R. Lee Ermey on History Ch. Tonight


PDA






statelineblues
November 14, 2008, 09:27 PM
Just saw that tonight (11/14) at 9pm EST on the History Channel R. Lee Ermey ("Mail Call") will be hosting "Lock 'N' Load", looking at the history of the rifle. Says it's a new show - should be worth a look, especially if R. Lee goes after some more watermelons...:D

If you enjoyed reading about "R. Lee Ermey on History Ch. Tonight" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hoppy590
November 14, 2008, 09:29 PM
he is entertaining, and history channel has gotten alot better in the informational accuracy department. il check it out

Intrepid Dad
November 15, 2008, 12:41 AM
I saw the show tonight. It was pretty good. However, I do have a question.

Ermey made the assertion that the 5.56 NATO round was great because it would injure an enemy soldier, thus requiring two more enemies to carry him. So instead of one soldier out of the fight, you now had three soldiers out. That seems like a suspicious claim.

Any thoughts?

Hoppy590
November 15, 2008, 01:45 AM
Ermey made the assertion that the 5.56 NATO round was great because it would injure an enemy soldier, thus requiring two more enemies to carry him. So instead of one soldier out of the fight, you now had three soldiers out. That seems like a suspicious claim.


well that is a common theme in military actions. the more men you can remove from the fight the better.

i dont think thats the purpose of rifle fire, but rather mines and indirect weapons.

Deus Machina
November 15, 2008, 02:00 AM
It's a great theory when you're fighting other soldiers. We rarely fight actual soldiers, of late.

Fighting guerrillas, insurgents, and suicidal fanatics, I'd prefer something in .30.

coosbaycreep
November 15, 2008, 02:10 AM
I just got done watching that show, and I thought it sucked.

If they only wanted to focus on the main rifles of the U.S. military, then fine, but they shouldn't have glossed over the contributions of European rifles the way they did, especially since most of our early technology was taken from them.

I also thought it was funny how they labeled the M-16 as the greatest rifle of all time, even though our military is constantly looking to replace it with something better. Nothing was said about our troops in Iraq/Afghanistan complaining about the ineffectiveness of 5.56 either. So if it's such a good thing that wounding someone with an M-16 requires two extra people to attend to the wounded instead of just killing them with a .308, then why are we pulling M-14s out of mothballs?

Just more (almost) pointless drivel from the History Channel, but at least it's better than a rerun of Super Nanny or something.

icanthitabarn
November 15, 2008, 02:25 AM
They also said the range for the M14 was 500 yards but the M16 was 600. Who cares? still better than that nanny show

Delmar
November 15, 2008, 02:32 AM
Doesnt really matter what rifle the US issues. Its not long after that initial issue that they want to replace it with something which is lighter/faster/better, just like everything else in use. It took many years to replace the Springfield and Garand. The M14 was replaced more quickly than most because it couldnt do everything they wanted it to do. Not to mention that McNamara was Secdef at the time and a complete moron. The M14 is still a great rifle with better range than a standard 5.56 round, but bad on full auto. And that took 10 years worth of development.

SMMAssociates
November 15, 2008, 02:41 AM
Lots of fuzzy or inaccurate information presented....

Not too bad otherwise....

I just don't like Gunny.... Loudmouth....

(Not to discredit his service to our Country.)

I think he wrote it :D....

Regards,

Blacksmoke
November 15, 2008, 02:55 AM
Hey, Sgt. Ermey may make a lot of noise but at least he is not afraid of gunfire. Imagine what that show would be like if Al Gore or Bill Ayers was hosting it. Blecch!

The only thing being locked 'n loaded would be their bread maker.

Nugilum
November 15, 2008, 04:24 AM
I enjoyed watching someone who knew how to shoot a rifle. :cool:

statelineblues
November 15, 2008, 11:19 AM
IMHO, have to admit the show was a bit light on some info, and there were things he did leave out (the developement of the percussion cap for muskets before shell-contained ammo, for instance), but it was an entertaining show. Yeah, I wondered about that M-14 "500 yrd range" vs the M-16 "600 yrd range" too. And he didn't mention the Barnett .50 cal sniper.

