Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Forgotten Weapons" channel.

  1. The original Glisenti load was almost identical to the original 7.65 Parabellum load (since, like the 9mm Parabellum, it derived from that cartridge, but the designers of the MBT, differently from those of the DWM, didn't took advantage of the larger case to enhance the load), so, 1/4 less than the 9mm para load (literally, 3.3 grains Bullseye is a good 9mm glisenti load, and 4.4 grains Bullseye is a typical 9mm para load). However, during WWI, 9mm Glisenti loads had been enhanced, since the cartridge was primarly used in the Villar Perosa SMG, and blowback SMGs are pretty strong actions. For example, USCco, during the war, made for the Italian Army a batch of 84 million Glisenti cartridges loaded with 4 grains bullseye, that's only 10% less than a typical 9mm para load. Those "hot" cartridges were not especially marked, and were in the Army magazines, so, a 9mm Glisenti pistol made in the '20s had to be safe to shoot them too. So, what happens if you tries to shoot a load that's 10% hotter than what the pistol is designed to handle? Nothing extraordinary. We are still in the safety margins of any pistol design. When the Beretta designers declared that the pistol could handle a 9mm para cartridge (obviously not +P or +P+, that didn't existed at that time), they were not mad or irresponsible. Simply YOU ARE PUTTING UNNECESSARY STRAIN IN AN ACTION THAT WAS DESIGNED FOR MILDER LOADS, and that is 90 years old too. In the long run, you'll almost surely have some damage in the action. Most likely in the slide. Moreover, if the recoil spring has weakened with time, you'll probably have some overpressure problem with the cases, and even some case head failure.
    3
  2. The 9mm Glisenti is more powerful by far. The 9mm Glisenti is slightly more powerful than the 9mm Makarov.
    3
  3. Their most famous action had probably been the 1985 Fiumicino Airport attack, when 3 out of 4 Palestinians AK47 armed terrorists were killed, and the fourth captured, by the Airport Security guards, armed with the PM-12S.
    3
  4. Simply THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND, so none felt the urge to improve it. Prototypes of single barrel, stocked versions came out since 1916, but they were not put in production until late 1917 and not used until march 1918. It's meaningful that the Austrians copied it exactly as it was.
    3
  5. Again IT HAD NEVER BEEN INTENDED TO BE AN AIRCRAFT GUN. Less than two-hundred samples of more than 14.000 built saw limited use on aircrafts (at that time the Air Corp was a branch of the Army) waiting for the model to be in full scale production first than distributing it to the troops. The weapon was designed to be a point weapon. Like a long range shotgun. Put it to ward obligatory passages (alpine trails, openings in the barbed wire) and, when an enemy shows up, throw a short burst in his direction. THE WEAPON WAS MADE TO BE USED WITH A SHIELD. THAT'S WHY IT HAD THAT ROUND SPACER AND THAT SIGHT. THAT SIGHT WAS LITERALLY THE ONLY HOLE IN THE SHIELD. Obviously, in the shield, it was plenty stable. https://modernfirearms.net/userfiles/images/smg/smg127/villar-perosa_1915_3.jpg DO YOUR RESEARCHES FOR GOD'S SAKE!
    3
  6.  @JohnDoe-nf7up  "We have a trusted and true design that anyone wants and commands incredible prices on the used market. We just need to put it in production as is". "Yeah but, out of nostalgia goggles, the original trigger group was not that good." "Right! We are Colt. Now we can make it way worse!".
    3
  7. Other than being spitzers (so ineherently more unstable in the body than round nose bullets like the 6.5 the Italians used up until that moment) the 7.35 Italian rounds, under the jacket, had an alluminium tip and a lead tail. That moved the center of gravity further back, ensuing the tumbling of the bullet into che flesh.
