of the grappling kind. Given that I am more likely to end up in that situation than a gang war extended shootout I favor the revolver for my main weapon.
However, I am an advocate of carrying a second gun which could be either a wheelie or an auto.
Of course there is whippersnapper lore too like Glock perfection. 😊😇
As an Imperial Japan specialist, I appreciate the dust cover inclusion. There is, understandably, a lot of fudd lore remaining in the English-speaking world. Not only from hearsay, but from reliance on wartime US intelligence sources which were, after all, based on incomplete information and only had to be good enough for practical purposes. However, Japanese militaria publications have gone far deeper on this stuff since at least the 1980s. With the original spec documents available online now, primary source research on gear has also never been easier anywhere in the world.
Fun fact: Officially, only the Type 30 rifle/carbine were called the 'Arisaka.' I can find occasional contemporary reference to later models by the name in Japanese, but your average soldier spoke of the 'thirty-eight/three-eight' or the 'ninety-nine/nine-nine,' etc.
Cool info, thanks! And thank you for watching 👍🏻
For more Fudd lore, try that the M1903 was the superior bolt action rifle because soldiers could hit a target 1000 yards away with it.
Battlefields aren’t wide open spaces with clearly identifiable targets that sit still for you to treat it like a rifle qual; WWI Doughboys rarely fired at individual targets beyond 600 yards, and WWII had GI’s engage with small arms fire inside 300 yards 90% of the time in the European Theater, while the Pacific had engagement ranges even closer than that.
Take away the finely adjustable sights better suited for a clean target range than a cluttered forest or jungle, with an enemy that shoots back and actually uses cover and concealment, and the Springfield is no better than any Mauser type rifle used in either war, and I’d even say US troops were at a slight disadvantage with now ridiculously thin the front sight on it was. Multiple accounts from Guadalcanal noted how Marines resorted to either blackening the front sight with lighters to make them easier to see against a jungle backdrop or using the front sight hood (if they had one) to aim at a Japanese soldier instead of the front sight blade. It’s even a bit ironic considering the USMC noticed the problem, swapped to a thicker front sight in the interwar era, and then decided to go back to the thinner front sight blade just a couple years before Pearl Harbor.
@@Verdha603 This. I'm a Marine myself, and I love the Corps, and we objectively did win a victory over the Germans at Bellau Wood.
That being said, yeah, Marines weren't picking off individual Germans with iron sights at 800 yards, because that's not realistic. Most of them were dumping mags, and getting any hits by rifle fire by luck.
Yeah, the Corps won there, and they fought hard, and like anyone else who has fought Marines, the Germans were impressed.
And here lies my pet peeve. "Teufelhunden". Besides the atrocious way the Corps pronounces this (it should be "toyfelhoonden", not "toofelhuhnden"), it's still bad German. A German who wanted to say Marines fought like devil dogs would've said "Teufels Hünde". And there's no evidence they even said that, and the "devil dog" bullshit predated Bellau Wood anyway
I appreciate your communication of the fact that Japanese military gear was property of The Emperor. One way to distinguish a battlefield capture/bringback Japanese weapon from a surrendered Japanese weapon is the the Imperial Chrysanthemum is usually intact on bringbacks, and almost always defaced or ground off on surrendered weapons. Just some random things I've read that float above Fuddlore.
BTW... New subscriber. Curious which sub-region of the Great Northwest do you call home?
Thank you kindly! I’m in Oregon, near Portland (unfortunately) love the state but hate the politics.
On the guns with chrysanthemums I have been very fortunate, got both a Type 99 and Type 38 with the mum 👍🏻
@GreatNorthwestWeaponry Also Oregon, similarly situated and sentimented, but without Arisakas.
@shawnsiltala5730 then you, my friend, must obtain Arisakas. Check out The War Front on 99E (same parking lot as The Bomber) they can hook you up 👍🏻
Eh just because the mum wasn’t ground off doesn’t mean it was a battlefield pick up. My great grandfather brought back an Arisaka from when he was stationed in Japan, thing is according to my great grandmother he got it from a warehouse filled with the rifles, not by capturing it. I’ve heard similar statements elsewhere.
QUIT WHISPERIN SONNY! THAT DUST COVER WAS SO LOUD THAT IT DROWN OUT THE NOISE OF THE PING FROM THE GARAND!!!
Lol
Anyone claiming a revolver wont jam, has never had an empty slip under the extractor star.
How lol
That’s user error and must’ve been a .22lr
@@Tommy-ni1yw No and no.
@@Tommy-ni1ywit can happen to any revolver.
I agree with you on glocks and revolvers, I've had revolvers with timing issues, indexing and internal issues that are completely stuffed. Generally I've found revolvers to be worse than self loaders, but I deal mainly with old trashed guns that haven't been looked after. I personally don't like glock at all.. but I carry one everyday at work and I know it will work everytime
Glock has definitely earned their reputation for reliability, in spite of how uncomfortable and blocky they are lol
I just think “two world wars!” is fun to say. Obviously the rifle did more and artillery much more.
It’s still fun to say.
In WW1, 68% of casualties on the western front, of which there were millions, were the result of artillery fire.
Here in Canada, it is funny to ear people talk about the sporterized . 303 Lee Enfield that they own was issued to there grand father in ww2 and the army let them keep it. The reality was more that grandpa bought it in the 50s, they were plentiful and inexpensive
Lol I've never heard that , but that would he ridiculous. I'm pretty sure the rifle was Government property during and after war.
@@dandesch Sporterizing an SMLE, no matter what model, is a crime against humanity. I have a No.1 Mk III*, I'm trying to negotiate a purchase of a No.4 Mk I, I love the cock on close mechanism, and the Short Magazine Lee-Enfield is arguably the best bolt action battle rifle of all time. Sporterizing it is like drawing a dick going into Mona Lisa's mouth. Disgusting.
@@ObsidianFanedon’t know about in Canada but you hear it quite a bit here in the states about a variety of rifles. A few men snuck their rifles home after the war but that was theft of government property and most didn’t do that.
The one coming up a lot in my circle of life lately is, "Longer barrels are more accurate."
its important to remember that the fudds are from a time when real information was hard to come by. we have it pretty good in that regard.
