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

  1.  @stealthnoid  Sorry, but you switched your argument. "Italian military individual weapons has been outdated until '90." is not "NATO military individual weapons has been outdated until '90". BTW the early studies on intermediate cartridges (IE for the Terni 1921) came from the experiences of thrench warfare and the need of automatic fire to clear trenches. When the Germans adopted the STG44 they already passed from fighting in the steppe to the forests of eastern Europe. The US switch to the M16 was due to the forests of Vietnam. In Afghanistan the GIs often found themself outranged with the M4, and had to dust off some M14. As a result of the perceived shortcomings of the 5.56 NATO, the US Army had just adopted another battle rifle, the SIG Spear. To me it's a mistake. The Spear has almost all the damning defects of the M14, and some more, but that demonstrates that the question had not been settled yet.
    3
  2.  @stealthnoid  It's not in opposition. It's only an elegant way to switch argument. Because if the argument was that battle rifles were outdated it would have been "battle rifles were outdated", not "Italian military individual weapons has been outdated until '90." if someone wants to say that gasoline cars are obsolete, doesn't say "Jason Smith's car is obsolete". And no. GIs were not amazed at all. The M16 had an atrocious reliability in Vietnam, due to the poor choice of the ammo's propellant. Still in the '80s the general opinion was that the M16 was a lemon. As already said: "the early studies on intermediate cartridges (IE for the Terni 1921) came from the experiences of thrench warfare and the need of automatic fire to clear trenches. When the Germans adopted the STG44 they already passed from fighting in the steppe to the forests of eastern Europe. The US switch to the M16 was due to the forests of Vietnam. In Afghanistan the GIs often found themself outranged with the M4, and had to dust off some M14. As a result of the perceived shortcomings of the 5.56 NATO, THE US ARMY HAD JUST ADOPTED ANOTHER BATTLE RIFLE IN A CARTRIDGE THAT'S MORE POWERFUL THAN THE 7.62 NATO, THE SIG SPEAR. To me it's a mistake. The Spear has almost all the damning defects of the M14, and some more, but that demonstrates that the question had not been settled yet." Can you get it?
    3
  3.  @stealthnoid  Put it how you want and invent any story about the M16 you want if that makes you feel more comfortable, but not pretend to sell it to others.
    3
  4. The water cooled HMGs of the time had the advantage of weight. Like in contemporary factory tools, the mechanic was so overbuilt in respect to the work they had to do that there were really few things that could go wrong. They worked until there were bullets and water. The Hotchkiss' mechanic was as reliable, but it was air cooled, so it could overheat. But it was not all peaches and dandelions for water cooled MGs. The weight prevented them to be used as offensive weapons, and the exposed water jacket was a liability. A bullet, or a splinter, on it, and the MG became useless, because the barrel was too thin to resist to more than few dozen of rounds without water.
    3
  5. Didn't you watch the video? The LF-57 came out first.
    3
  6. You can walk around it being rimmed and too much tapered, but why chose it over ammos that have the same power whithout being rimmed or too tapered?
    3
  7. It's not even that lefties-unfriendly. They only have to operate the charging handle from above. The important part is to perform all the recharging operation with the firing hand.
    3
  8.  @lobsterbark  They gain MUCH for the barrel lenght. In this case 13,5" vs. 19", 5.5" difference.
    3
  9.  @LilSwinney  The Canadians could have required to use their own ammos, had they thought they were necessary for their rifles to work. It was not like they had no say in the matter, but, as already said, "Canadian experts said the chamber of the Ross was already large enough to take the new British ammunition in a pinch, and the tighter fit could only increase accuracy anyway". If they didn't tell the Brits their rifles were useless without their ammunitions, are them the idiots, not the Brits.
    3
  10.  @LilSwinney  Canada is not exactly surrounded by the United Kingdom, and the Brits desperately needed the Canadian support, not the contrary. UK was not in position to impose anything, nor taxes, nor conscription, nor tariffs (they needed any ounce of materials from abroad, and they would have imposed tariffs? LOL!) nor they could intern some hundred of thousands of Canadian soldiers depriving the front of them (during WWI? Please...). Had the Canadians tought their ammos were useful to keep their rifles working, they could have easily kept them. Unfortunately they didn't "Canadian experts said the chamber of the Ross was already large enough to take the new British ammunition in a pinch, and the tighter fit could only increase accuracy anyway".
    3
  11. They used in WWII.
    3
  12. 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
  13.  @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
  14. Why? The clones hardly prevent Beretta from selling any gun (they are aimed to a lower market segment), while the existence of the clones testifies of the soundness of the design.
    3
  15. It's a specific problem of this sample, not a general one.
    3
  16. All the known pictures when the particular can be seen, all the surviving samples, and even some rusted sample found with a metal detector, show the safety still in place.