    3
  8. You are welcome! :)
    3
  9. The ammunition quality issue is often repeated, but unsourced. There is no proof that the 381/50 shot worse in battle than in trials. The same pictures taken by the British at Gaudo shows a longitudinal dispersion of about 2% of the distance of the Italian salvos, that, at that time, was considered good by any navy even in trials (US Navy experienced a 2.2% dispersion from the 16"/45 in 1941, and a 1.9% dispersion of the 16"/50 still in 1944 and they didn't have the low trajectory of the Italian 381), and the Vittorio Veneto was running at 28 knots. The delay coils were installed on the Littorio class battleships in 1942, further tightening the patterns.
    3
  10. "less than 25 ounces".
    3
  11.  @heycidskyja4668  They fit what definition of intermediate cartridge if they are in the same energy ballpark of full power cartridges? Other sources describe them as not intermediate cartridges. Hence the problem. Other than your evident comprehension ones.
    3
  12.  @heycidskyja4668  To you. To others they aren't. Hence the problem.
    3
  13.  @heycidskyja4668  The power defines the purpose. Hence, every time a cartridge like the 6.5 Grendel, the 6.8 SPC, the .270 British, etc, is proposed as service cartridge, you see the debate "it's an intermediate cartridge / it's not an intermediate cartridge".
    3
  14.  @heycidskyja4668  Fact is that there were practically two classes of service cartridges at the time. The "7-8mm, over 3000 joules energy at the muzzle" (30-06, 8mm Mauser, .303 British, 7.62X54r...) and the "6.5mm, from 2200 to 3000 joules energy at the muzzle" (Carcano, Arisaka and so on). Modern service "intermediate" cartridges are below 2200 joules power, so it wouldn't be a problem, but practically all the cartridges proposed to solve the 5.56-7.62 dualism belong to the old "6.5mm 2200-3000 joules" category. So the problem. Are, IE, 6.8 SPC, or 6.5 Grendel, intermediate cartridges? They are made to be shot from an AR15 platform. But, power wise, they are in the "old service 6.5 rounds" category.
    3
  15. In a delayed blowback gun, ANY system (roller, lever, radial, gas...) the bolt/slide starts to travel rearwards the same moment the round is fired. The delay only makes so that the movement is slow enough that the bullet exits from the barrel before the case had been stretched enough to break it (the function that the simple mass of the bolt has in a pure blowback system). Then, in the case of the first gun shown here (the Steyr GB) it’s rather questionable if an opening half way through the barrel, from where the spilled gas has to fill a relatively large space can really act to delay the opening of the action until pressure drops to safe level. Probably it acts just like a buffer, preventing the slide to slam into the frame at a speed dangerous for the integrity of the gun (and detrimental for the comfort of the shooter), while the action is largely a pure blowback.
    3
  16.  @sthenzel  The Beretta was made to shoot the super-hot m38 cartridge (around 20% hotter than the standard 9X19), so to shoot standard Parabellum rounds is pure relax for the action.
    3
  17. +Adrian Larkins First, there is brand power. Mauser was very good at selling his products, that were generally good, but sometimes not so exceptional, and the C96 is a sample of the latters. Second, the C96 was a 1896 design, when semiauto pistols were in their infancy. In 1910 there were many other design to compete with. Third, concauses. The C96 had not been really a success until WWI (it won contracts only for 7000 guns until then), but the fact that it had been round for 20 years (known design), the fact that Mauser had the capability to deliver them, and the hurry of the war made that the Austrian and German governments ordered 50.000 and 150.000 guns respectively in 1916. At that point the success of the broomhandle was secured, while in 1916, the Vitali 1910 was already a forgotten prototype.
    3
  18.  @derekakaderek  What you copied and pasted, conveniently leaving out the part about the gun "was quite well made, and worked very well". was not what you said before. So, how do you passed from: "It was quite well made, and worked very well. It just never managed to be at the right place and the right time, and was never adopted by any organizations of significance" (that's his report) to "it was not adopted because it was cheap?" I'm curious about the way a brain can change the meaning of a statement like that. Again. Several police agencies adopted this pistol. IAN CLEARLY STATES THAT AT 10:20. Jerusalem's Police was among them. I bet you think they didn't know that they were doing and needed your expertise to make a better choice.