You’re not wrong, it just amazes me how persistent some of those old tales are. Half of the Fuddlore I’ve heard was being told to me by someone closer to my own age (the other half from a select few genuine “fudds)
@@GreatNorthwestWeaponry It's the sunken cost fallacy, man. Someone goes out, drops a grand on a Springfield Armory 1911, or a colt revolver, and now they need to justify to themselves that it was a better purchase than a 500 dollar glock (when pragmatically it just isn't, but we both know this)
@@tnutz777 that's not an excuse to to stay ignorant
@@tnutz777 that's not an excuse to stay ignorant
@@FirstnameLastname-le9hqI don't need to rationalize my choices. I made them based on my priorities and being a conformist was not one of them. I don't have a Colt but I have a couple of revolvers and they were chosen for rational reasons as was my 22 auto pistol.
I also had rational reasons for not buying a Glock. Grip doesn't fit me, don't like the trigger, don't like striker fired actions especially with fake safeties.
One of the things I like about my 22 auto is that the design is less susceptible to proximity failures than most.
I may buy a center fire auto at some point as a backup gun. Something like a CZ 75 compact is a possibility. Back in the day the old all metal S&W autos really fit my hand well and I rather liked them. However, after I had a long hiatus due to poverty issues I am gradually rebuilding my collection and brass flingers just aren't a high priority at the moment.
I agree about revolvers vs semi autos jamming. But you are over looking with a semi a misfire needs to be manually cleared a revolver just pull the trigger again. This is part of the reason I carry a revolver rather than a semi
Why not both? Not necessarily at the same time...
My favorite has to be the Myth about how the slide stop slide release will damage the slide catch. Just a few hours ago one of my supervisors ( 22 year old female) at my armed DC SPO job , chastised me for using the slide stop slide release because According to her, you can damage the firing pin 😂, mind you I'm 30 year's old, been shooting since I was 4, have been in this field since I was 22, I train regularly, and I have a general interest in firearms , lol maybe even an obsession 😂. Now I'm not saying that I'm a firearms expert pr that I know everything on the subject, but what I do know is that I'm far more knowledgeable than she is, to the point where I've probably forgot more information on the subject then she's processed.
Rant over, great video .
I feel your pain man 😂
Kinda the opposite, but the Army in BCT being obsessed with getting rifles carbon free led to people using steel pieces to scrape at the bolt and BCG, which slowly runins the Parkerized finish
Congratulation Thomas. Your work deserves recognition.
Thank you kindly!
revolvers are cool, thats reason enough for me to think they're the best
Fair enough lol
Big iron gigachad
It’s pretty interesting because Chinese captured examples would have the dust cover and some without. So yeah the fudd lore is wrong about it
Great info about fuddlore- I hear similiar often in gun shops and pawnshops all the time
I’m thinking about doing a part two soon since this video is garnered more attention than my average 👍🏻
There are plenty of examples of Type 99s that would have been made with monopods, dust covers, cleaning rods and AA sights and all of those parts have been stripped off. Plenty of those rifles also have all of their screws still factory staked in place so hadn't been messed with otherwise. There is good circumstantial evidence that the Japanese were taking those parts off of early rifles in the scrap metal drives very late in the war. I've also seen recent pictures from Iwo Jima with the rusted hulks of rifles stacked up that still retain their dust covers and monopods. So I don't think this was something that the Japanese soldiers did themselves, but more like sending those to strip parts from rifles warehoused in Japan.
The vast majority of bringbacks came out of Japan post surrender and aren't actual battlefield pickups hence why rifles retaining their monopods are less common.
Does the whole myth about an AR-15 or M16 based platforms being unable to handle even a spec of dust still qualify as fudd lore?
do you even have to ask?
@ In all honesty, no not really.
Yes. The fact that people to this day still believe that is mind boggling. It's a completely closed bolt system you can dump mud/dirt all over it and it will still function.
that's more like meme at this point
The m16s used in Vietnam were known for frequently jamming as it was originally meant to fire cartridges with lower pressure (wich seriously fucked the rifle) and sometimes wasn‘t sent with cleaning supplies due to it being a “self cleaning“ system (wich colt claimed). The fudd lore about the M16 is based in reality, though all of the issues the early M16s had were later mostly fixed.
First time on this channel and I am already very, very jealous of the room you are in.
How I was taught: Revolvers malfunction less, but when they do, it is usually catastrophic to the point of making the weapon useless. Semi autos malfunction more but are often quickly fixed by racking the slide or something similar.
Thanks for watching! The gun room is my pride and joy, definitely what the channel is most known for 👍🏻
Here’s one: Any semi automatic can be made full auto with a few strokes from a file.
Congrats on 15k subs! Love your videos and this is a great one! I wouldn’t call this one Fuddlore, but we need to talk about the “low serial number” 1903s…
That is definitely a topic I plan on getting into at some point! Whether in a short or a full video. Thanks for watching!
Once upon a time an old fudd told me you can't kill a coyote with a 30-30 rifle at 100 yards and you can't hit the side of a barn with a 1911 at 25 yards.
That is quite the proclamation 😂 think I’m gonna shoot and post a part two for this video today, getting lots of good recommendations to add to the list
For the 1911s that were in service near the end that would actually be kind of literal, they were insanely worn out at that point
Calling someone 'racist' in the 2020s no longer means anything. It's basically on par with calling someone "communist"- anyone who says a thing you don't like. Why people still get riled up by it is beyond me.
Agreed
Sounds like somthing a racist Communists would say /s
Revolvers can absolutely bind, that is a bit of fuddlore anyone who's ever used literally any revolver knows is false, so i wonder where it even cones from.
Who knows man, people are crazy
One thing about a revolver, if you have a misfire, just pull the trigger again, with a semiautomatic pistol, a defective cartridge requires that the slide must be manipulated somehow. Which action might be easier and more instinctual to perform in high stress situation, and needs no practice or training?
Sounds like a crappy excuse for not training.
@@MrNexor-cj8gs So, you ridicule facts you don't like. Got it.
It is usually either poor ammo or maintenance but it is possible. Anything can happen to any weapon (e.g. broken springs) so a BUG is advised.
Ive had revolvers, glocks, ARs, AKs, 1911s, pump actions, bolt actions, lever actions etc malfunction.
manurhin m73 and SCARs has a pretty decent rep but I don’t have either.
But id agree on average revolvers rend to be better then 1911s.
I often carry a revolver since animals are here as often as people so magnums can help, also i think they are cool.
