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

  1.  @atomicsmith  It's not a mith, it's how physics works. What you call "mechanical disadvantage" is only the mechanical disadvantage of moving a mass. No mass, no disadvantage. The "mass of at least 20lbs to adequately slow a 5.56 casing down" is out of this world. A VERY SAFE formula to calculate blowback bolts weight is to assume a 4m/s bolt velocity is safe, then the required bolt mass is: bolt mass in pounds = 1.09×10-5 * bullet mass in grains * bullet velocity in fps * (diameter of bolt face / diameter of bullet base). According to this formula, .223 Rem requires a 7 pounds bolt. In reality this formula is well known to give bolt masses that are far too high and become exceedingly higher as the power of the round increases. IE, according to this formula, 1.7 pound is required for 9mm Parabellum and 2.3 pounds for .45 ACP. Reality is that it requires a minumum of just 10 ounces for 9mm and 12 ounces for .45 ACP. The reason you don't see direct blowback in rifle calibers is that the mass required is is just too large, but it doesn't come even close to the mass you think is required. The lever of the FAMAS is roughly 3 o 1, thats also the limit where a lever delayed blowback stop working because the difference between too little and too much delay becomes too narrow. The spring rate is static, it doesn't change with acceleration. That's why it's not even considered when calculating the bolt's mass.
    2
  2.  @atomicsmith the only mechanical advantage created by the lever is that the carrier has to move at a faster pace than the bolt, so exchanging mass for speed. The ratio of the pace is decided by the ratio of the leverage. Actually the weight of the bolt carrier is a MAJOR factor in those designs (see for example that of the FAMAS, that's all but "negligible") because the lighter the carrier, the higher the leverage ratio needed to obtain a safe enough locking, but the higher the leverage ratio, the narrower the difference from too early and too late opening. That's why the AA52 is the appreciated and trouble-free French GPMG since 1952 (because a 10kg GPMG can have a quite hefty bolt, that doesn't need so much leverage ratio to delay it's opening) while the FAMAS, that had more stringent weight requirements had a troubled development process (the F1 couldn't even safely fire NATO standard munitions).
    2
  3. On the commercial (not a Beretta original) BM59 is caused by the fact that the Garand barrels they used had several gas port sizes, from .95" to .120", but in a BM59 configuration a gas port below .110" is not enough to cycle the rifle. In the Breda PG, and several others antiques, the problem likely is a worn out magazine spring, that doesn't lift the next round fast enough.
    2
  4. A minority of them is caused by the design. IE, as said, the BM59 is a copy, not even a Beretta original. The jamming is caused by the fact that the Garand barrels they used had several gas port sizes, from .95" to .120", but in a BM59 configuration a gas port below .110" is not enough to cycle the rifle. In the Breda PG, and several others antiques, the problem likely is a worn out magazine spring, that doesn't lift the next round fast enough. Those magazines were not made to be used for decades.
    2
  5. This is a modern copy made in .45, not an original Luger. Same for the BM59, it's not an original Beretta made.
    2
  6. It seems walnut.
    2
  7. Not really. The rifle is quite simple. The bolt and gas assembly is one of the simplest I've ever seen. Simply, like almost every bolt action rifle up to then, and several semiauto rifle after then (See the Gew.43 for example), this rifle is not made to have the trigger group and the receiver removed often from the stock (that's why they are fixed with screws). While the parts that require cleaning (bolt and gas ports) and have to be replaced more often ( almost universally the recoil spring) are very easily reachable.
    2
  8. +Charles Inglin The short stroke piston isn't really needed (IE the Beretta BM59 had a long stroke one, and worked pretty well). The rifle had been made in 6.5X52 Carcano and 7x57 Mauser that, thus being full blown cartridges, develop about 1/3 less energy than a 30-06 Springfield or a 7.62 NATO and, weighting the rifle a kg more than a M14, it was probably enough to make the burst controllable . To me it's a pretty viable battle rifle, or an equivalent of the BAR with half the weight.
    2
  9. Thanks to you. Unfortunately, Ian decided to disassemble the rifle (that was required to show the burst mechanism) without showing first how a field strip (that covers all the usual manteinance of the rifle, and 99% of the emergency operations) was supposed to be done. That gave the impression of the design to be complicated. Field strip (remove the muzzle cover and expose the gas ports, chamber and piston for cleaning; remove the recoil spring for inspection/replacing; remove the bolt assembly for cleaning/replacing the firing pin) is actually very easy and can be done in seconds without tools. Disassembly requires more time, but it has to be said that almost all the bolt action and semiauto rifles' designs until that point, and several later, were not supposed to have the receiver and trigger group removed from the stock that often. That's why they were screwed to it. When Ian reviewed the Gew. 41 and 43 for example, he didn't remove them. Otherwise there would have been several screws to remove as well. An M1 Garand, for example, is made with a completely different philosopy. The rifle can be easily disassembled, but is not really field-strippable. To remove the bolt from the receiver, you have to completely take the rifle apart (and pay attention to several small parts).