    3
  17. The italian three grades were "Figli della Lupa" (sons of the she-wolf), 6-8 years old, "Balilla" 9-14 years old, and "avanguardista" (vanguard) 15-18 years old.
    3
  18. 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
  19. Infact the P7A13 didn't even reach the cost comparison phase of the trial. It was eliminated because it fared atrociously in the reliability tests.
    3
  20. Mind that it's a long recoil weapon. The brass is ejected only by the spring tension when the barrel is pushed forward.
    3
  21. 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
  22.  @Never_heart  During WWII the Italians used 6.5 ammos, that didn't even use the same propellant of the 7.35 that supposedly had reliability issues (and that for some reason alredy became "super unreliable").
    3
  23. You messed up the chronology. Italy signed an armistice. After italy signed an armistice, the Germans occupied as much Italian territory as they could, and seized Italian army's equipment. Then, since the Germans had became an occupation army, Italy declared war to Germany. Italian armistice is Sept. 8 1943. Italian war declaration to Germany is Oct. 13 1943. More than a month later.
    3
  24. It won WWI It's more "How to know you’re on the losing side of a war: you’re issued a Mauser"
    3
  25. The first samples were real rifles, in 6mm Flobert or .22 Short. Then it was deemed too dangerous, and they were made blanks, but the barrles were probably never changed.
    3
  26. It occurred pretty often back then, IE for aerial torpedoes.
    3
  27. It's not really a problem of reliability. It's that the cost of the conversion was not really that much lower than that of a new rifle to justify it's adoption instead of a brand new rifle.
    2
  28. Actually the manufacturing standard and the machining of that gun, like that of any Breda made gun, is no less than perfect. You can question the design, but the realization is outstanding.
    2
  29. Infact that sight was only for field use, and was developed cause the weapon was intended to be used with a shield, the round plate was integral part of the protection and the "hole sight" was the only opening on the shield. On the aircrafts the round plate was not used, and a traditional circular "crosshair" round sight was adopted. Despite what's usually said, the Villar Perosa was not designed to be an MG for aircrafts. It had always be intended to be an infantry weapon. Only the first 350 samples produced were given to the aviation (that, at that time, was a branch of the army), cause the army wanted the manufacturer to be ready for mass production first to introduce it on the field.
    2
  30. I can see a lot of stovepipes with that relatively small eject window so far from the actual chamber. Apart from that, it seems a well tought design, with a remarkably low bore-axis.
    2
  31. No, cause there is the "out of battery" safety.
    2
  32. The Armaguerra 39 was adopted, but too late to be produced in numbers.
    2
  33. It's comparable to the Italian Navy adopting the Mauser C96 in 1899 (first large contract for that gun). While it took to the Army another 11 years to adopt a semiauto. The Army use much more of those weapons, and uses much more avery one of them, so, they have to think more about logistic and economy. For the Navy, in respect to the cost of just one of their floating toys, the price of few thousands handguns is immaterial.
    2
  34. At that time, and for many years later, US pilots usually carried revolvers in .38 Special.
    2
  35. "probably after advancing..." That had something to do with the fact that BOTH the Breda 30 and the BAR were used by 3 men crews? "Oh, and don't forget..." Really the Allied used them, The Brits even stamped an English manual for the British gunners equipped with the Breda 30. That's what the Tactical and Tecnical Trend (the magazine of the US Intelligence) No. 7, Sept. 10, 1942 "Use of Captured Italian Weapons" said of it : "The Breda light machine gun is similar to the British Bren gun. It is mechanically superior to the Bren gun under dusty conditions. It requires only one man to service it as compared to several for the Bren gun. It has a slightly higher rate of fire than the British weapon. Its disadvantages are that it has no carrying handle, cannot be fired on fixed lines, and has no tripod mounting." That was what the contemporaries, the ones that had to DAILY fight the weapon and use the captured ones, tought of it. Not the armchair opinion of someone that saw it once on a video. No hints of the oiler or the dust cover, or the loading procedure, to be problems at all.
    2
  36.  @robosoldier11  The Armaguerra 1939 had not been adopted, but approved for service. It means it could be distributed to the troops to test it on the field. As for not adopting anything, Italy is in company of practically everyone bar the US (the Soviets adopted one, but had to revert back).
    2
  37.  @robosoldier11  To me, as a technical enthusiast, both the Scotti action (the one you see in the Model X, it had been scaled up to 37mm automatic cannons) and the Breda gas action (the one you see in the Breda PG, that too had been scaled up to 37mm automatic cannons) were very good. The Scotti bolt was made of four pieces, with little precision machining required. The Breda of five, with only straight cuts. The Scotti rifle only required to fire from a closed bolt and a magazine to be a very good semiauto, and it's difficult to imagine a simpler one. But in 1939 Italy had 1/4 of the industrial output than Great Britain. There were budgetary constraints. France, that had other economic possibilities, adopted a new bolt action in 1936. In the same period, the US had something like 42% of the world's industrial output.