Fudds exist as does Fudd lore. Some of it is pretty comical. Some just stupid. But I don’t think all of it is meant to be taken seriously.
Your first example, for instance:
Some might consider me a bit of a Fudd. Not from an ideological standpoint but just because I’m getting older and I like old-timey guns. I know I’ve uttered the phrase, “The Colt Government Model won two world wars.”
I’ve always seen that as a bit of colorful hyperbole. It never occurred to me that anyone would actually believe that the 1911 was the deciding factor in those victories.
I don’t know; maybe I give people too much credit?
I think most people view it the way you do, but there definitely are people who take it very seriously in my experience. I will grant that most are saying it as hyperbole, but not all
@@GreatNorthwestWeaponry you’re probably right.
Unfortunately 😂
There is so much “Fuddlore” about the 1911 and .45 acp that you could spend hours on it. They used to say the recoil was so stout that recruits couldn’t handle it so the came up with the M1 carbine. Now they call it .45 AARP and say the recoil is weak.
As far as Browning Hipower vs 1911. J M Browning designed it about 30 years later, so it is improved. Won’t even go into .45 vs 9mm.
But the 45 is a good round and has the advantage of lower operating pressure. Is it magical? No, but it is a pretty good pill.
I’m born in 90s and also a Fudd. Opinions are fun and it’s even funner to dig your heels in
Fuds: I’m absolutely a 2A supporter BUUUUUUUT,
Definitely a favorite saying of theirs lol
Id heard that when captured weapons were brought back by soldiers they had the bolts removed from the rifles for safety reasons on the way back. It would be easy to misplace or just not include a nonessential part when putting them back together later.
That is another option for why many of them would have lost the dust cover for sure 👍🏻
My Type 99 is SO FUN to shoot. No dust cover. Makes sense
Im 61 and know younger and older, "why do you need that" so called 2a people.
Yeah it’s pretty much anyone who will say “I support the 2nd Amendment, but… Etc” and there are far too many of those in my generation.
Came here tor guns and stayed for the history.
I worked in the firearms industry for 18 years. A semi auto handgun is like a stick shift transmission, it requires more training. Is grandma going to do jam clearing drills? Revolvers are considered the automatic transmission of handguns. Put it in gear and go.
One point about Revolvers and bolt action rifles vs. Semi-automatic rifles and pistols- the former are not ammunition sensitive; you have a lot more options while retaining reliable functioning.
Does pointing this out make me a Fudd?🤔
Your 100% right. Type 38 and Type 99 dust covers do not rattle as long as their matching to the rifles, which most don't now. The rattling dust cover is really a post WW2 thing. I highly doubt anyone actually believes that the 1911 won 2 world wars but I could be wrong. I think that is more of a tongue in cheek type thing or they just mean that the 1911 just happened to be on the winning side in both world wars. You should do more videos on gun myths. Most guns out there have at least one myth attributed to them unless they are really obscure. My favorite myth is the proper pronunciation of the M1 Garand. The real pronunciation is M1 rifle because that's what it actually says on the rifle and that's what people actually referred to them in WW2 and Korea. M1 Garand is a collector term that came after its military use. I say M1 Garand in public just so people know what I'm talking about but I hate using that term.
I do know two dudes that will genuinely argue that the 1911 was what determined our victory in both World Wars and I find it hilarious. Thanks for watching!
Great video, and congrats on the subscribers! I just subscribed myself. I agree with you on this. Only push back I would give is on the 1911 being wholly outdated for use in the modern area. While double stack 9s are in almost all cases better for combat roles (i.e better to have more ammo if you don’t know when you’d be resupplied, or likely to be in an extended gun fight), id say it still has a place in defensive roles where round count is much less likely to play a role. But like you said there is some opinion involved in this topic. I’d still prefer my Browning HP or other 9’s if shtf but the 1911 comes with me for self defense. Maybe I got lucky and got a good 1911 from the factory but I haven’t yet found another pistol in .45 with the same combination of accuracy, reliability, slimness, manual safety (and few other features) than my Colt. Just my two cents. Congrats again👍
Thank you kindly! The funny thing about the 1911 is my best modern handgun was a Sig 1911, but after owning two that were sub-par at best I started thinking the first one may have been a fluke. Thanks again!
Congratulations hitting 15 grand!🍾👍🏽😀❤️🇺🇸
Thank you kindly!
Said Fudd Store wouldn’t happen to be in Portland would it? There’s a spot that’s infamous for that and has some rather amusing reviews.
Maybe lol, yeah I think you know the place
Revolvers are attractive because there is no magazine to fail, no continuous expense for magazines. Reliable? In 2024-25. Both types are reliable in quality guns.
The only gun I have ever had COMPLETE fail, was a revolver. This was a manufacturing issue and solved by the maker. Glad I wasn’t in a fight when that happened though!
I’ve had four revolver failures, three were ammo failures, one was powder under the extractor. When they fail, they fail hard.
I'm interested your response to this statement: "Within a scenario that doesn't include extreme conditions like mud, sand, etc., a well cleaned and maintained revolver from a modern and reputable manufacturer is slightly less likely to fail (fail meaning a stoppage between rounds requiring the shooter to perform an action other than continuing to pull the trigger to fire another round) than a well cleaned and maintained semi-automatic from a modern and reputable manufacturer."
I would call that a true statement 👍🏻
"Fudd" has never had a racial connotation, white or otherwise.
You’re not wrong, but I honestly think 100 % of any and all Fudds I’ve ever encountered were older white dudes. Usually in a Cabela’s, Sportsman’s Warehouse or at a random gun store or shooting range
@@GreatNorthwestWeaponry that has been my experience as well. But the term is not racial and whoever accused you of that doesn’t know what they’re talking about and sees everything through a racial lens. “Fudd” has equal racial implication to “Internet troll” (i.e., none).
@@GreatNorthwestWeaponry You don't live where I do apparently. Some of the biggest fudd foolishness I deal with on a regular basis is middle aged black men who want "Dillingers", by which they mean "derringers".
I work at a gun store, and I've heard it so much that "y'all got Dillengers" is a line that immediately makes all my coworkers laugh.
These are always black men in their 50s or 60s, usually "instructing" younger women who I assume are their daughters. "Get yourself two Dillengers, .32 or .38! That's the best defense you can get!".
This isn't to say I don't deal with white fudds too, because I do, and they're every bit as obnoxious.