    2
  10. The gun in itself is fairly simple. The count of the parts of the gas system, the bolt assembly and the trigger group (bar the burst device, that's an added part) is actually very low.
    2
  11. This rifle is actually very simple, with a very low parts count. The filed strip can be made in seconds without tools (that's not a given at that time). Simply Ian decided to do a complete disassembly. That's another thing. To have access to the gas chamber and the gas ports (that's the thing that requires cleaning, there is not actually much that could happen to the piston and op rod) you only have to remove the muzzle cover. To inspect the recoil spring, you can remove it from the trap door. To remove the bolt you only have to remove the dust cover and the rear buffer ("when the dust cover is off, it just slides out") and it comes out from the rear of the receiver. It isn't needed to remove the receiver from the stock. Like almost every bolt action rifle up to then, and several semiauto rifle after then, this rifle is not made to have the trigger group and the receiver removed often from the stock. that's why they have screws. While the parts that require cleaning, and/or have to be replaced more often (for the second case, almost universally the recoil spring and the firing pin) are very easily reachable. An M1 Garand, for example, is made with a completely different philosopy. The rifle can be easily disassembled, but is not really field-strippable. To reach the firing pin, you have to completely take the rifle apart (and have several small parts flying around you).
    2
  12. Field stripping it is EXTREMELY simple. Much simpler than field stripping a M1 Garand for example. What shown is not a field strip, but a disassembly of the rifle. A normal field strip (to clean the gas chamber, inspect and maybe replace the recoil spring, clean the bolt and maybe replace the firing pin) can be made in seconds without tools, that was not a given at that time.
    2
  13. Field strip. To have access to the gas chamber and the gas ports (that's the thing that requires cleaning, there is not actually much that could happen to the piston and op rod) you only have to remove the muzzle cover. To inspect the recoil spring, you can remove it from the trap door. To remove the bolt you only have to remove the dust cover and the rear buffer ("when the dust cover is off, it just slides out") and it comes out from the rear of the receiver. The thing can be field stripped in seconds without tools, that was not a given at the time.
    2
  14. 910mm, with a 18" barrel.
    2
  15. Single locking lug at the top. All the Breda gas actions, up to 37mm automatic guns, used that lock.
    2
  16. ? Actually the rifle is very simple. Apart for the burst mechanism, that's an added part, not required for it to work, the parts count is the lowest it could be, and the field strip can be made in seconds without tools, that was not a given at that time. To have access to the gas chamber and the gas ports (that's the thing that requires cleaning, there is not actually much that could happen to the piston and op rod) you only have to remove the muzzle cover. To inspect the recoil spring, you can remove it from the trap door. To remove the bolt you only have to remove the dust cover and the rear buffer ("when the dust cover is off, it just slides out") and it comes out from the rear of the receiver. It isn't needed to remove the receiver from the stock. The bolt is made of just five parts, included one that doubles as charging handle. The trigger group is very simple too. Like almost every bolt action rifle up to then, and several semiauto rifle after then, this rifle is simply not made to have the trigger group and the receiver removed often from the stock (that's why they were secured with screws). While the parts that require cleaning, and/or have to be replaced more often (for the second case, almost universally the recoil spring and the firing pin) are very easily reachable. An M1 Garand, for example, is made with a completely different philosopy. The rifle can be easily disassembled, but is not really field-strippable. To reach the firing pin, you have to completely take the rifle apart (and have several small parts flying around you).
    2
  17. It's so difficult to do that you can do it only on purpose.
    2
  18. The BAR did pretty well. Obviously it did cause it was heavy, but this thing, even if not as heavy as a BAR, is heavier than most semiauto rifles and battle rifles, and I suspect that gas piston assembly makes it point heavy. Couple it with the fact that a 7mm Mauser is not a 30-06 Springfield, and it could make a 4 round bursts still controllable.
    2
  19. It would require so much skill that it can't be done by chance.
    2
  20. Field strip (remove the muzzle cover and expose the gas ports, chamber and piston for cleaning; remove the recoil spring for inspection/replacing; remove the bolt assembly for cleaning/replacing of the firing pin) is actually very easy and can be done in seconds without tools. Disassembly requires more time, but almost all the bolt action and semiauto rifles' designs until that point, and several later, were not supposed to have the receiver and trigger group removed from the stock that often. That's why they were screwed to it. When Ian reviewed the Gew. 41 and 43 for example, he didn't remove them. Otherwise there would have been several screws to remove as well.
    2
  21. What shown is not a field strip, but a disassembly of the rifle. A normal field strip (to clean the gas chamber, inspect and maybe replace the recoil spring, clean the bolt and maybe replace the firing pin) can be made in seconds without tools, that was not a given at that time. Like almost every bolt action rifle up to then, and several semiauto rifle after then (See the Gew.43 for example), this rifle is not made to have the trigger group and the receiver removed often from the stock (that's why they are fixed with screws). While the parts that require cleaning (bolt and gas ports) and have to be replaced more often ( almost universally the recoil spring) are very easily reachable.
