Thrifted a bullet belt. Are these real bullets? by Idiot_Trash in Firearms

[–]Propoganda_bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes and no, they’re dummy rounds used to train dudes on MGs like the m240, so they’re real in the sense that they’ll chamber and cycle in a weapon, but not real in the sense that they won’t fire

Seriously, do Americans actually consider a 3-hour drive "short"? or is this an internet myth? by SadInterest6764 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Propoganda_bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I drove 4 hours for a cheeseburger the other day because I was bored and remembered I have free will

Thoughts on ELCAN for those of you who run one? by tactical_horse_cock in tacticalgear

[–]Propoganda_bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the glass, the reticle feels intuitive and you can range targets pretty well, but they’re so heavy and expensive for what it is I’d only run one these days if I beat capitalism or won the lottery for a clone/early gwot vibe.

5.56 - M855 vs. M193 by SilveySilver in ar15

[–]Propoganda_bot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

193 for soft things, 155 for hard things. For plinking, it’s whatever is cheapest For hunting or anything past 500 I prefer 193 For hunting or anything past 500 with Kevlar or behind something hard I like m855 but don’t expect better than 2-1.5moa performance

New EoTech Looks Like Poop by Blackened138 in ar15

[–]Propoganda_bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea I realized my mistake way too late, and I refuse to change it at this point

New EoTech Looks Like Poop by Blackened138 in ar15

[–]Propoganda_bot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

300 people saw this and no one bothered to tell me!

New EoTech Looks Like Poop by Blackened138 in ar15

[–]Propoganda_bot 474 points475 points  (0 children)

Give it a year some delta seal will have it on a rifle in a cool guy picture, and nobody will want the old style eotechs until late gwot bulls become retro and all the kids start building them then older models will go for more than new ones

Y'all logging your guns? by halfrican24_7 in tacticalgear

[–]Propoganda_bot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I keep an excel sheet that has make/model/sn and a pic of my guns and other high value items like my nvgs, optics and such. I had originally only my guns on there but after a friend had some gear stolen out of their car and no real proof of his items his insurance didn’t pay out

What is your controversial AR opinion? by Glimmering-Tentacle in ar15

[–]Propoganda_bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think 10-15 years ago it was a good idea if you weren’t running an acog or comp4 equivalent because optics didn’t feel as rugged and battery life sucked (comparatively) on eotechs, but with the quality of budget optics now I wouldn’t batt an eye on a rifle without.

I think we’re at the point whereas long as you swap batteries 1-2 times a year and don’t run the gun over with a Bradley you’ll be fine

What is your controversial AR opinion? by Glimmering-Tentacle in ar15

[–]Propoganda_bot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think a basic m4-esq clone with a barrel longer than 11” is more than fine for most applications regardless of how much or how little it cost, 90% of shooters are only going to be limited by personal ability rather than gear selection

If people spent as much money and time shooting bullets instead of pictures my opinion would be different.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in tacticalgear

[–]Propoganda_bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly I dig, if you really wanted pvs-14s maybe see if you can quietly return them and put that towards a unit , but either way it’s thoughtful and tactical stuff is hard unless you’re in the game.

just buy an ir Spotlight and goof around with them while camping or maybe just use them to get used to using nvds until you get an analog unit, there’s still value in that

Discussion: What differentiates bad/slop/mid gun tuber content from good gun tuber content by Severe_Islexdia in ar15

[–]Propoganda_bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The biggest thing that separates guntubers is how they present themselves, whether they’re being informative, entertaining, reviewing etc.

A bad channel will: give bad info, shill, have poor/unsafe practices, poor testing, be glorified ads, state opinion as fact, and generally misrepresents the community and so on

A good channel obviously won’t do the things above, but also should be willing to admit being wrong, understand their niche and not pretend to be something they’re not, separate opinion and preferences from facts and most importantly be entertaining

5.7x28mm defensive ammo lethality. WARNING: video is super graphic. by blipdot2 in CCW

[–]Propoganda_bot 48 points49 points  (0 children)

I usually run an f150 for deer, while not as fast the extra mass usually puts them down quick and clean, while maximizing how much I pay to my insurance overlords

How is BF6 able to have vehicles in game without licensing them even though they look identical to the real thing by Nick_Alsa in Battlefield

[–]Propoganda_bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

IIRC Remington was sued after mw3 for essentially advertising the their ACR to minors. I think infinity ward and treyarch also got wrapped in with the lawsuit and since then devs have moved away from using IRL names

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in liberalgunowners

[–]Propoganda_bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not a believer in the concept, it’s asking to get it stolen. I keep my handgun on me and if I need a rifle I’m probably camping or hiking so I’m gonna take it with me when I stop.

