Ian from Forgotten weapons

You wanna fugg your mom and murder your father

You wanna fugg Ian

>>31046065
>Ian selling Street Sweepers

He didn't like them, or the Lady's Home Companion. They're stupid guns.

If he was actually hocking them in front of the sam's club, you should let him suck your dick for cash (obviously he's desperate) and then pay him double because you respect your fucking elders

>>31046067
Calm down there, Freud

it means you like it when stores "sweep" away high prices to murder the competition.

also you enjoy those tiny sample cups.

>>31046084
You I diagnose as being sexually and emotionally retarded

File: Kek_is_near.jpg (53KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x600px

>>31046065
>>Buy a Night Hawk Custom

>>31046065
You want to buy a cool rare shotgun from a cool dealer.

It's natural to dream about these things.

File: question.jpg (33KB, 428x281px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 428x281px

>>31046065
Is anyone else finally starting to hate this guy?

>sometimes puts out incorrect information and never fixes it
>makes unscientific mud tests and acts like they are absolutely proof of their gun usefulness ranking scale
>hangs out with crazy gabe

>>31046202
no

>>31046205
>liking unscientific tests, incorrect information that remains unchanged and people that hang out with crazy gabe
Well, your choice.

>>31046202
He's okay. Nothing to sperg about.

>>31046249
>any challenging thinking is sperging
Oookay.

what was it he posted about human beings being "one in the same" or some shit

>>31046259
Sorry half asleep let me clarify. If you want to point out flaws or incorrect information go for it just don't REEEEE for a paragraph.

>>31046271
That implies I ree'd though. These are things that happen.

>>31046067
How'd you know?

T. Jim Morrison

>>31046065
It means that you're having his nightmares.

>>31046235
>Well, your choice.
Protip: When writing any kind of paper you should reference from multiple sources, this carries through to real life too!
With that hot tip I'm sure you can finish 8th grade

>>31046414
>not knowing about the gabe suarez video
>not knowing about his mud tests that have no forms of scientific controls or documentation
>not knowing about his BAR video where he says the rifle's doctrine was tailored to marching fire
Christ omalley, you're hopeless nerd.

>>31046202
I lost all hope when they made a video with poopzikas. I've been calling these fags out for the longest time, glad some of /k/ is seeing the light while their boyfriends fight fiercely for their ehonor.

>>31046510
Oh man, I hate when anyone relatively decent shacks up with Yeager or Puzikoo. Do they even realize these peoples history, failures, and fuck ups due to ego / crazy?

>>31046556
Either they don't care or the YouTube money is good enough. Poopzikas is so fucking cringeworthy, at least Yeager can prove he was shot at and shit.

>>31046065
you need to get out more

>>31046561
Poop is bad because he's nuts and just jumps onto whatever mcdojo trend can earn him a bit of cash. He uses his spooky and unverifiable Russia accent and past to rope in complete idiots.

Yeager is worse imo, he's dangerous because he mixes truth with lies. His past is filled with failures, firings, and possibly straight up murder. I don't believe getting shot at is a good indicator of anyones training ability, tactics are tactics, fundamentals are fundamentals, and when your one engagement is almost half of your team KIA and you firing half a magazine and getting blacklisted from the contractor community, then you kinda fucked yourself.

But, Yeager is what people who know no better see as a good instructor, loud, rowdy, confident, his way or the highway. Same tactic as poop to draw people in, just a different mannerism.

>>31046483
I guess you won't graduate from 8th grade. Give your parents my condolences.

>>31046609
>thinking im going to spoonfeed you
I get the importance of providing evidence, but since you're literally the only one here that doesnt know about those videos, I'm just gonna eat some popcorn and watch you squirm.

>>31046626
I know about these videos but just because he was wrong once or twice or did something stupid doesn't refute everything else he said.

>>31046648
Of course not, where did I say refute everything else he said?

I'm starting to dislike him because he doesnt make corrections and talks as if his word is law on the subject despite these flaws.

>>31046556
Who is Puzikoo?

>>31046798
Sonny "the tking poophammer" puzikas

>>31046798
He got his start in training others during the chi mcdojo phase. I wish so bad I could find the videos again, because they seem to be all but lost to the nets.

