Nicholas C

Co-Founder of KRISSTALK forums, an owner’s support group and all things KRISS Vector related. Nick found his passion through competitive shooting while living in NY. He participates in USPSA and 3Gun. He loves all things that shoots and flashlights. Really really bright flashlights.

Any questions please email him at nicholas.c@staff.thefirearmblog.com


Advertisement

  • lucusloc

    meh, underwhelming. Show me actual video of the manufacturing process and real slow-mo. CGI is only nice for the animated cutaways, otherwise use real footage.

    • TheSmellofNapalm

      God, you are such a loser.

      • lucusloc

        The term is “snob”, and yes, I am that in spades 🙂

        CGI is so prolific now days that it takes a lot to impress me. A 3D model imported into the rendering software of your choice and tarted up with some shiny default materials can be done by a student in a highschool animating class. I am more interested in footage of stuff I cannot get myself. If you are an ammo manufacturer and you show me this, instead of taking a real camera into your real factory of course I am going to be disappointing. The real stuff is so much more interesting than a cartoon CGI rendering.

        • Don

          No way, this beats the real ammo factory tour hands down… You’ve seen one ammo factory you have seen them all. They did an incredible job on the video!! You act like you can produce something of this caliber in your sleep, why don’t you humble us all and show us some of your high school video excellence Mr. Snob???

          • lucusloc

            I disagree. You can use CGI to help illustrate what is going on, but it will never be a substitute for actually showing me real footage. Of couse I am the guy who finds mrpete222 on youtube fascinating, so I probably do not fall into their target audience.

            Also, see my other post for why “show us yourself” is a dumb argument.

        • Graham2

          You might like to think of yourself as a “snob” but I think TheSmellOfNapalm got it right with “loser”. Please produce your own version of this animation and don’t forget to also show us exactly how easy it was, software used etc.

          • lucusloc

            Ah yes, the old “do it better” logical fallacy. Unfortunately I have not had access to either the software or the materials libraries since I left college, and I never cared enough to learn the freeware that has since become available. But that does not mean I cannot recognize the technical simplicity of how it was done.

            Tell me, when you point out bad gunplay in a Hollywood movie, do you friends tell you to put up or shut up as well? Do you also find it difficult to scrape together the capital to produce a big budget action film? Not exactly a valid demand is it? Does your lack of ability to create a big budget action flick invalidate your point that the actors know squat about gunplay?

            You may like this video. Good for you. Some people liked Mission: Impossible. I did not, and I voiced my opinion. Maybe you could articulate why you liked this video, and what its technical merits are, rather than flaming someone who has articulated why they find the video underwhelming.

            Here, I will start you off with some positive points: Smooth shades and lack of seam lines (they cleaned up their imported models, or built them entirely in the rendering engine), well blended compositions (the primer animation looked a little too “on top” for my taste, but that *could* have been a stylistic choice, instead of just the technically simpler choice) and silky smooth annotations (stylistically I really did like these).

  • MR

    I WANT TO SEE THAT IN A MOVIE THEATER. One of the trailers before an action movie, the soundtrack really feels like it should be in a theater setting.

    • Ripley

      CGI has evolved a bit since the Lord of War intro sequence.

  • Ripley

    Does it curve?

    • Mako_Dragoon

      No, It has “Stabilization grooves”.

  • JoshZ

    You know what the world doesn’t need? More match ammunition.

    • Steve_7

      Well, if you’re an American. Because that will only make their crappy YouTube videos cost more to make as they piss away ammo shooting at bottles of pop and grapefruits. However, some people actually think guns are only interesting if they’re accurate.

      • Well dang, better sell all my historical open bolt stuff.

        • Steve_7

          Accuracy is important with any firearm, open bolt or otherwise. I tend to think people don’t do it that often in YouTube videos because they’re afraid they’ll come across as being lousy shots, but some attempt at it is better than no attempt. Shooting pop cans 10 metres away tells you nothing.