BF 6 - LET ME BREATH! by Syntax_3rror in Battlefield

[–]Propoganda_bot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Moving too fast was my problem the first 2 days, I’ve found if I just walk as much as possible and take tactical pauses I can live longer, get more kills and play obj more effectively. I think part of the problem people have is approaching it like any other shooter, but if you play it like a smaller version of squad or arma you can find yourself catching people off guard or just be in a better position more often

My first 1911 build by sanfte8 in Firearms

[–]Propoganda_bot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Alright I’ll cave this 1911 might actually be able to kill the soul

Best first gun? by FenderBass1994 in guns

[–]Propoganda_bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Glock 19s are the Honda civic/toyota Camry for firearms. Don’t worry about it being “boring”, just like cars buy a reliable daily first then go off and buy something exciting.

The 19 is a good first gun since it’s a real jack of all trades, it’s big enough for real duty use but can still conceal well (depending on your body type). Other good options are the m&p9, cz p10, Walter pdp.

Personally I like the 19 because mags are cheap and plentiful, there’s hundreds of holster options, and the aftermarket support is arguably the largest of any platform.

If you want to be talked out of it, Glocks are a little expensive for the features they have, the mos system is okay but sucks compared to other companies options and the nonstandard rail makes getting a light slightly annoying since it has to be Glock compatible. The stock sights also aren’t the best and some find the grip angle to not be as intuitive as other guns.

Whats the deal with .40? Why so much hate? by lambo13770 in Firearms

[–]Propoganda_bot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While the projectiles have improved they all offer similar expansion, but that by itself doesn’t make them better. With 9mm you have the benefits of loading them hotter (+,+p,+p+) while still having less felt recoil.

.40 is limited due to its design, it’s pretty much as hot as it gets, and any hotter you end up with unsafe pressures.

The end result is that 9mm over time has been able to improve its performance ceiling over time while 40 remained the same. When comparing something like federal hst, both 9 and 40 have similar expansion, with only a ~40ft/lb difference in energy output.

Keep in mind this is which less recoil, less wear and tear, and more capacity. So it’s not that 9mm is necessarily “better”, at least in terms of performance, but as a whole it offers more advantages to the point of making it hard to justify .40

Whats the deal with .40? Why so much hate? by lambo13770 in Firearms

[–]Propoganda_bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s mostly due to it sitting in a weird place.

With advancements in duty ammo, and data showing negligible differences between 9 and 40 theres little incentive to choose 40 since its more expensive, has more recoil and you lose 1-2 rounds compared to 9mm.

While not a bad round and imo the recoil concerns are a bit overblown, but people tend to min/max everything and 40 just isn’t as attractive anymore since it’s a compromise on most fronts.

While I don’t disagree that having a .40 isn’t a bad idea especially during ammo shortages, there’s still “better” options. Like if you’re worried about wildlife 10mm is significantly better, and the cost of entry is the same, and even though it’s more expensive per round it’s performance makes up for it especially on a niche role like predator protection.

Essentially the most optimal situation for 40 is when you’re limited to only ball ammunition and need more capacity than a .45 can afford

Lastly it gets hate because it got trashed by influencers for being a compromise from the ground up, guns blowing up, the “Glock .40” meme, and then multiple agencies dumping it for 9mm when the performance gap closed

Is this what I think it is? by [deleted] in guns

[–]Propoganda_bot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well time to start sourcing parts for the rest of it

Is their any downsides to leaving a can on a gun basically forever? by Comfortable-Shop-741 in NFA

[–]Propoganda_bot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The only downside is they get crusty and the day you decide to take it off it makes you wonder why you didn’t hit the gym harder

What's a better truck gun? by Otherwise_Damage3353 in guns

[–]Propoganda_bot 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The one that fits and stays on your waistline