After it fizzled out and tactical firearm shit popped up everywhere he graduated himself, did some silly as fuck blooming death bullshit and ended up shooting another instructor.

>>31046202
>Ian shagged my mom

>>31046202

i enjoy his obsessive enthusiasm

File: 1464969406597.png (447KB, 1265x491px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 1265x491px

Nice one faggit.

>>31046483
Protip: The BAR was fielded in WW1 too.

>>31046202
Suarez makes some good points sometimes but he's really offputting

>>31046202
I don't watch his other stuff, just his Forgotten Weapons videos
So no

>>31047071
Yes, but you see he's blowing it out of proportion, the manuals of the day make one reference to marching fire, where they clearly say it's advantageous in the woods, it doesn't advocate the use of marching fire in the open like Ian describes.

>https://books.google.com/books?id=mCUgAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA535&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

Check out the employment of the automatic rifle section, one tiny snippet about marching fire, and all these others that advocate more modern use, flanking maneuvers, covering movements, etc. They weren't blithering idiots back then, marching fire was just one of many tactics utilized in the day, and it was BARELY utilized, that's my gripe, not that it didn't exist, just that it wasn't the primary use of the BAR in any way shape or form.

File: Ejh3g0F.jpg (29KB, 524x233px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 524x233px

ITT /k/ lets out autism because some people like a guy and others don't.
Wow, it's almost as if people's opinions are different.

>>31046202
No.

>>31046483
The BAR was employed for marching fire.

The thing with marching fire is also that it isn't as fucking retarded as some people claim it to be.
It wasn't simply "walk out as artillery shells come dropping down on you" (I've frequently seen it mentioned that the Chachaut was to be deployed in this way, which it wasn't).

It was about two or three BARtenders laying down suppressing fire in short alternating bursts as they advanced and provided cover for regular infantrymen so they could move in and attack the enemy behind their cover.

Not the best tactic ever, but it can and have worked, particularly when the Germans no longer have artillery support.

>>31046510
The what?

>>31048007
>The BAR was employed for marching fire.
I see you actually never read any of the manuals of the day. Come back after you do and never post again until you have accomplished this task.

>>31048116
I'm only saying it has been used for it, not that this was the primary purpose.

>>31047066
oh wow what a faggot

>>31046202
On his channel i get to see rare guns i have only read about. I love that he breaks the guns down and talks about the internals. I miss hickok45 doing the same in the early part of his channel

I can look past Ian's slight autism, he is not as bad as nutnfairy.

12/10 would listen to hear talk about his spanish star for three days just to booger hook fuck some rare Walther

>>31048185
When? Cite an example.

File: freudBurger.jpg (62KB, 780x467px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 780x467px

>>31046065

>>31046483
Who is Gabe Suarez?

What does no forms of scientific controls or documentation mean? He fired the rifle without mud on it, which would be the control test in that case.

>>31048901
It would technically be the control yes, but it's unscientific, there's no measure of how much of what is getting into each rifle, where, how, etc. It's not indicative of how a rifle really performs, it's just a couple mud / sand tests that don't actually have a basis in science.

Gabe Suarez is a nutcase that almost killed his former coworkers that were building a fraud case against him, but said he was saved by the voice of god who told him not to.

He's insane, the video where Ian asked him questions about law enforcement is just as insane, and Gabe gets several timeline questions wrong. But once again, no questioning, no actual scrutiny or criticism. Gabe's a "good guy" and errething is allowed.

>>31048280
WW2 if I remember right, hold on, I'll go dig up the article.

>>31048961
It's been a long time since I watched their mud videos, but I thought they said their testing wasn't particularly scientific. The only real conclusion they drew from the videos was that openings in the receiver cause failures to occur.