The white fudds tend to love revolvers, and specifically to think a .22 revolver is "the best gun for my wife" (it's not).
But black fudds do exist, they are immensely fond of derringers, most of them call them "Dillengers", and they are every bit as retarded as any other fudd is.
Revolvers & 1911s are better because I say they are. And that's good enough for me.
Nova Scotia fudd-lore: one needs a 5 shot magazine for your bolt action 303 Lee Enfield for big game hunting in that province.
This lie has real feet in the Maritimes.
Man I need some more international Fudd Lore, so many things have been passed along as “fact” it’s insane
A British Columbia Fudd lore on the .303 is that its the only rifle allowed to have 10 rounds of center fire in its magazine because of the vast amount of them in Canada.
Pistols played a larger part in trench warfare than people give credit for. Pistols also played a large roll in WW2 and Korea. The use of pistols in warfare really had begun to dwindle during and before the Vietnam war.
Nobody knows what self defense situation you will come across in the future. In any fight those who have the advantage wins. In a gun fight its speed, accuracy and fire power. I would also say there's no such thing as the best self defense gun. Its down to your taste and what threats you think you might encounter. Mr Thud in the woods is going to have a different threat to Quantarious in the Ghetto
I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of 1911 pistols stayed in the holsters of officers throughout the entire WW1 and WW2. Also revolvers reliability is greatly overrated. Had one that needed to be fixed after it went out of timing.
Believing that the Army was always behind the Marine corps in the pacific is also Fudd lore.
Then there is the Fudd Lore about Type 99 “Last Ditch” rifles being unsafe.
Ah the old “Jap Crap” legends (their words, not mine) definitely heard that circulated a bit. I will grant that they often don’t function as well as early examples, but they are only truly unsafe if you don’t know how they operate (the Nambu Type 94 is the prime example of this)
@@GreatNorthwestWeaponryNo, I’m talking about confusing Cadet “not to be loaded with ANYTHING” and last ditch rifles.
@@samiam619that was really genius engineering on the Japanese part, make a training rifle able to load real ammo that will blow it up. Maybe it was actually a last ditch suIcide grenade
@@Nathan-jh1hoI mean those were never meant to be near real ammunition and Japan has never been a society where the common person had access to arms and ammunition.
I love your armoury!
Thanks! It has been a labor of love
The current working definition of Fudd seems to be anyone who is not down with tarted up Tupperware.
The 45 throwing some one out of a trench. Maybe a miss and they jumped.
I think a revolver is more reliable than a auto. If there left in a drawer and not mataind.
But last week had a czp07 chunk a trigger bar spring at me. Never had a revolver throw a spring at me.
No one thinks WW1 and WW2 were won because of the 1911. It’s just a joke, a quirky come back, a meme.
You’d be surprised how many people have actually argued me that it’s a valid point though, the meme started somewhere lol. To most people though yes, it is a joke
IT ALSI WON KOREA VIETNAMM AND SAND WARS SUNNY BOY!!!1
12ga 00 buckshot is the same as getting hit by 9 9mms all at one time.
No. Not exactly.
I found this video thanks to a "pretending to be fudds" group I am in. You sold me on this the second you mentioned someone commented and claimed that you are a racist for using the word "fudd". As a Canuck, fuddlore is EVERYWHERE up here, to an annoying degree.
Lol it is insane that so many of these still persist, in the face of being proved beyond any doubt to be false
@@GreatNorthwestWeaponry The ones I hear the most often up here are the following:
"All you gotta do is rack a pump shotgun and it'll scare the bad guys away!"
"Dat mossberg foreend is so damn rattly it'll scare the deer away!"
"5.56 is just a poodle shooter! Back in MUH day we used the ol' FNs! (Our FN FAL Variant, the C1 rifle) and dem things were WAY better and had more STAWPPIN POWAH dan those GAHBAGE C7s (M16 variant) with dem plastic stocks and plastic mags (We adopted thermold mags with the C7. Huge mistake)!"
"Dem commie guns are gahbage rods dat can't hit a broad side of a barn!"
"Revolvers never jam, sonny!"
"5.56 is designed to wound, not kill!" (I Was seriously told this during my basic training, couldn't help but roll my eyes after hearing that. They kept repeating average number of rounds fired vs kills as proof that 5.56 is too weak, despite our doctrine literally requiring us to fire multiple rounds just to keep a guys head down)
Shockingly, a LOT of fuddlore has it's origins from the military and law enforcement world. And some of it has SOME basis in fact, but is either no longer accurate OR was never true to begin with.
@burnyburnoutze2nd that is what makes this complicated to talk about for a civilian like me, enough of these myths have military origins that without fail someone will think you are disrespecting the military by calling it out as false. See the segment about Arisaka dust covers, there are swarms of people that come out shouting “but my grandpa was there and he said…” etc.
The fact is, being in the military or police doesn’t automatically make you an expert in firearms history. I know plenty of military and police veterans that are, but I know plenty that aren’t.
Side note, I may have to reference a few that you listed next time I do this, there’s some gold in there lol
@@GreatNorthwestWeaponry I learned that the hard way after joining the Canadian Forces that just because someone is military or law enforcement, that it doesn't automatically mean that they are firearms experts. The vast majority of people who join military or LEO have little to no firearms experience whatsoever. There's even some military lore that is the cause of things like hating a certain service weapon because it has stoppages constantly. In our case, the browning Hi power pistol, which is only recently started getting replaced by a Sig Sauer P320 variant. The ones we use are all John Inglis produced 1944 to 1950s era guns that have been used and abused constantly for 80+ years, it's a friggen miracle they even function at all after all of that haha. Because of that, many guys whos only experience with the hi power is a negliected and abused 1940s era gun hate the hi power in general, in a very similar veign to vets who hate the M9 and Beretta 92 family entirely for similar reasons.
What the FUD TomTom!😂
What the Fud indeed 😂
I am curious about revolvers and their reliability. Typically revolvers are going to have a catastrophic failure when they fail where as auto loaders most often will have magazine failures. Are revolvers for some reason more likely to have that catastrophic failure and if so why? If a catastrophic failure is as likely to happen in a revolver as in an auto loader then wouldn't a revolver be considered more reliable since, as you said the more moving parts the more likely to have problems? I personally have had many magazine failures, yes even with OEM Glock magazines, and have never had any catastrophic failure in either a revolver or auto loader. I have put in the realm of at least 2000 rounds through the majority of my firearms, both revolvers and autoloaders. Please correct me if I am wrong on this.