    3
  19.  @derekakaderek  And how you started from "It was quite well made, and worked very well. It just never managed to be at the right place and the right time, and was never adopted by any organizations of significance" (that's his report) and arrived to "it was not adopted because it was cheap?" I'm curious about the way a brain can change the meaning of a statement like that. Again. Several police agencies adopted this pistol. IAN CLEARLY STATES THAT AT 10:20. Jerusalem's Police was among them. I bet you think they didn't know that they were doing and needed your expertise to make a better choice.
    3
  20.  @derekakaderek  Ian read on his report that several police agencies adopted this pistol. Jerusalem's Police was among them. I bet you think they didn't know that they were doing and needed your expertise to make a better choice. Body guards don't "adopt" pistols. Try again.
    3
  21.  @derekakaderek  Several police agencies adopted it. The Jerusalem Police among those. But I bet you think they didn't know that they were doing and needed your expertise to make a better choice. Been there, seen it.
    3
  22.  @derekakaderek  And when exactly did you test the weapon to know it's not "proper"? What are the bases of that statement?
    3
  23. Most of the magazine fed LMGs had top mounted magazine, while many SMGs, until the end of WWII had lateral ones. That was not cause they wanted them to be strange, but cause, to fire in prone position, bottom magazines are a nuisance, much more than offset sights (that really are not a problem at all in a MG of any kind).
    3
  24. You have to handload them. However it's one of the easiest ammo to handload, since the 9mm Glisenti is dimentionally identical to the 9mm Parabellum, but with 1/4 less load. (IE, a recommended load for the 9mm glisenti is 3.3 grs Bullseye, and a recommended one for the 9mm Para is 4.4 grs Bullseye). The 9mm Glisenti always used truncated cone bullets.
    3
  25. When it was used, it was not only decent. It was the best.
    3
  26. This gun has never been designed to be an aircraft SMG. It only happened that the first 350 samples (of over 14.000 produced) had been given to the Air Force (that, at that time, was a branch of the Army) cause the Army wanted the weapon ready to be mass produced first to start to field it. The MGs used on the aircrafts had a different mounting, without the round plate and with normal aerial sights. The round plate was intended to be used on the field with the shield. When used with the shield, the plate was integral part of the protection, and the hole sight was the only opening in it. Its rate of fire serves the same purpose of the 1200 rpm ROF of the MG-42. they both had not been designed for suppression fire (heavy MGs were intended for that role), but to cover obligatory passages (through the barbed wires, or the mountain trails) and fire only when you actually see the enemy. Since the enemy is no stupid, he is visible only for a brief time, and, for this, a huge ROF is required to hit him. In 1916 Capt. Bassi, creator of the Arditi, begun to use it, without the shield, to clear the enemy trenches. A stretch ot trench is 20m long at best. With a single burst of the Villar Perosa you can saturate it without even seeing. That's useful, since the assaults were often performed at night.
    3
  27.  @lobsterbark  They gain MUCH for the barrel lenght. In this case 13,5" vs. 19", 5.5" difference.
    3
  28. TV: "We made this ammo. It weighs 30% less than it's brass counterpart, doesn't use strategic materials, provides more muzzle speed for the same pressure, keeps the receiver cooler, every .308 weapon can shoot it only with a barrel change". US Army. "Too bad. We wanted an higher pressure .308 not compatible with anything we already have".
    3
  29. Another useless M14 chosen for the same flawed reasons.
    3
  30. Yeah. The fin on the bolt carrier is only a further safety, that the tray can't move as long as the bolt is forward. That was probably needed because the loader can insert the trays one after the other (so with the one he had in hand pushing the one firing) and he could have been too energic.
    3
  31. No, Breda was the surname of the founder of the company, Ernesto Breda. There are several "Breda" town in Italy (IE, Breda Di Piave).