>>31046202
>Mud tests getting people this fucking triggered.
I LOVE IT

File: 1470989008258.jpg (139KB, 1023x682px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1023x682px

>>31048280
>>31049213
Fuck, I think I misremembered and mixed things up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marching_fire#World_War_II

>The tactic of marching fire was praised by GeneralGeorge S. Pattonfor three reasons: friendly forces using the tactic continued to advance rather than get bogged down, the positive action of shooting provided self-confidence to the soldier, and the enemy's defensive fire was reduced in accuracy, volume and effectiveness.[11][12]

I know the BAR was originally used for some marching fire in WW1, and I think I made the connection in my head from reading about Patton advocating for the tactic in general (In which he made mention of the M1 rifle specifically), but I can't find any reference to the M1918A2 being employed for marching fire, not anywhere.

If it had any involvement with marching fire tactics in WW2, then it was only for covering for those marching, not actually being used for deploying marching fire in itself.

I just fucked up, man.

>>31049449
And they need how many videos with different guns to get this point across? Also I'm pretty sure Ian has referenced the tests in his other videos, so if he doesn't plan on them being scientific why use them as material for other videos?

>>31049517
Because they already have a scientific approach essentially build in, that you can prove at home:

Put rifle in mud
If rifle functions = rifle good
If rifle jam = rifle bad

The tests are done with the same mud, with the same amount of time in the mud.

>>31049517
Some of those are also there to debunk myths like how the AK, 1911, etc. won't jam because of mud. Most of the comments on those videos are asking him to do more tests anyway.

I've never seen a video where he uses a mud test as evidence for anything. He mentions them in some of the inrange videos as examples, once in a while.

>>31049562
He doesn't do enough trials to get any reasonable data out of it. The mud and application of mud also varies from video to video.

>>31049487
But the mud tests put my favorite rifle, the AR15, on a pedestal. Why would that trigger me anoon?

>>31049510
Again, I'm not saying the tactic did not exist, however, the BAR was not primarily employed in its use, the manuals of the day really only recommended it in situations where terrain did not permit any fast movement, and dense forests, IE areas where cover was ample. I mean it's not like they didn't know the advantages of cover, they made trenches for fuck sake.

>>31046510
>one video filling time talking to another you tuber makes them complete shit
Also you are one to talk about edge, friendo.

>>31049562
That's not even their approach, it's
>dunk rifle in mud
>huh, it (didn't) work
>here is maybe why
>this video doesn't mean shit for anything we just get cash to trigger artists on the internet

>>31046510
Can you renounce Islam

I can't take anything you say seriously when you worship a literal child molester.

>>31049604
A. Why would the mud magically work it's way in
B. Yes they do.

>>31049707
It means that shit rifles are exposed.

>>31049758
Nope, that's nice I don't care.

>>31050176
When you fuck your daughter do you role play and call her Aisha or close your eyes and pretend she is a goat?

>>31046065
Gay for Ian

But who isn't?

>>31050207
Don't speak of your mother that way kid.

>>31046202
t. Slav shit owner

>>31050231
that would make you his grandfather? Please /k/unts take your family feud elsewhere

>>31046065
I jump got my Type 30 I bought from him. It's pretty nice. Needs oil though.

File: ef9a01fe7eabf5d7e6c412c9bee071f64827ad9069128b4362328325e3dfb6b9_1.jpg (31KB, 632x512px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 632x512px

>>31046065
This made kek

>>31050162
>Why would the mud magically work it's way in
Depending on how they apply the mud, the mud can more easily get into places that will cause it to jam. The Nagant they tested had a pebble get stuck somewhere; that probably wouldn't occur on repeated tests.

>Yes they do.
In some videos they were lying down in the mud and dragging the guns through, in other videos, they just put them in a wheelbarrow and dumped mud on certain parts of the guns. That's different enough to cause differing results.

>It means that shit rifles are exposed.
austism

>>31050253
but he loves czech guns famalam

>>31049633
>Again, I'm not saying the tactic did not exist, however, the BAR was not primarily employed in its use
That's literally exactly what I admitted in my post, I say in my post how it was a mistake on my part.

>>31050162
Most guns shit their pants when caked with mud, getting mud in your action always sucks.

I think if anything, those tests just highlighted the fact that the AR isn't as sensitive to dirt and sand as many people insist (that said, actually getting mud inside the action of your AR will make it seize up like any other gun).