Magazine failures are definitely more common than catastrophic failures, I suppose the point I was driving at is that revolvers aren’t infallible. Particularly in mud. In more controlled environments they are definitely less likely to fail, but in a less controlled environment the likelihood of a failure is both greater and more problematic
@@GreatNorthwestWeaponry that I can absolutely agree with I’ve just always heard the fudd lore and then heard rebuttals and I guess while I don’t carry a revolver because of lower capacity, the double action trigger, and slow reloads I also have to admit that I’ve never had any malfunctions with my modern revolver’s…likewise I’ve never had catastrophic malfunctions with any auto loaders…thank you
Revolvers aren’t any more of less likely to have catastrophic failures than a pistol. The difference is that if something breaks in a revolver, you generally aren’t going to get it up and running again. I’ve had a spring break inside the frame that made it so I had to take the frame screws out and replace the spring before the hammer would cock. I’ve had multiple cases of the ejector rod loosening up and jamming the cylinder up. And on the newer S&W’s with the “safety lock”, I have seen a .44 Magnum lock itself up from recoil and needing the user to dig out his key to unlock the revolver.
The general difference I point out between the two is this; pistols are more likely to have a malfunction, but most of the time it will be one you can correct (ie tap and rack, change magazines, etc.). A revolver is less likely to malfunction, but if it does, it either keeps chugging along (ie bad ammo means you just pull the trigger again and the cylinder rotates go a good round) or it is now just a steel club (ie internal spring broke or ejector rod is loose and now the revolver can no longer fire, and needs you to sit down and open it up or you need a gunsmith to help you).
Dat wascally wabbit.
I carry a 2.5 inch S&W Model 19 .357 Magnum for self defense. Is it the best choice? No. But it is the best choice of what I own that can be concealed. Yes, if you dunk a revolver in muck it'll likely not work but mine will probably never get there.
That is always the thing to consider is what is best for you, if you are happy with it than more power to you 👍🏻
2.5” S&W Model 19 - Sweet! Excellent choice in my opinion.
I love it. It's an '84 that I bought in the late '80s. Very smooth da pull and sa is light and crisp. @@jcg5571
Thank you for the reply. I'll be looking forward to seeing more of your content.
Is a 6-shot da revolver the best defensive handgun? No, not for many people but it works for me. Mine has an extremely smooth da trigger pull and I can hit what I'm aiming at firing in double action. Also it's always ready, no worries with safties or safe-action-triggers that may not be so safe. Finally, this particular revolver has saved me from two robbery attempts without a shot fired. I'm not trading it for a Glock 26 any time soon. 😀@@GreatNorthwestWeaponry
There is no such thing as a best choice but that is an excellent one. Tis reliable, effective, and flexible.
Take care of your tool and it will take care of you.
So first off. It's very common for gun owners to be out right rude over simple disagreements. THAT BEING SAID. Id like to dispute what you said about revolvers. And ill try to not make this overly long winded.
The reason revolvers are considered more reliable than automatics is the simple operation. You won't get a failure to feed on a revolver. Won't get a double feed. You might get a failure to fire. When it happens, pull the trigger again. You COULD get a failure to extract, but that is exceedingly rare if you eject the rounds with the muzzle up, and it is impossible with a moon clipped revolver like the 1917 (my favorite military pistol btw) and the idea that mud and gunk would destroy the barrel is possible however I'd argue unlikely with a magnum revolver, both because the magnum revolver throws more carbon put of the cylinder gap pushing debris away, and because they are built to higher qualities than pre1935 revolvers.
Additionally, I've heard that in ww1 or 2 can't remember, the USGI would occasionally tie the magazine to the pistols lanyard loop on the 1911 because in the excitement of close combat, it was common to dump the magazine. That issue didn't exsist with the 1917
Also, I've had quite a few glocks that have jammed. Everything from stove pipe to double feed. And yes, oem mags, slide, barrel, the works.
So in conclusion, my point being. Revolvers ARE more reliable. If even by .001% more reliable than a modern semi auto. I think alot of people think revolvers are less reliable because they try to maintain it the same way they maintain an auto. No, you don't just oil it and run the revolver. You have to keep the carbon from building in the key areas. That would cause a jam. Which, a jam on a revolver equates to a harder trigger pull, and eventually a full lock up. I've done it.
I'm not saying revolvers are better, but for me they are better. Both have short comings, autos and revolvers. Whichever one you're willing to deal with is what you should carry.
I don't make a habit of telling people what they should do, rather what I do.
Fair points, and I do absolutely love the 1917 as well
@GreatNorthwestWeaponry I always wanted one, but I simply can't decide on the s w or the colt versions. I do a left hand reload (I do have a short video on it) so I guess the s w would be the way to go.
Really wish a company would recreate the 1917, with a modern magnum frame chambered in 45 win mag. But I digress lol
Another benefit of the S&W is that it can function without a moon clip, the cylinder chambers are necked down to keep the casings from slipping too far forward (you’d still have to individually remove each casing if you tried this considering the lack of rims, but with the Colt it isn’t an option) I also just prefer the S&W positive extraction over Colt’s, which I’ve always experienced to be rougher and more likely to fail but that is at least partially a personal opinion
@GreatNorthwestWeaponry I did not know that, that's good to know. Now I know for a fact the s w version is my target
Yeah until it does actually jam. Or your timing fucks up and you get two shots per 6 trigger pulls.
The most prolific "Fuddlore" around the 1911 is that its in any way a good choice for home defense or carry today. Its been obsolete for 70+ years but a lot of boomers still carry them and actually think they're competitive with a Glock or sig or whatever lol
They're in the same category as revolvers to me. Are they cool? Yeah! Are they fun to shoot? Yeah! Can they be accurate and effective? Yeah! Are they going to be as effective of a self-defense firearm as pretty much any solid double-stack 9mm? Yeah, probably not lol.
Depends on what competitive means. Race gun type competition no it’s not. I shot my first Glock in 1984 while working with the Austrian Army. I was SF back then. I had the very first production polymer pistol HK in 1989. I know more about modern firearms than you’ll ever know. 😂I would absolutely use a 1911 for home defense.
@@1776goodfightyou’re exactly the kind of person they’re dunking on.