    2
  38. +mytmousemalibu All the weapons designed by Alfredo Scotti (7.7mm and 12.7mm aerial MGs and 20mm AA automatic gun) used a slight variation of the same action, but this one is the only one that, at least at this stage of development, required oiled cartridges. In 1939 the weapon was tested again to be adopted by the Italian Army, this time VS the Breda PG and the Armaguerra 39 (the winner). The Breda and the Armaguerra didn't require lubrication. It would be nteresting to know if the Scotti still required it at a more avanced development stage.
    2
  39. Great video, thanks. I always wanted to see a Scotti Model X in action.
    2
  40. It seems walnut.
    2
  41. Yes, it's currently in production.
    2
  42. It seems to be made mainly of stamped parts, and the ohters has very simple machining. Probably it was more apt to be mass produced in respect to the other breechlocked designs of its era. It makes sense if the plan was to provide handguns to all the soldiers of the army, and probably someone thought of it, since pistols proved to be more useful than bolt action rifles in trench fight (like almost anything really). However shotguns and SMGs proved to be better than pistols, so...
    2
  43. +Bojan Milankovic When the Italians designed the cartridge, round nose was the only option, since the spitzer rounds wee introduced later. Surely they could have switched to pointed cartridges at a certain point (spitzer rounds were used for marksmanship competitions), but, since the 6.5x52 cartridge had ever been on the verge of being replaced (first with the 7X40 of the Terni M.21, and then with the 7.35X51) the change has always been postponed. As for the power of the cartridge, with 2572J is perfectly comparable to other 6.5 service cartridges of the time as the 6.5 Arisaka (Japanese service cartridge), 6.5X53R (Romanian/Dutch service cartridge), 6.5X54 Mannlicher Shonauer (Greek service cartridge), not surprisingly, since many of them were direct copy of the 6.5X52 design (that's particularly true for the 6.5X53R and 6.5X54, That Mannlicher obtained from the cartridges' samples that were given to him to compete in the concourse for the design of the Italian service rifle), with only the 6.5X55 Swedish/Norwegian being slightly more powerful. More surprisingly, it's power is perfectly comparable to that of several of the most modern 6.5 rounds, as the 6.5 Grendel, or the 264 USA, that The US Army Marksmanship Unit is studying to replace both the 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm NATO, and whose case is even obtained from a shortened Carcano case.
    2
  44. The Villar Perosa had never been intended to be an aircraft weapon. The MG had been approved for infantry use in nov. 1915 (Italy entred in WWI in May 1915) and a first batch of 1600 weapons was ordered. Only the first 350 samples were given to the Air Corp (that, at that time, was a branch of the Army) cause the Army wanted it to be already in mass production first to distribute it to the troops. At the end of the conflict a total of14.564 MGs had been produced, and 836 millions of 9mm Glisenti round for them. The round metal spacer with the hole sight was an integral part of the shield intended for field use. The few that were used on aircraft had wire AA sights.
    2
  45. Sometimes inventors are simple guys. Sosso was probably fond of his work, and wanted to give samples of it to important personalities to make it known.
    2
  46. D8W2P4 Do you know the difference between .22LR and a .223 Rem?
    2
  47. D8W2P4 Really there isn't anything to "disprove". You brought no arguments in favor of bullpups other than they are short and that you like them. Instead you didn't disprove any evidence of their inherent defects. Moreover, you "showed" nothing. To write "looking at data online i see..." is not "showing".
    2
  48. D8W2P4 I already told of semiauto handguns infact. "The crappy trigger of the bullpups is due to the fact that the trigger is distant from the hammer/striker. It's the same reason why the trigger of the DA semiauto handguns tend to be crappier than that of the DA revolvers, but multiplied by 10. The problem can be reduced using better materials, more accurate fittings... but using the same materials and accuracy a conventional rifle's trigger will always be better."
    2
  49. D8W2P4 I said that, for the same technology, materials, ecc... employed, the trigger of the classic configuration rifles will always be better than that of the bullpups, and plenty explained why. " The problem can be reduced using better materials, more accurate fittings... but using the same materials and accuracy a conventional rifle's trigger will always be better."
    2
  50. D8W2P4 I already replied to that. Is not by chance that none designed a trigger group like the one you hypothesized (to be generous). Is not that at Steyr, FN, IWI and so on, are all idiots and you are the only one on the earth that know how to design weapons (or, better, to say "weld or bolt"). Is that "a metal fucking rod" is not an answer to the problem, for the reasons I already covered.
    2