>>31050511
>Depending on how they apply the mud, the mud can more easily get into places that will cause it to jam.
So you should have no issue, as they coat the receiver on every rifle.
>The Nagant they tested had a pebble get stuck somewhere; that probably wouldn't occur on repeated tests.
They freed the pebble and it still failed to function. Additionally, the fact that a pebble could so easily enter a critical area and seize up the gun is a fatal flaw.
>In some videos they were lying down in the mud and dragging the guns through
What the fuck are you talking about?
>in other videos, they just put them in a wheelbarrow and dumped mud on certain parts of the guns.
Yeah. The receiver.
>That's different enough to cause differing results.
No it isn't.
>austism
Stay mad, M14/ak/M1/mini/nagant/fal fanboy.

>>31050996
>Most guns shit their pants when caked with mud
Most guns are therefore shit.
>getting mud in your action always sucks.
So you make a dust cover that seals the action. Worked for the AR and Arisaka, it'll work for you.
>I think if anything, those tests just highlighted the fact that the AR isn't as sensitive to dirt and sand as many people insist (that said, actually getting mud inside the action of your AR will make it seize up like any other gun).
Exactly, which is why the AR is wonderfully designed, because it PREVENTS MUD FROM GETTING IN THE ACTION.

>>31050437
>my OC has been reposted to ifunny and went full circle back to /k/, horribly pixelated in the process

I don't know if I should be angry or flattered.

File: 1471034036042.png (45KB, 652x518px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 652x518px

>>31046202
>acts like they are absolutely proof of their gun usefulness ranking scale
i love you
you madman, you actually said it

>>31046561
>so fucking cringeworthy
I still wonder why I didn't filter you earlier.

>>31051300
>So you should have no issue, as they coat the receiver on every rifle.
>They freed the pebble and it still failed to function. Additionally, the fact that a pebble could so easily enter a critical area and seize up the gun is a fatal flaw.
The fact that that pebble got stuck there invalidates your first point you autist

>What the fuck are you talking about?
In one of the videos they crawled through the mud, instead of using a wheelbarrow. That was very different.

>Stay mad, M14/ak/M1/mini/nagant/fal fanboy.
I'm an AR fanboy if anything.

>>31051618
>The fact that that pebble got stuck there invalidates your first point you autist
This is so fucking stupid I literally have no idea what to say to you.
Did you have a stroke?
>In one of the videos they crawled through the mud, instead of using a wheelbarrow. That was very different.
eh, the mud got on the receiver on one way or another.
And the AR still worked.
>I'm an AR fanboy if anything.
Pah.

>>31051540
Eat shit poopzikas.

>>31051953
what is a poopzikas?

>>31051966
Sonny puzikas nickname

>>31051930
>This is so fucking stupid I literally have no idea what to say to you.
I know I shouldn't argue with people on 4chan, but do you really think every time you put mud on the rifle, a pebble is going to be in that same place? That's why you fucking need a lot of repetition to call it science.

>>31052046
You need a proper control before you can even get into the testing. Testing 1 rifle and shooting it prior to the test is hardly a fucking control, you need more samples and more testing.

>>31052070
The control test was firing the rifle without the mud on it.

>>31052081
forgot to add. A control test is just a test with the experimental variable having negligible effect. I'm not sure what else you expect.

>>31052046
No, which is why I said the fact that it's possible alone makes it shit.

It's almost like if the thing had a fucking dust cover LIKE PERHAPS ANOTHER RIFLE THAT WORKED the gun might be good

>>31052070
I'll control a middle to fly into your little boy fucking session

>>31052099
>nagants come with a dust cover
I've literally never seen one of those

>>31052081
>a single rifle
>used as control and test
Yeah no. Youd get laughed out of a community college science class with this idiocy.

>>31052081
>>31052095
the control variable must be a constant. that rifle was also used in the test therefore its not a control variable.

I saw Ian at a fun store in Tucson yesterday. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for photos or anything.

He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?”

I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen Tins of ammo in his hands without paying.

The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter.

When she took one of the tins and started scanning it multiple times, he stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “to prevent any electrical infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After she scanned each tin and put them in a pallet and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.