What "Fuddlore" actually is- its a wider cultural phenomenon where Boomers will just make up something that they dont have the answer to
I’ve seen how fuddlore develops. It usually starts with a gun that’s out of spec and does something wrong. Then they never shoot that type of gun and assume it’ll always do that. For example, some .32 smith and Wesson revolvers can chamber .32 acp because their revolver is out of spec.
Can't deny Alvin York though. I don't think anyone seriously means it actually won the wars. Not only ignorant, but childish.
No doubt a 45 has better affect than a 9.
So I'm not going to entirely disagree with you about the dust cover and how it wasn't usually discarded.
But what I will say is that I can 100% imagine the odd scenario where an IJA/IJN soldier chose to remove and pocket the dust cover simply because it did make a rattle while doing such things like marching, ambushing or stalking the enemy. Stuff thats not exactly a firefight, but still tasks that a soldier is commonly expected to do with a reasonable degree of noise discipline.
I do not subscribe to the idea that Japanese soldiers threw away the dust cover though, I agree with you fully that you would have been severely reprimanded if you were caught doing that.
I subscribe to the idea that in this case, it would have just been merely pocketted.
Probably worthwhile to add that the Japanese soldier was fighting in some of the most inhospitable battlefields man has ever fought in, so I wouldn't put it past the possibility that abuse, debris and the hot/humid conditions eventually did make the dust covers rattle louder than they should have.
In my 6 year tenure with the Australian army as a combat soldier, I can quite clearly understand the need for noise discipline with your kit. For instance, anything that flapped around in the breeze or clanged or rattled, was wrapped up and tapped down. Your feet make a lot of noise already when stalking through the bush and even the most quiet metal rattle can be heard from a surprisingly far distance and makes one even more obvious.
Yes I was a British soldier and Before any patrol you would jump up and down to make sure your not rattling. Usually it would be the Mess tins
2:12 so what if you’re racist. It’s not illegal
Just own it
ive worked on my revolver a lot. ive learned a lot about them. for you fudds theres a funny thing about how a revolver works for one it has a bolt in the frame this bolt is pushed up by a spring when the hammer is cocked and it finds its place in a indent in the cylinder and it looks the cylinder in place for firing. if mud was to get in these indents or on the bolt or on the cylinder it would impede this process potentially making it impossible to cock the gun. Every time you cock the revolver a hand in the back of the frame moves up and pushing the cylinder to the next round if mud or dust got in this area (which it easily can unlike a semi auto everything on a revolver is exposed virtually) its gonna fuck the gun up. like the author of this video sad if you have any of the issues your basically shit out of luck theres nothing you can really do in a combat or serious situation if this happened to you. if you tried to pull the hammer back with all your might ill bet that youll break the internal parts in the gun.
note im not saying revolvers are unreliable they very much are ive never had this happen to me personally hunting shooting or otherwise. Im saying it is very possible to have a jam.
the only pistol ive had jam is a semi auto but again that doesnt mean revolvers are automatically a better tool or weapon.
Fortunately I don't make a habit of rolling around in the mud.
This brings up a point that is often missed in these discussions and that is mission. People are fond of saying that all militaries and cops use autos for a reason and therefore we should too. Well maybe but our environment and missions are radically different so a more careful analysis is needed.
I believe that people when they talk about the 1911 and say two world wars it’s a figure of speech but with that said the 1911 isn’t going anywhere it’s still being used today by military,police and personal defense as you already know an on a side note in a home invasion one guy gets shot at the rest scatter at least most videos I seen
Eh, Browning Hi-Power is a cool gun for sure, and there's an argument that it's better than a 1911, but I fall on the 1911 side of this argument.
I carry a P365 X-Macro, my full size go to is a Glock 34, and of all my handguns, I have 9mm, 10mm, and .22LR (and think that .45 ACP is an obsolete cartridge that remains relevant only because of historical platforms like the 1911 and Thompson SMG).
But my argument for the 1911 over the Hi-Power is this: Staccato. Springfield Prodigy. Stealth Arms Platypus. Atlas. Watchtower Apache. Bul Armory. Even Tisas and Rock Island have gotten into that game.
Sure, we've seen the SA35 and similar reboots of the Hi-Power, but NOTHING like the modern treatment the 1911 platform has gotten. And a lot of these modern 2011 pistols are VERY good guns. Polish it up a bit, chamber it in 9mm (for the most part - they also make 2011s in 10mm and even .45 ACP), and it becomes a perfectly valid modern pistol. In fact, the best triggers I've felt on a handgun, outside of a Laugo Alien, are 2011 triggers.
That being said, all the pistols I currently own are striker fired, all 9mms except for my 10mm bear gun (my .22s are both revolvers), and if I could only own one handgun it would probably be a Glock 19.
You should try a cz75
Congratulations Thomas !
Blessings from Australia 🇦🇺
🇺🇸🇦🇺🇦🇺🇺🇸
Thank you sir!
you want a revolver because you think they're superior. I want one because they don't make semiauto 500 mags.
I like my revolvers because they fit my missions.
The .303 is a rare cal, are you sure about the bullet casing ? Length and diameter are of course not the problem, but the weight and thickness of the copper sleeve wall must not deviate
They are still pretty common in Canada.
A rare cal.?
There's like a .303 Lee Enfield in every rural house closet in Canada
On the revolver looking at it from when the police in this area really started the swap over.
I started on revolvers still like them better and really think there better for most people for defense.
Now heres why.
Most people i saw in ccw classes. Really were not getting trained, they were getting them to leave in the,house, or glovebox.
If you dont matain them if you let them go 100% dry
And dont traine to handle the auto.
The revolver i believe is more reliable, but the no bang drill tape , rack bang vs pull the trigger again.
Ease to see if its loaded/ unloaded
Now if you put in the time yes the. Auto is normally better
Unless you add in power 357mag, 41mag,44mag
I'd say it's completely the opposite. Modern autoloader pistols are extraordinarily reliable even with no maintenance. Shooting a revolver fast and hitting anything is not easy at all, it takes a lot of practice to be able to shoot a DA trigger and actually hit something. A short crisp trigger on a semi auto is much easier to use without practicing.
I don't know why I can't reply to you old notebook I guess.
With out practice I don't think the trigger matters on a hand gun its going to be hard to shoot.
When I am talking lack of maintenance I am talking decades not months.