Would love to see a show featuring all those weapons at the Quantico Marine museum, or the US Army one at Aberdeen Proving grounds!

Of course, if you want to watch a really good show on firearms history, go get "Tales of the Gun" (also from the History channel).

Gunnerpalace
November 15, 2008, 06:18 PM
Didn't see it, but I did not need to see it to make the statement at least it was not a giant HK commercial/Test Tank (Looking at you FutureWeapons).

Ragnar Danneskjold
November 15, 2008, 06:46 PM
Keep in mind it was not produced for gun owners who already know the intricate workings and ballistic data of the rifles mentioned. We are a minority. The show was produced for average people who's only exposure to the Garand is Saving Private Ryan.

Ky Larry
November 16, 2008, 10:07 AM
Delmar is correct.Mikail Kalashnikov correctly stated that all ordinace officers are the same the world over. They want a weapon that does everything and weighs nothing. All weapons are a tradeoff.
Sorry. Didn't mean to wander off topic.

stoney1666
November 16, 2008, 01:13 PM
In the cartoon of the M1, I didn't know there as a spring behind the bolt. The one I had in the Corps didn't have that, maybe that's why I could shoot expert with it:)

John Wayne
November 16, 2008, 03:51 PM
I couldn't get past the fake sound of an action racking every time someone's hand went near the bolt. Didn't matter if it was an M-1, M-14, or .30-40 Krag, they all made the same "sound."

lanternlad1
November 16, 2008, 04:33 PM
"Nothing was said about our troops in Iraq/Afghanistan complaining about the ineffectiveness of 5.56 either."

Any of the returning vets I talked to only complained about the ineffectiveness of the 5.56 FMJ, which is all they are allowed to have, according to the Geneva Convention or some other such crap. I've had a few tell me that if they could have 5.56 HP or BT the round would serve just fine.

BBQLS1
November 16, 2008, 05:42 PM
It was a fun show.



I asked my little bro about the effectiveness of 5.56 (Marine served in Iraq) and he thought it was an effective round. His thoughts were more of, everything is different and there are pros and cons to each.

jackstinson
November 17, 2008, 08:51 AM
it was entertaining. I watch these shows just to see the guns. Loaded with inaccuracies and partial information though.
Saying several times that the American Revolution was won with the "Kentucky Rifle" was funny. I'm sure he knows better.
I did enjoy the various slow-motion videos of black powder being shot though. Cool to see the unburnt powder grains and the still burning grains exiting the bore behind the ball/bullet.
I also found the emphasis on American firearms to be odd. Like when he explains how great the Krag was in Cuba, then introduces the Springfield as America's improvement over the Krag. It is my understanding that the USA purchased the rights to use the Mauser action on the Springfield because the Krag was inferior to the Mausers used against the USA in Cuba. It was also interesting he called the Garand an "assault rifle". Eight rounds of 30-06 loaded via stripper clip makes an "assault rifle"? Don't tell Sara Brady. ;) ... The Military Channel's "Top Ten Combat Rifles" does much better on these guns.
I did really enjoy the bamboo hand gun and the later versions actually being fired...very cool. Although they kind of leaped from matchlock to flintlock without the couple hundred years of lock progressions that came between.
Also, I'm not sure I would have picked the Maynard as even relevant. The Civil War saw many more effective cartridge guns in use. He didn't even mention the Henry or Spencer. I suppose the Maynard was mentioned as "a bridge" design because it had no self-contained primer?
Laughed at all the cartridge gun cutaways showing a chamber twice the size of the cartridge being fired in it. And what was with the left handed flintlock cutaway?
All in all....it left much to be desired in terms of accurate information. Entertaining...but the History Channel has done far better in the past.

Pilot
November 17, 2008, 11:46 AM
I miss "Mail Call". It doesn't seem that the History Channel is showing it anymore.

If you enjoyed reading about "R. Lee Ermey on History Ch. Tonight" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!