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

  1.  @GigAnonymous  That was Automatic Rifle. Since there weren't other kinds of automatic rifles, there wasn't need of a specific term for the full blow ammo ones.
    2
  2.  @buckleyjteams  It has to be said that, while the definition of "assault rifle" came with the first of them to be adopted, that of "battle rifle" is quite recent. It had ben coined in the '80s, along with "scout rifle" and some other. It somewhat stuck, but it's not strictly a military term.
    2
  3.  @pdalia  ​ The Gewehr 41 was an abomination made in 1941 (so not near the end of the war) that was later corrected by copying the Soviet SVT40 (Gewehr 43). The fact that the Germans (like the Italians, Belgians, Czech and so on) made some good design doesn't mean that they make only good designs. A lot of manufacturers make good barrels.
    2
  4. Air-cooled, fires from a closed bolt, and it hasn't a quick exchange barrel = It's a magazine cook-off waiting to happen.
    2
  5. air-cooled, fires from a closed bolt, and it hasn't a quick exchange barrel = It's a magazine cook-off waiting to happen.
    2
  6. Not only the price. I can't figure out a DA/SA, metal framed, semiauto pistol that had some market success (and many that hadn't) in the '80s (and this one hit the market already in the '90s) that was worse than this. Worse takedown than any? Check. Low capacity? Check Heavy? Check. Fragile? Check. Crappy trigger? Check. ... Talking only of metal framed SA/DA guns in .45 ACP this thing got out contemporary to the Beretta Cougar (the base of the actual PX4) and the Tanfoglio TA90 (base of all the current Tanfoglio and IWI Jericho/Baby Eagle lines).
    2
  7. Why are they looking backward? It seems like they are laughing at the shooter.
    2
  8. Since it would have been a good move, it would have been very un-Colt-like.
    2
  9. The FBI adopted the 10mm for a short time, but had soon to move to lighter loads, and then they replaced it with 40S&W, that had the same load they were using, but, being shorter, could be used on standard 9mm frames. It was not a question of small hands. it's a question that agents are not gun enthusiasts. When the 10mm was adopted, the FBI standard issue was the 357 mag revolver, but much agents, with permission, loaded them with .38 Special +p ammos, because they didn't like to train with the 357 mag. That's the problem. When you adopt a round that's uncomfortable to shoot, agents reduce the training time to the bare minimum, and that degrades their performances on the field much more than the more powerful caliber can enhance.
    2
  10. Yeah. Under the name of Mailechort it was widely used to jacket the projectiles too, and the color of mailechort jacketed rounds of that period is very similar.
    2
  11.  @grc70  there were plenty of MAB38 magazines around, and they were pretty well made too (double stack, bouble feed).
    2
  12. No firearm (any single sample) can be sold by an Italian manufacturer without having been tested by a public proof house. The rifles obviously worked and cycled without signs of overpressure even when proofloaded. They had not been tested for field use, that requires different tolerancies than for range use. That was something that the designer should have taken into account when designing the rifle. Not something that the manufacturer could adjust by arbitrarily changing the given specs.
    2
  13.  @samobispo1527  200.000 guns had been made. 19.000 went to the Dominican Army, the rest had been sold abroad. So it had been better to produce it.
    2
  14.  @samobispo1527  Given away for free vs. sell the cars you produce to others and not being dependent to others for spare parts. Better to produce anyway.
    2
  15. Is like saying "why bother to have a car industry when you can buy used Fords".
    2
  16. Because they didn't want to make it blatant that the rule was intended only to make the .45 ACP (or better, the 1911) to remain relevant in the competition.
    2
  17. They simply wanted the 1911 to stay relevant in the competition, so they decided to use momentum (mass for speed) instead of energy (mass for the square of speed). The heavier .45 ACP projectiles have higher momentum than standard 9mm Luger, and even .38 Super. You need to reach the energy level of a .357 Magnum to have almost the same momentum of a .45 ACP in a 9mm.
    2
  18. During WWII, and after, they manufactured fuses for artillery shells.
    2
  19. The S has some change over the previous model. The combined safety-decocker feature, different lenght of the levers, and the separated plastic grips instead of the one-piece wooden grip.
    2
  20.  @derekakaderek  While I said that professionals, in any field, tend to use the tools that, as Ernest Langdon said about his Savage .22LR rifle, "you can spend a ridicolous amount more, and not get any more gun". Amateurs are most likely to spend insane amounts of money on fancy stuff that does marginally better something and worse something else.
    2
  21.  @victorpapillon1487  Bernardelli too.
    2
  22. the look is clearly inspired by the SIG P220, and quite different from anything 1911ish. At least anything 1911ish that was available in the early '80s.