And yes it does happen not long ago I was asked to check a colt 25 it was the ladies mothers gun.
It had rust on it. So I cleaned it. The ammo was so old you could pull the bullet by hand.
She wanted it back in shooting condition.
Neighborhood getting worse.
It probably been in that drawer since the last time her dad had it out. He died in 73. To 24 no oil except what was put on the towel it was in.
I have seen other guns and quite a few revolvers.
I cleaned one for a cousin that her grandmother had. It was a old top brake Iverson Johnson 32 short. The ammo was some where pre ww2. It would work .
And yes even today people get a house gun and leave it in a drawer. I know a lady that I went with in 92 to get her s@w its not been out since 93.
The failure drill is simple in a revolver
To check if its unloaded is simpler.
I am not talking about gun people not even talking about the acasional shooter
I am talking buy forget until needed or a heir finds it.
And you would be surprised how much that happens.
I have went on about 20 calls where someone found a gun in moms house or grate aunts or what ever.
We didn't know there was a gun in the house. We don't know what to do with it.
Some times you can show them and they want to keep it.
Some would request you to take it and turn it over to the sheriff department.
@tbjtbj4786 Yeah still my point applies, take one of those people out with a target at even 7 yards and let them shoot their revolver at it and see if they can even get 2 rounds within 5 inches of each other. My mom rarely shoots but since I got her to give up on her Dan Wesson and get a Shield EZ 9mm, she can go to the range and at least put all 9 (more capacity and more powerful) rounds all in at least a 5 inch circle. Revolvers are hard to shoot and easy to miss with, I have seen someone try to shoot a 5yd man size target and only get 3 of their 6 rounds on the target, and that's on a calm flat range with no stress.
Most people i have seen are not really that bad with the revolver.
No I not saying you lieing nothing like that. Its just different experiences with different people.
I have never considered a revolver hard to use. But I am old enough my first duty gun was a 686..
But I will give you there easier to pull the trigger on. But reliability and ease of use.
I think still goes to the revolver.
But with the trigger pull my favorite autos are probably the worst trigger for a new person
The da/sa preferably a s@w 3 gen or a cz type.
@tbjtbj4786 Let me also add revolvers are not useless, but they require someone who has the desire to practice a little bit with their gun regularly. Even for someone who does practice though, they're still suboptimal to basically any autoloader except for magnum cartridges for hunting and there are wildcat loads that contest that
My stepdad, a WW2 field vet said guns were better used as a backup option because they could freeze or misfire, so most of his gun use were riffles and machine guns, he was better at hand to hand so nightmares of your kills was common, the realism frightening. most people don't understand how best to use a gun when they've never owned one. He's tell me.
Yall tripping on Fudds,try getting Fyffed....
"A double stacked magazine less likely to jam"?????????? Where did this kid come from?
Forget the mag, more moving parts. 1911s jam considerably more often than modern Glocks, Walthers or most other modern pistols and that just is what it is
I think what he was saying with double stack is that it is higher capacity so it is generally considered a pro for them.
You're telling me in World War I the 1911 didn't play a part in trench rating
Nope, I’m saying it was fielded in relatively small numbers and that is a matter of fact. I am also stating that numbers of enemies killed by pistol shot are low enough to be a rounding error in any war in which pistols were used in large numbers, and that is also a fact. The vast majority in WWI were killed by artillery, and almost all of the remainder by rifle/machine gun fire.
Basically if the 1911 is getting used, it's a desperate measure by officers or vehicle drivers to survive, and alot has gone wrong before the pistol ever gets drawn. Nobody wants to bring a pistol to a rifle fight. So the only reason you would use the pistol is if you didn't have a rifle to begin with, or you lost yours for whatever reason.
@@FirstnameLastname-le9hqOr you've been overran and your pistol is all you have ammo left for
First off congrats on ur accomplishment of all your subscribers, but I strongly disagree on the fact that revolvers can't be repaired or if the barrel splits, at the armor level ,and any well trained gunsmith can repair the piece. Bottom line is anything man made can break and fail. Doesn't matter if it's a revolver or a Glock, I feel just as secure using a revolver as I would a glock, one is not superior over the other. I'm a trained Gunsmith I can try to fix any gun. Maybe I'll succeed may not
Oh it definitely can be repaired, I guess what I was driving at is IF a revolver fails it is more often something that the average gun owner can’t fix on the fly or easily clear in combat. Thanks for watching!
Stop calling me a fudd! 😡
I mean, if you are it just is what it is 😂
If the shoe fits.....
Apparently fudd translates to benefit wtf
@@troubledcourier8795 what do you mean?
@davidhoffman6980 there was an option to autotranslate a word on the og comment. The word was fudd and it autotranslated to benefit
Take everything he says with a grain of salt
A revolver has a shorter learning curve.
Unfortunately, this is also fuddlore. Modern striker fired pistols are much more user-friendly than revolvers.
Modern striker fired pistols:
1) You insert the magazine, rack the slide, and pull the trigger.
2) When the gun is empty, you push a button, insert a new magazine, pull the slide to the rear, and pull the trigger.
3) If the gun isn't empty but you want to top it off, you push a button and insert a fresh magazine. That's all. Easy.
Now, let's look at revolvers:
1) You push (or pull, in some cases) the cylinder release, manually open the cylinder, insert each round individually (unless you are using speed strips or a speed loader-both of which are finicky and difficult to use under stress, and depending on your grips, you may not even be able to use a speed loader-but if you do, it adds another step to learn and remember-actuating the release on the speed loader), close the cylinder, then pull the trigger.
2) When the gun is empty, you repeat all of those steps, however many it ends up being PLUS bop the ejector rod. So, six steps at minimum (if you're using a speed loader), which is twice as many as the three steps it takes to reload an auto pistol.
3) If you want to top off your revolver, repeat all steps in #2. Minimum of six steps vs. the two it takes to top off an auto pistol.
First learning curve point goes to auto pistols.
So we've covered loading and reloading, but also bear in mind that with a revolver, you have to go through this entire process every six rounds (five if you're working with a J frame), whereas you only have to fiddle with it every 15 rounds (give or take) with a striker fired pistol. Consider the amount of focus that is being hogged up by doing all of those steps three times more frequently than with an auto pistol-especially under stress.
