Reminder that clips are objectively better than magazines for infantryman

>Reminder that clips are objectively better than magazines for infantryman

actually true
>I like him for a multitude of reasons, but he knows shit all about firearms or modern military tactics
also true

remember when he said heavy machine guns are more powerful because the tripod means less recoil and less recoil equals more force going into the bullet?

Attached: AR-10.jpg (350x360, 20K)

WELL*

per bullet yes

He has almost no experience precisely because he's a bongoloid. He only fired a gun for the first time in his life a few years ago.

I remember that video where he was with this other bong at a range in Switzerland and never took his finger of the fucking trigger (he was shooting a revolver)

OP just jerking himself

this is whats known as a false assumption, wherein people make a conclusion based on the sketchy knowledge they have, wherein even a logical conclusion derived is not representative of real life simply because there were other factors they didnt count on that invalidate or trivialize their assumptions

no, not at all. caliber does not equal power, especially when talking about black powder vs. smokeless. I’d imagine a modern .308 is many times more effective than an old .58 caliber ball simply because of the improved ballistics

I miss Lindythreads, he has said so much shit over the years that you are bound to dig up humorous shit if you watch a couple of his videos, dunno why it has died out recently.

I'm new to Lindy lore. How much crazy stuff has he said?

It's been a while but you could pick any topic related to history or weapons and he would have some strange idéas about it. Cannot remember many specifics but some interesttng opinions are that pikemen never ever ever fought pikemen during the pike and shot era, fire arrows didn't exist, muskets were a more effective infantryweapon than the modern assault rifle, the bren was the best macinegun of ww2 and so on. The interesting part of it is in how he presents these oppinions, he holds that his is the only correct view of history and everyone else is wrong, and the british are allways best at everything, even when he is wrong about undisputed fact.

>pikemen never ever ever fought pikemen
Oh god now I am interested.

*ignoring fragmentation and shot placement

in the video he's completely correct though

>delet this

this is what american gun grabbers want. this is the end state they want for us.

Certainly seems as such

You people do understand it was people like him calling the shots buying and making tactics for the military back during ww1 and ww2 and probably today. Rich upper class guys. Like during ww1 they didn't give pilots parachutes cos the command thought they would bailout to quickly

>Rich upper class guys
He makes a living teaching dance and making YouTube vids, dont let his accent fool you.

>that’s not how physics works

But it's true people who are in charge of buying and making tactics are people who are intellects and not people who have done stuff. Like the people who were buyers for the military they were all apparently Florida house wives

By his logic single shot rifles would be better because they'd be even simpler, cheaper and lighter. He's also basing this on a Swiss rifle thats never seen war because it happens to be the only one he's ever shot.

>Dope s' good I see guns

Gotta go with something simpler.

Attached: BambooCannon1.jpg (800x575, 169K)

There's actually not as much evidence to support that as you might think. When the Brits ditch the Martini-Henry (only a .45) in favor of the .303, they were plagued with complaints about poor stopping power (leading them to develop first expanding, then tumbling bullets).
Now there's a bit of an argument for fragmenting bullets and the capability for high velocity bullets to stretch tissue so hard as to tear it, but those are controversial subjects.
Big fuck off holes in something is quite effective at stopping. Ask anyone who's shot an animal with shotgun slugs.

youtube.com/watch?v=AR8D2yqgQ1U

Attached: lindy.jpg (1280x720, 77K)

you just gotta choose the right round

Attached: calibers.jpg (586x750, 80K)

lol is that headline real?

It really is

I loved his "spears are the best because we did some HEMA sparring" video.

to be fair, there aren't a lot of other ways to test it

THE BREN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SPANDAU.

Look up his infamous "spandau" video and try not to piss yourself laughing

THE BREN IS LITERALLY SO ACCURATE THEY COULD HAVE SNIPED HITLER ALL THE WAY FROM ENGLAND, BUT THEY DIDN'T BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO GIVE HIM A SPORTING CHANCE!

>Fire arrows didnt exist
Yes its a hollywood fabrication ,whats the fucking point of seting your arrow on fire ? There is no advantige to having one

Attached: 1555734463190.jpg (552x414, 26K)

He is technically correct

Good god what did I watch?

Considering that tripods don't hold the weapon perfectly still and there's even some flex in the mount, and that slow motion footage shows the bullet exits the muzzle before a pistol slide even moves more than a millimeter or two... not really.
But ignoring the autistic physics aspect, in terms of history a heavy machine gun isn't really more powerful in a way that matters. Even if you gained a measly 10 feet per second (which I doubt because of how early into the recoil impulse the bullet leaves the barrel) the fucking ammo power charge deviates more than that. It would have no historical significance to say a weapon implemented in some way would be considered more powerful if there was no practical advantage you could get from it.

Attached: 1561939428308.jpg (720x439, 47K)

this limey fuck shot a gun like once or twice (in a foreign country too mind you) and now he thinks he can talk about shit?
gtfo with these eceleb shit threads.

i thought the guns said love you briefly but then looked closer and realized it said fuck you now im slightly sad

The Bren is a better GPMG than the MG42 because it has a lower capacity and fire rate.

Fuckwits like lindy are the reason enblocs existed instead of pic related.

Attached: m1 with bar mag.jpg (660x378, 37K)

Objectively true. They take up less space and thus are better logistically and so that makes them better.

What he really meant was that in modern warfare there's lot of suppressive fire going on, so lots of ammo are somewhat "wasted" and not killing anybody (because people actually take cover), whilst in early musker warfare, soldiers were in tighly packed formations so as to perform volley fire to make their slow firing musket more effective, but at the same time they become more vulnerable to enemy muskets too. Thus the casualties were higher even though their guns weren't that accurate.
So from this point of view, Muskets were deadlier than modern day rifles due to how they are were used on the battlefield.

(british) LINDYBEIGE!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate how he thinks that overarm grip for spears was never used because LARPers aren't fit enough to use this grip.

In siege warfare it was used, not in the way that holywood lights every arrow on fire in field battles but they were used

>hit someone in the upper chest with 5.45
>he's somehow beheaded