    2
  23. Conventional slide, not internal slide. The trigger group is different. It has a firing pin block (CZ75 acquired it only in 1992, with the "b") and a decocker. The "barrel guide slot" is similar because both derived it from the SIG P210.
    2
  24. Really there have been nothing "experimental" in the field use of the Villar Perosa. The MG had been approved for infantry use in nov. 1915 and a first batch of 1600 weapons was ordered. At the end of the conflict a total of14.564 MGs had been produced, and 836 millions of 9mm Glisenti round for them.
    2
  25. Blair Maynard The MG42was arguably the most advanced MG of WWII. This is WWI, and had to be compared with other MGs of WWI. However, the MG42 was usually fed with a 50 rounds belt. The job of a defensive MG in WWI was: 1) the enemy artillery barrage begins. You have to rapidly dismount the MG and take cover. The Villar Perosa was light and apt for this. 2) the enemy artillery barrage ends. You have to rapidly redeploy the weapon, cause the enemies are already running at you. The Villar perosa is light and apt for this. 3)The enemies are approaching, not from were they wants, but through obligatory passages that had been opened through the barbed wire, or through mountain trails. You have to aim at those. But the enemies are not idiots. Any of them is visible only for few instants. In those instants you spray a short burst at them and saturate that position. The Villar perosa has an high rate of fire, and is apt for this. In defense, the Villar Perosa acts as a long-range shotgun. As for the offensive role. From 1916 to 1918. the Villar Perosa was not "good" or "bad". It was THE ONLY ONE. It was, and by far, the best thing around for the SMG job, whithout any competition. Infact the Austrians copied it, double barrel, tripod and all. They didn't thought it could have been done better. Cause it was already the best. But if you prefer to jump into an enemy trench with a bolt action rifle, your choice. I'll go with the SMG, even if it's not perfect. Besides, 2 seconds for a 20m trench are an eternity.
    2
  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. As for the rate of fire, it 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.
    2
  27. Infact that sight was only for field use, and was developed cause the weapon was intended to be used with a shield, so the hole sight matched the hole in the shield. On the aircrafts a traditional circular "crosshair" sight was used. 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
  28. 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
  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. To think that nowadays 10mm Auto is fired by compact polymer-framed guns (IE Tanfoglio Force/Witness Polymer).
    2
  31. If you want to fire less, you can use less ammo bearers. An MMG is a crew served weapon, and it's more important than 9, or 90, bolt action rifles.
    2
  32.  @tatumergo3931  Not really. The concept of the automatic weapon as the centre of the infantry formation came form the observations on WWI, and is typically European. In WWII it was not only of the Germans, but also of the Brits and even of the Italians. The weapons were different, but the concept was the same. That's why, IE, all of them concentrated more on the development of the automatic firearm than on the infantry rifle. From this concept comes that the automatic weapon is a crew-served weapon. All the infantry squad is a squad of ammo and spare parts bearer for the automatic weapon. The American concept, that still persists, is that of the infantry squad as a squad of riflemen with the automatic weapon as support. That's why, IE, the US, in WWII, had an exceptional rifle, and a subpar LMG. That's why the XM250 had just been selected as SAW for the US Army. The ideal of the Ordnance Corp is to have the MG served by a single men. The XM250 doesn't even have an attachment point for the tripod, because none is going to carry a tripod, nor a quick exchange barrel, because none is going to carry a spare barrel. The MG gunner is going to carry all the belts for the gun, and the 400 rounds he can carry in total are not going to overheat the barrel.
    2
  33. Nine guys were needed to CARRY THE AMMOS. Do you think those grow spontaneously alongside the MG (in canvas belts)? A MMG (HMG then) could fire THOUSANDS of ammos in a single action. Were you planning to carry them with three guys?
    2
  34. The MG 34 was milled, and VERY complex and expensive to manufacture. What's really expensive is not milling (every one of millions of M1 Garands, or tens of millions of bolt action rifles used in WWII, was milled) but precision milling.
    2
  35. Two. The 7.35 had been aborted due to the start of the war. Both Sweden and Norway did the same, keeping the 6.5 for rifle duty and developing a specialized MMG round, while Nederlands kept the 6.5 for rifle duty and adopted the 8mm Mauser as MMG round. US instead had one rifle and one carbine cartridge, and the Germans one rifle and one "sturmgewehr-volkssturmgewehr" cartridge. Japan had the most confusion, with the 6.5mm and 7.7mm rounds both used for rifles.