>>31052136
I'm actually in engineering at a "prestigious" Canadian university. They have literally never taught us anything about the scientific method.

1 rifle isn't about the control test. That's an issue with repeated trials. they did a correct control test for the single rifle they had.

>>31052158
They were trying to emulate a rifle that was actually in active warfare. A rifle is never a constant anyway; every shot fired adds wear. These are fucking backyard scientists and never presented their work as actual science.

>>31046065
I wonder how Ian would've felt about the original Armsel Striker and Protecta. Would have he had the same opinion on them as the Cobray guns?

>>31052219
The original shotgun's design seemed like it had the same amount of thought put into it as the average Cobray gun, so probably.

>>31052241
Sure, the Striker had it's own problems, but the Protecta seemed to fix a lot of them. Like getting rid of the winding key and ejector rod.

>>31052208
I'm also in engineering but for software. Your control is a constant, once you test that it's no longer a control. The rifle is never constant but if you want scientific results that are valid then you need a valid control, which is a rifle that would be fired with the same ammo and same amount as the tested rifle.
>Every shot adds wear so apparently a constant isn't necessary
So how do companies test things like cars which also progressively wear? That's not an argument mate, that's exactly what the control is for so you can have a direct comparison. Also they have referenced their tests in other videos so apparently they think it's good enough.

>>31052276
If control is a constant, how does science ever get done? It's impossible to eliminate all of the variables out there, especially considering Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If you can eliminate the controlled variable, then you can at least ensure that your control variable is accurate to within some standard deviation that is considered adequate, assuming you have the resources to do enough tests.

>>31052219
>>31052272
I'm sure Ian would've liked the Protecta version as you mentioned the drum was now self winding and featured automatic ejection. But he would've said that It's outdated now that we have detachable magazine fed semi-auto shotguns like the Saiga-12, Vepr-12, and Catamount Fury just to name a few.

>>31052191
nice copypasta

>>31052308
Because it's not truly 100% constant forever but the less external variables you have impacting the results the more accurate they will be. The control is there to offer a comparison to an untested sample, testing the control is counterproductive because you won't have a comparison. Keeping a control allows you to test multiple samples and allows repeatability.

>>31052381
it's so old by now, you don't even need to say it, friendo.

>>31052308
>>31052397
Accidentally sent early. The problem with testing your control is that your control will have let's say 10 rounds, but the test sample will have those ten rounds plus the extra you are putting through it. The results won't be accurate.

>>31052397
but they did have an untested sample, which was the rifle before it was mud tested. I don't see why that was not a valid control test.

The controlled variable was the amount of mud on the gun, so the control test should be the gun with no mud in it.

>>31052420
they seemed like they were intending to test a rifle that was in active service, so 10 rounds is negligible compared to how many rounds that rifle had already fired. Plus, how much science are you really expecting with a budget that low?

>>31050253
>>31050874
But the only firearm I own that's relevant to their tests is an AR15.

>>31052452
>Plus, how much science are you really expecting with a budget that low?
Enough to match the rest of actual real world testing standards, so long as they pretend the results mean anything.

>>31052452
It would be the control if they had another rifle they were testing. The test would be another rifle (same make and everything) covered in mud and then fired the same amount as the test. I don't expect any science but they can't claim that any of those tests are valid if they don't follow the scientific method.

>>31052480
Same as the control*

>>31052470
there's a huge variance in real world testing standards. Physicists have much more strict standards than social scientists.

>>31052480
They can't have the same rifle though. machining tolerances and wear make that effectively impossible. Firing the rifle before it's submerged in mud is a rough enough approximation of the scientific method, considering the budget they were on. Their results were valid, but not particularly significant due to the lack of tests they did and the fact that only one rifle was tested.

>>31052529
>there's a huge variance in real world testing standards. Physicists have much more strict standards than social scientists.
I wasn't aware that a test relating to machines had anything to do with social science.

>>31052569
Well if you weren't autistic, you'd be able to see that I was implying that many fields have different testing standards.

>>31052529
I know it's not the same rifle but that's why you have a control to represent the test population. You can have more than one rifle in this control group, you aren't limited to one but you have to have at least one. It ceased to be a control when they dumped mud on it and then continued testing.