    3
  32. They used in WWII.
    3
  33.  @kino_61  "The Gloster Gadiator was way better" in what exactly? It was 34km/h slower than the Cr.42, it had 100km shorter range, it had worse armament. The Cr.42 could also carry bombs, the Gladiator couldn't.
    3
  34.  @hendriktonisson2915  So you talk about GPMGs because, during WWII, five years after the adoption of this MG, had been designed a single GPMG that influenced others? The Americans were using water cooled M1917 still in Korea. The Goryunov sg-43 had been adopted in 1943. Does it resemble more this one, or the MG42? In reality, the "GPMG" concept never imposed itself. The GPMGs you are talking of, today, are used almost exclusively as vehicular MGs. Are you that stated that loading a strip was a disadvantage. It wasn't. Loading Breda's strips was faster than loading belts, so it wasn't a disadvantage. It doesn't count if it was much or not that much faster.
    3
  35. Judging from the sound, it seems to be substantially subsonic, not only barely subsonic.I bet the books are right.
    3
  36. It's a specific problem of this sample, not a general one.
    3
  37. Mike Lilienthal Oh my god... It doesn't requires any special skill or material to fire 9mm para instead of 9mm Glisenti ANY PISTOL CARTRIDGE IS WEAK. Simply the Glisenti 1910 pistol was originally designed, and dimensioned, to fire 7.65 Parabellum cartriges. When the Army didn't deemed the 7.65 to be a viable military cartridge, and required weapons in 9mm instead, MBT (that aquired the design from Glisenti in the meantime) simply necked the 7.65 Para round to 9mm without changing the load, so that it could produce 9mm weapons simply changing the barrel. Power-wise, the 9mm Glisenti was on par with many service rounds adopted in the same period, or later.
    3
  38. Leave it to the Italians to INVENT the entire SMG thing BTW. The other can laugh, after having copied it.
    3
  39. +Coal fired paradise I'm pretty sure they could have licence produced something better spending less. To design a new gun, even a bad gun, is more expensive than to acquire a production licence, even if you have the know-how. To have to form a design board from scratch, even an incompetent one, is even more expensive. There were political reasons in selecting a national product (pretty silly, since they already came form a Belgian design).
    3
  40. +Alan Taggart +Grand Gousier However, the French had been the first to try to even the playfield, equipping the infantry with mass portable automatic fire, in the form of the Chauchat.
    3
  41. In this case, the disassembly is really similar to that of the M1 Carbine, and sometimes Ian does errors. In this case, IE, to unscrew the rear screw was completely unnecessary, like it is in the M1 Carbine.
    3
  42. The competing design, the Franchi LF-58, was rated at exactly 520 RPM, so this was probably in the same ballpark.
    3
  43. Mind that it's a long recoil weapon. The brass is ejected only by the spring tension when the barrel is pushed forward.
    3
  44. Didn't you watch the video? The LF-57 came out first.
    3
  45. It's the MPL that's similar to this.
    3
  46. It's the Walther that looks like this. The Franchi came out before.
    3
  47. Bakelite
    3
  48. The Star Model BM (that's a simplified 1911) is around since 1972, and the IMBEL 9 (that's a real 1911) since 1973. The original colt Commander (1949) was in .38 Super.
    3
  49. Here the experimental Scotti LMG using the same action (here the aerial version, there were versions with buttstock too). https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/6f/8e/716f8e33be4f124274a6de9457462b65.png
    3
  50. +Helghastdude Beretta 34, M91, MAB38, Breda PG, Breda 37, Breda 38, Breda SAFAT, Breda 20/65... No really successful semiauto rifle had been designed until the end of the 30s. IE, until the end of the 20s John Garand wasted ten years playing with a quirky primer acutated blowback design, then switched to gas actuated, the rifle was adopted, after seven years of ironing out problems, in 1937, but the M1 became really reliable only with a last modification done three years after its introduction, in early 1940. Probably this rifle is closer to be a good service rifle than a M1 prototype of the same year.
    3