Results 31 to 45 of 131
Thread: m4carbine.net???
-
12 September 2011, 10:03 #31
Someone really hates M4C…
-
12 September 2011, 15:02 #32
-
13 September 2011, 13:19 #33
Re: m4carbine.net???
Some nutbag posted elsewhere that he was responsible after he got his feelings hurt.
-
13 September 2011, 13:26 #34
Pretty amazing "we" (M4C) can't protect "ourselves" better than that - considering the amount of site sponsors. Perhaps not the most popular suggestion but..... maybe be a bit more selective about membership?
-
13 September 2011, 14:45 #35
Re: m4carbine.net???
Not a member to my knowledge. He posted a build on another site (reddit?) and started getting some flack about his AR. One of the posters directed him to M4C to "learn more". Shortly thereafter, M4C went down and he was boasting about it on the other site. Lesson? Don't tick off the keybangers...
-
13 September 2011, 16:09 #36Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 16
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Pretty much what mtdawg has said.
Some butt hurt script kiddy has pretty much declared war on M4C
-
14 September 2011, 04:17 #37
Perhaps this site can pick up some of the slack.
In the last 2 years M4C has become dominated by relatively new AR shooters (Thanks Barry!) who want to argue fairly insignificant minutiae. "OMG! My barrel isn't 11595-E! It's only 4150 that shoots 2 moa groups. Worse yet, it isn't parkerized under the FSB. Is it going to blow up, or make it to the 15k round mark?"
It has great potential- as it had previously- but until people start worrying about shooting first and then wondering if their gun will malfunction.....it will be the same old tired topics. Too much discussion of technical details of gear without discussing the practical application of its use.
-
14 September 2011, 05:02 #38
Hardware is quantifiable remotely. "what's the lightest rail system" has an actual, quantifiable, answer. "whare are my options for mounting my new Aimpoint?" has only so many answers, and the respondents can state quantifiable reasons for their opinions.
If you want to see truly ridiculously self-licking-ice-cream-cone discussions, try to talk about TTPs remotely with groups of people that may not agree. "This technique is the most accurate" and "that technique is the fastest" cannot be quantified remotely, and there's always some guy that can shoot neither fast nor accurately that poopoos it all as being "gaming" and excusing his poor performance by claiming to be "tactical".
Not to mention, cash is the grease on the wheels, and forums (including this one) exist largely to take in cash from sponsors. That overwhelmingly means gear, not training, companies with the exception of perhaps some training celebrities or video production companies.
What needs to happen on M4C is that people, including "established members" need to back up their statements. "The xyz barrel has a .061" gas port" absolutely needs to be followed with "and I know this because I measured one myself". If not, IMO, the post should be deleted. The internet is bad enough because there is no accountability, but factor in no quantification and qualification and it's hardly worth the time to post.
I stopped posting on M4 on 8/31 but still read. It's provided an interesting perspective on things.WWW.TACTICALYELLOWVISOR.NET
-
14 September 2011, 06:34 #39
Re: m4carbine.net???
Rob, the only link I saw was in AR discussion on M4C. A follow up thread in GD discussing the site hacking had a little more info. I would have to search for it to find it again, if the site ever comes back up. I don't know if the guy was really responsible, but he insinuated as much in his posts on the other site.
Regarding M4C, it has been a tremendous resource over the last few years for me. However, I have learned to take some of the internet bravado with a grain of salt. My motto: "Its not personal, its the internet." They have been absolutely flooded with new shooters in the last two years, most of whom ask the same questions over and over again. I think they are doing the best job they can, considering the circumstances. It has lead to a lot more sifting through thread titles on my part. They take a lot of flack over mil-spec this and that discussions, but if people pay attention and make use of the knowledge base (search button), they can save themselves a lot of headache, time & money.
-
14 September 2011, 07:14 #40
You are correct on all counts there. My impatience was actually focused more on the "established members" than the newbies. Being new and ignorant I have a high tolerance for, being un-intelligent (especially if coupled with arrogance beyond one's experience) I have an extremely low tolerance for regardless of how long they've been posting.