>>31052636
Yes, and if you weren't a moron you'd know I said the same real world testing standards in regards to firearm testing standards.

Why would I imply they should use any other standard?

>>31052660
It stops being a control when it goes in the mud, but all the actual control data they needed was received before it went in the mud. The shots used for the control test could have caused the malfunction seen in the mud test, but this is fairly unlikely.

>>31052693
is there an IEEE or FDA standard on that?

>>31052711
>is there an IEEE or FDA standard on that?
>http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a481861.pdf
This is a decent start.

You need to understand, I'm actually not straight up disputing their claim, it makes sense at a glance, the rifles in question ran, got muddy, had issues, were cleaned and ran again, etc.

My gripe is how the testing didn't adhere to any standards, inspection, and documentation, there was no specific amount of exposure times, record of how much material was actually exposed, it was just a get muddy / get sandy test.

The inspection was poor, primarily stopping at "The rifle stopped cycling." Yeah they tried to go into a little more detail, but nothing that really explained what was going on.

As for the documentation, I'm not saying they made cuts or tried to sabotage anything, but there is a need for proper documentation to actually take something as PROOF. There are discrepancies, if we take the tests at face value they don't match up with real world performance rates in environments similar to the testing conditions. I don't even think there are very many accounts of people's M14s or whatever going down due to being dropped in mud anyway. Which brings me to, the tests are extreme and don't reflect real world conditions. It's like that stupid fruit cake test people keep using to pretend the AK is amazing, it has nothing to do with, and does not represent the materials that can contaminate the rifle.

Again, not saying that isn't the way the test went down, just saying before people start abandoning their understanding of how certain firearms perform, they should get some real information on them. It's like when people call the AR an always jamming, underpowered piece of shit. There is a ton of legitimate testing done by the military and private sector disproving this.

>>31052834
>Which brings me to, the tests are extreme and don't reflect real world conditions
That was actually my first thought when seeing the videos. Even in WW1, I can't imagine anyone having it that bad. I thought they were just trying to disprove "X can't jam" type shit.

I understand the issues you have with these test, but I think those are unrealistic expectations of two guys with almost no budget. I've only ever seen them point to the tests as evidence of anything on once Q&A video though.

>>31052949
I guess it's not so much my judgement on them, I was going to add before the text got a tad long that I'm glad they're even doing this stuff.

It's just that people immediately eat it up and run with it as some kind of proof. Not talkin bout the trololos either, people citing the tests as some kind of source, which, yeah it is a source, it's just an awful source.

>>31047364
>just that it wasn't the primary use of the BAR in any way shape or form.
That's exactly what he said like 5 seconds after that other thing that you took out of proportion like the blistering and obnoxious retard that you are.

>>31053017
>It's just that people immediately eat it up and run with it as some kind of proof
You definitely have a point there, but people citing garbage is an age old problem. There's not much you can do about it, apart from telling them they're retarded and moving on.

>>31053080
Bra, why are you adding this like it's new information. Drink your ovaltine and move on to /arg/ if you're unable to read.

>>31051417
You should end it all right fucking now.

>>31046202
You shut your whore mouth, he did a video on a freakin real pancor jackhammer.

>>31053113
I prefer Hershey's.

>>31053113
>ovaltine
Is that still a thing where you live or is it just a seinfeld reference? I've never seen it, in Canada.

>>31053186
Ovaltine tastes like shit.

>>31053186
>Seinfeld
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdA__2tKoIU

>>31052112
That why should have had not had you twit.

>>31054469
can you repeat that in english?

File: Screenshot_20160820-233506.jpg (511KB, 1344x1107px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 1344x1107px

>>31049510

>>31046202
>wah wah muh infallible AK reliability was proven false

Get fucked

>>31054555
>>31054469
>That's why i said "should have had" not "had" you twit.
Mobile phones are cruel

>>31054860
That wasn't what we talked about though, that's WW1 and the M1918

The question was about the M1918A2 being used for marching fire in WW2 and I couldn't find any reference to that, so I was wrong and misremembered.

>>31052834
>>31052949
This.

Also an AR fag.