Now, onto the subject of shooting the thing:
1) Hammers. Do we always cock them, never cock them, or only cock them under certain circumstances? The hammer is a whole other mechanism (that striker fired pistols remove from the equation) that can cause confusion and difficulties for the layman shooter because it directly relates to...
2) The revolver's trigger pull, which in double action can be INCREDIBLY difficult for a new shooter to get the hang of. And let me tell you, if you go to the range and practice shooting single action, you aren't going to hit anything you intend to if you ever need to use your revolver in a hurry and under pressure. Point being, you have to master your trigger in double action-for consistency, if nothing else. Again, the learning curve point goes to the easy to learn, consistent trigger pull of a striker fired pistol, being short, of a reasonable weight, with a reset that isn't situated at the farthest possible stage of the trigger pull, and all of that not being contingent on adding the extra step of cocking the hammer. SO, once they've mastered their double action trigger pull, they still aren't going to hit easily because...
3) Most revolver sights suck-especially the blade and trough sights found on most self defense or duty revolvers. Often, these sights can not be upgraded to something more user friendly without sending the revolver off to a gunsmith because the sights on these types of revolvers tend to be milled into the gun vs say, a glock, where there are probably a hundred aftermarket sights available that are basically drop in with a few simple tools.
4) Not only are defensive revolver sights generally awful, but they usually come attached to a cartoonishly short barrel, which means an incredibly short sight radius that amplifies every slight sight alignment error, thereby dramatically increasing misses, and often, missing by a lot.
What I'm getting at is that this little nugget of fuddlore needs to go away. I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard some guy say that a snub nose J frame is the perfect gun for his wife because its easier to operate than an automatic. Buddy, I promise you I've told them all the same thing-if a woman can operate the controls of an automobile, she can certainly operate the few simple controls on a Glock. Hell, she can operate the controls on an automobile while doing 75 mph through traffic while putting on makeup, changing stations on the radio, and drinking hot coffee...lol. There are three controls on a glock, and you really only need to use two of them. Of course, these are the same guys who tell their wives to keep the gun in her purse. You know, that bag that they can never find anything in when they need it😅 Fact is, the most likely crime that will be committed against them is having that purse stolen, so that's reason enough not to keep your gun in there, but I digress...
Now it probably sounds like I'm anti-revolver, but I assure you that I'm not. I love revolvers. I love shooting revolvers. I love collecting revolvers. When I get home, I take off my Glock 19 holster and put on Ol' Trusty-my 3" S&W performance center model 60. I have spent a lot of time and ammo training with that gun, though, and I can say with certainty that becoming proficient with it came with a MUCH steeper learning curve than my Glocks.
So, sorry for my rambling on. I'm not trying to be a smarmy asshole. I'm just a guy on a mission to dismantle fuddlore in all it's forms and hopefully, someday, we can look back on it as a quaint memory from gun culture past. Cheers🫡
@@CMDR.Gonzo.von.Richthofen I enjoyed reading that.
@@bringbacktradition6470 I'm glad somebody did lol
Shooting a semi auto isn’t rocket science.
@ I understand that, but some people find buttering toast a challenge. I am not saying the wheel gun is “the” answer. I am saying in some situations it is a good answer.
I’ve never had a revolver malfunction…. I don’t think that’s fudd lore… I think you’re over drawing your opinion. There’s speed loaders and moon clips that can be loaded faster than a mag or as fast. Miculek won many competitions shooting his revolver against speed guns. It’s the shooter not the firearm.
Moon clips and speed loaders are going to be slower than a magazine for 99.9% of people. Using Jerry as a point is null and void. He's a freak of nature and makes even movie villains/heroes look slow and less skilled. Revolvers can and will malfunction, albeit less often than a standard semi-automatic pistol. However, the issues revolvers have can be more severe and cause the gun to be non functional. Debris in the barrel or cylinder, timing issues, frame stretch, can all cause catastrophic failures. The only catastrophic failure that happens with semi-autos is squibs, and that can happen with any gun.
EDIT: similar to the AR vs AK debate, a revolver is not a closed system like semi-autos. Dirt, dust, debris, etc. can get in and disrupt functionality, that's alot harder to do to a sealed system. If it can't get in, then it won't cause and issue.
Revolvers malfunction very much so, except when a revolver malfunctions the gun becomes unusable, and with an autoloader pistol it can be cleared
Bro.. you were doing so good.
“I wouldn’t trust a revolver to save my life”
You do realize the police carried them right?
In like. 10 plus different countries, across two oceans.
For over 100 plus years now.
Considering some police and law enforcement STILL choose to carry them.
You had to know that wasn’t even slightly a good opinion based purely off human history.
Just becuase some agencies still use it, for may cover of your self defence needs, doesn't mean there aren't far better choices for the same price
I've seen Mosin Negants still getting used by many militaries, including Russians, doesn't mean it's a very viable choice
Of course there will ALWAYS be a better choice. You have an AR-15, I’ve got an M240.
This guy has a revolver.
This guy has a Glock.
This guy has a savage 338 lapua.
This other guy has a .50 cal.
Guns are separated into categories for a reason. This isn’t a tier list. Guns do not belong on a tier list. They are built for purpose. Grizzly bears get put down with lever guns.
Bad guys either get an autoloading pistol or rifle.
Some people just want pocket pistols.
Some people want a 500 S&W magnum.
If the gun is still being produced.
En mass.
It has a purpose. Better or not holds no weight when the categories for guns is so unbelievably broad you can’t even attempt to have a tier list.
They’re still making them and people are still buying them.
I think the real thing is to look at the weapons that special forces select.
As I am British I wall frame the reply relevant to the SAS and SBS. The selection of weapons by special forces is not based on cost but on which weapon is best for the mission thus the SAS used Hi-powers as their back up weapon for hostage rescue in the 70s and 80s. Why because it was the best weapon for the task. They often would get weapons specially made for a role in a mission where the total number produced would be very low numbers like less than 50.
you do realize that police used to carry revolvers becasue semi automatic pistols were too expensive or not available at all?
There are also people that are afraid to drive a car that doesn't have exploding gas bags, antilock brakes, traction control, and AWD.
The term Fudd is divisive and doesn't help anyone
Good bye
Sorry to see you go
Lighten up merle.
You aren't missed.
It helps me
He isn't entirely wrong though. The human tendency to insult those with differing opinions does stifle learning.
WRONG.
1911>Hi-Power.
SOURCE: I have both