M4C needs, assuming they come back, a way of dealing with that influx. Limiting participation in GD has helped a lot.
What often happens there as well as other places is that the guy that is the expert in his limited circle of friends and who's statements go unquestioned in that environment don't know how to react when challenged, and even further break down when shown to be wrong or outside their lane, especially by people that know these things firsthand, or in far greater detail than they do.
I have been on M4C almost since the beginning. M4C has suffered also from the beginning from people's perceptions of internet forums. It is supposed to be a discussion forum where people are expected to back up their statements, unlike pretty much the entire rest of the internet. New members often have a hard time with this when they come in spouting off things that may *sound* correct but are not, or that are only based on what they read elsewhere on the internet.
More accountability for posts and a clearer explanation of expectations would help tremendously. People coming in and posting unsubstantiated crap like "Colt is owned by the UAW" and then getting upset when they are told they don't know what they are talking about is not conducive to a functional discussion forum. They also need to simply acknowledge that all sites are not for all people (basically the opposite of the "tired poor huddled masses" model of ar15.com) and allow that some people will get upset and leave, or get upset, throw a tantrum, and be shown the door. I suspect that the recent doubling of forum sponsors will prevent that last bit from happening, however.WWW.TACTICALYELLOWVISOR.NET
-
14 September 2011, 09:41 #41
On the topic of arrogance, I realized when I joined m4c that there were more than a few colorful individuals with personality. But, I have found that most of the information I needed, not the same "I hear that/was told that/believe that", was status quo. As you said quantifiable facts are the norm. Blowhards are usually put in check, and I have thick skin. The info that I glean from the site is worth the occasional assy remark or jab, because you and others will call out the bs.
So thanks for a great site I wish I would have known years ago.
I have to admit this site is growing on me too. Same ethic seems to be here. Hey, the ignorant like my self need all the help
we can get.
-
14 September 2011, 10:25 #42
When you get that big, you have to invest in infrastructure.
-
14 September 2011, 12:19 #43
This chatter about various forums got me thinking of what has kept me coming back to WEVO while I've been drawn away from other more populous forums.
Of all the AR forums I've frequented over the last several years WEVO is the only one I post on with any sort of consistency because the discussions are respectful and the threads usually contain good info that I can learn from. Thats not to say other forums don't provide that its just that the "volume" here is lower and so is the amount of "static". I can usually find an answer to my question using search or expect that the info I get when I start a new thread is reliable. I find the easy access to technical expertise and professional experience on WEVO to be its greatest asset and hope that remains the case as its membership grows.
Out of curiosity, what keeps other members coming back?-Mitch-
-
14 September 2011, 15:01 #44Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
- Posts
- 4
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
I like M4carbine. I've learned a lot in the last 2 years, most of the time i can find what i'm looking for with the search button.
yea, you will run into some know-it-all butthole sometime, but you will do that almost anywhere.
-
14 September 2011, 15:29 #45Contributing Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Posts
- 260
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
The reason I like this place is that most of the folks are "down to earth"... Most people here seem to just be realistic about what makes a rifle work.
Some places are just "anything goes". DPMS, RRA, Olympic, etc. are considered to be excellent rifles and 200 rounds is considered to be a thorough test firing. There's really no understanding of what makes one rifle better than another other than this "fit and finish" concept. If the parts look the same, they must be the same.
The other extreme is some places are so caught up in specs that they spend all their time focused on things that don't matter. I used to be like this- Fortunately, I saw the light. I remember arguing with someone for a long time about how LMT was not as good as Colt or BCM because they don't parkerize under the FSB. Looking back that was a really stupid thing to even be worried about- Can anyone give any quantifiable reason why it is better to have parkerizing under the FSB? I certainly can't. Maybe it is more prone to rust, but if there is a little rust under there what's it going to hurt?
That's basically it... if you phrase your questions well here you get great answers. Other places either give you a "Just get an Olympic Arms and an NC Star scope, they're the same as a Colt and an ACOG" or a "Your LMT is a second rate AR compared to my Colt, and you might as well throw away your EoTech since it isn't as good as my ACOG."