          Geco pistol ammunition is really good, it went downhill a bit when RUAG took over but this stuff looks worth trying, but you’ll never see it in an American gun shop because it costs more than Winchester USA or whatever. And you don’t need it to perforate a B-27 target on a wobbly coat hanger at 5 yards.

  • Dukeblue91

    Nice video, they did a great job.
    I couldn’t tell but the bullet with the six grooves or whatever is that a hollow point ?

  • SCW

    The image focus is all over the place in this video. Even the “subtitles” go in and out of focus. Makes me feel cross eyed.

    • Amsdorf

      Quit your whining.

      • SCW

        You’re right…how dare I want something to be in focus. Racking the focus in and out adds Juhrama….dun, dun, duunnnnnn.

  • sam

    What about that off center ‘x’ on the base? Is that there on the other real ones? Prolly negligible effect, but still…

  • the_duck

    Directed by Michael Bay.

    • Giolli Joker

      Nope. Target didn’t explode.

    • some_guy

      It didn’t insult my intelligence so I don’t think he had anything to do with it.

      • Mako_Dragoon

        “Stabilization grooves” and “Golf ball effect” didn’t?

  • Steve_7

    Geco is actually a brand name for a Swiss manufacturer, RUAG bought out Dynamit Nobel ten years ago or so. A lot of the stuff that used to be sold under the Geco brand name is actually made at the RUAG plant in Thun nowadays.

  • Southpaw89

    Would’ve been nice if they showed how it expanded.

    • Giolli Joker

      It doesn’t seem to be designed to expand. It will probably do it but they don’t emphasize the presence of any bonding between lead core and jacket, so expansion can result in jacket detachment and poor performance.
      They sell it as match ammo, not a defense or hunting one.

  • CaptAmerica12 .

    Good Stuff.

  • Amsdorf

    Awesome graphic/video work.

  • Nebelwerfer

    I bought a few boxes of Hexagon last fall, and while the ammo is excellent, I didn’t think it’s worth the extra cost (0,50$ a round) compared to regular Geco 124grn FMJs (0,18$ at the time; around 0,23$ now). At long ranges (50m), there might be a noticeable increase in accuracy, but at 25m I can put 5 rounds of FMJ through the same hole in the target (on a good day), so there isn’t much for the Hexagon to improve upon.

    A few details that aren’t obvious in the video:
    – The bullets are hollow points, but they aren’t designed to expand. They are made that way to get the center of gravity further rearwards (comparable to rifle match bullets like the Sierra Match King). The jacked is star crimped to form the tip of the bullet.
    – They use the absolutely cleanest burning powder I’ve ever seen! The cases are squeaky clean inside after firing.

  • tsubaka

    It’s an really nice video, but it will be better if they use real footage for target shootings ´cause you can do what you want with GCI

    • MR

      I’d assume those target shot placements were taken from actual targets shot from the indicated distances, but you never know. I didn’t see any statements to that effect.

  • lucusloc

    Yeah, this non constructive insult flinging is annoying. I would not mind if it was easier to tell if it was good natured tongue-in-cheek ribbing or deliberate instigation (the lack of sarcasm tags makes it even more ambiguous). As for the real arguments, you don’t have to agree with what I say, but at least be constructive about that disagreement. I may not always say things in the nicest way, but I do try to offer a reason for my opinions (e.g. my initial post). It is even more hilarious when these spats happen over something as trivial as an online infomercial. I find the animation dated and uninspired, and would prefer to see footage of stuff I know they have access to (i.e. the real life manufacturing process and product testing). Others apparently really dig the old school CGI, or would like any format so long as the topic is interesting to them. Pilling on to support you side like there are separate clubs based on how much you like this one video is silly.

  • Two

    1:45 slider in rear position while bullet is still in barrel…

  • Charles Applegate

    What’s that twist rate – 7 turns in an inch?