    2
  36.  @aaronwilkinson8963  And how many ammos does it has with two people carrying gun, tripod and ammos? What's the effective firing range from the bipod, if you choose to not carry the tripod? If you are limiting an MG to the number of rounds two (or one!) people can carry along with the gun and tripod (and a spare barrel I hope), you are seriously misusing it. Reality is that the FN MAG, today, is rarely seen not placed on a fixed position, or mounted on a vehicle, but today is not WWII. In WWII the thousands of rounds a MG could fire in a single action had to be CARRIED BY SHOULDER. And, as soon as a vehicle is no more available, that's still true today. Of that 9 men crew, three carried the weapon, the spare barrel, the tripod and all the accessories needed to mantain the weapon. The other six were ammo bearers AND any of them had a carbine and ammos for it. It's not that, while the ammo fired and two people (gunner and loader) were servicing it directly, the others were doing nothing.
    2
  37. MGs are crew served weapons. The pretense they are not always led (and keeps on leading) to problems.
    2
  38. It's a tale. And not told for the Breda 37 only. It seems that, since the Breda 30 lubricated cartridges, then all the Italian MGs had to lubricate the cartridges. The manual actually advises soldiers to NOT lubricate the ammos for any reason.
    2
  39. So why this is made with so few parts?
    2
  40.  @robertmaheu7583  The Germans first called it M88/8 (“case type based on military model 88 / nominal caliber 8 mm”) then, after Mauser modified it, it 8x57J and 8x57JS (spitzer) and those are still the official CIP definitions, dating back well before WWII.
    2
  41.  @robertmaheu7583  And what does the "signal magazine you have" counts for? You could have brought your granny's opinion for that matter.
    2
  42. No such thing as 7.92 Mauser in WWII. The Germans rarely designated it 7.9, and more often only by the kind of ammo (S. Patrone, s.S Patrone...).
    2
  43. Then the 9 soldiers came under fire from a PKM on a tripod over a km afar and discover not only their assault rifles, but also their SAW firing from a bipod, are as useful as blowguns.
    2
  44. It's stripped by the top of the bolt. The fin is an additional safety. It prevents the strip to be pushed in too energically by the loader.
    2
  45.  @hendriktonisson2915  The problem is exactly that you are jumping back and forth between now and WWII. "that is the reason why no one used feed strips after WW2" We are not using WWII belts either for that matter. The belts we use NOW are different form the WWII ones. Belts had to EVOLVE to phase out strips. "To my knowledge in WW2 MG ammo was not always distributed in belts and the usage of disintegrating belts was limited to aircraft MGs so reloading belts was quite common." NOT UNDER FIRE. IT WAS A BACKLINE ACTIVITY and it was made with belt loaders. The difference with the Breda 37 strip loader, is that the Breda 37 strip loader is faster than any manual belt loader I've seen. "Most GPMGs do not really require constantly holding the belt" NOW (and why the hell are you talking about GPMGs? This is a WWII MG). In WWII an MG jamming was not a question of "if", nor of "when". It was a question of "how often" and, since holding the belt reduced the jammings, it was done every time possible. Actually to change a belt requires MUCH morte time than simply keeping on inserting strips one after the other. The Breda Strips can be inserted without stopping fire at all. Again GPMG? GPMG are what's used NOW. This is a WWII MG!
    2
  46.  @hendriktonisson2915  For the last one, it's a completely made-up problem. Were the crews of belt-fed machine guns supposed to reload spent belts? This MG was made PRECISELY for sustained fire. It was a MG made specifically for suppressive fire (while, IE, the MG42 was a point weapon, and German Gunners were instructed to not use it for suppressive fire) because, as said, to insert the strips one after the other reduces the dead times in respect to changing belts.
    2
  47. An improvement over the flimsy, ill-conceived and unreliable M60, but too heavy for what it does. The PKM provides the same service weighting 3kg less and with the only downside of a slower barrel change.
    2
  48. No rifle caliber produces more than 10.000 joules of energy.
    2
  49. Italy is the second industrial powerhouse in the EU. When Germany wanted to lift the lockdown, German car manufacturers advised Merkel that they couldn't resume production, because italy was still in lockdown, so they could not receive the Italian made parts of their cars. "some Beretta products are acceptable"? Ask to the Argentine outfitters, whose shotguns fire thousands of ammos a day with sketchy mainteinance, what shotguns they rent, to make sure the customer doesn't have to stop hunting due to a jammed or broken weapon. When there is serious work to do, there is one shotgun manufacturer. The others are amateurs.
    2
  50. Not Steyr, but Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher, that was the designer of the system. He was paid 500.000 Lire (that was a HUGE sum at the time) to use the design in 1891, and that was all. Mannlicher, that was also the designer of one of the initial models of rifles, that were not adopted, repaid the Italians by stealing the design of the test cartridges that were sent to him, only changing them enoug to not infringe the patent. The initial ones, rimmed, became the 6.5X53r (Dutch and Romanian service cartridges) and the rimless ones became the 6.5X54 Mannlicher–Schönauer (Greek service cartridge).
    2