    2
  22. It takes much more time to overheat, and can't cook off an entire magazine anyway even if it does. This is not a battle rifle, but a lighter BAR. Also the machining required was not that much. That of the receiver is comparable to other semiauto rifles of the era (not to say of light machine-gun). The bolt is made of only five pieces, an only has straight cuts.
    2
  23. The "single lug rising block" locking system is the same used in the Breda M37 and M38 HMGs, Breda 20mm M35 and Breda 37mm 37/54 automatic cannons (altough those listed are practically scaled-up versions of the same weapon, while the PG had several differences). They were all higly regarded.
    2
  24. It's breechlocked. Here's the patent. It's called an "expander lock". The lever locks the bolt like a chair put at an angle under the door knob. In theory there's no limit to the power of the ammunitions this gun can use, as long as the frame is strong enough. https://patents.google.com/patent/US461968A/en
    2
  25. Unfortunately Ian left out the fact that's actually already a locked breech gun. It's called an "expander lock". In theory there's no limit to the power of the ammunitions this gun can use, as long as the frame is strong enough. https://patents.google.com/patent/US461968A/en
    2
  26. Here's the patent. It's called an "expander lock". The lever locks the bolt like a chair put at an angle under the door knob. In theory there's no limit to the power of the ammunitions this gun can use, as long as the frame is strong enough. https://patents.google.com/patent/US461968A/en
    2
  27. In theory you can made a Tribuzio in .45 ACP capable to accept 1911 magazines. And it will still be quite compact (the bore axis is so low that the recoil will be even pleasant).
    2
  28. No, it's called an "expander lock" patent US461968A. Due to the position of the pivots, the recoil tend to push the intermediate lever against the frame and not to make it rotate. There's no limit to the power of the cartridge that breech can control, as long as the frame is strong enough.
    2
  29. Add that, even if Ian didn't mention it, the cocking lever doubles as the locking wedge (the gun is actually breechlocked).
    2
  30.  Lassi Kinnunen  Design patents expire in 15 years.
    2
  31.  @antoniofdez620  Here's the patent. https://patents.google.com/patent/US461968A/en and a schematic https://ibb.co/NZW8KDm
    2
  32. The lever. It's like a chair put at an angle under the door knob.
    2
  33.  @CreedManiac99  To move by bicycle and with a gun in the pocket was pretty common at the time for middle class men. And bar brawls that ended up with a shooting were common too.
    2
  34. Yes and no. The Savage design is a delayed blowback. That of Beretta and Grand Power is a breechlock design (the barrel rethreat with the slide until it's unlocked) that derives from that of the Steyr 1912.
    1
  35. A little late reply, however Savage sold many 1907 models in .32 ACP to the French during WWI (one of the many civilian .32 ACP pistols adopted during the war due to time constraint). It worked so well that the French used the same delayed blowback system for the MAB PA-15 in 9mm Luger, that so coupled the Savage system with a more modern slide design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAB_PA-15_pistol
    1
  36. It's because it's really a cocking lever that resembles an hammer. The Savage is really a striker fired pistol.
    1
  37. It seems to be a neat design, but its machining seems to be well worth of a squad LMG more than an infantry rifle. Breda had the tendency to overmachine its designs, but the Breda PG you already reviewed probably required a lot less tooling work to do the same job + the burst.
    1
  38. "OK, lets send this nice to rifle to Italy, we don't need it." "we are fine with our Gew.41" ...
    1
  39. We know that those weapon are unsafe, from actual accounts and demonstrations (and yet much of the widely known cases are wildly exaggerated). We don't guess it. To affirm that a wepon is unsafe it must exist, if not a proof, at least some serious clue. There is some clue that the designers of this weapon, didn't know their job?
    1
  40. There is no animosity, but follow me. You described, like it's higly probable, a chain of events that it's possible in theory, but really it doesn't happen in any weapon that has a similar kind of safety, since it's quite easy to avoid. It can happen only if the designer is amateur that doesn't know what he is doing. Now, there is some clue that the designers of this weapon, didn't know their job?
    1
  41. So we passed from "presumably" to "it could be, if it had been designed by an incompetent. Have you some clue that an incompetent designed it? I repeat. Many safeties work that way, introducing a further lock (on the bolt, on the striker, or on the hammer), different from that of the sear. They are designed so that the chain of events you described cannot happen.
    1
  42. Not moving at 90° makes the recatching of the bolt easier, not harder. Many safeties work that way, introducing a further lock (on the bolt, on the striker, or on the hammer), different from that of the sear. They are designed so that the chain of events you described cannot happen.
    1
  43. It doesn't happen IRL. If you see the shape of the sear slot on the bolt, it's not 90° with the receiver, but slightly inclined. That's for the sear to recatch the bolt in any case. BTW, many safeties work that way, introducing a further lock (on the bolt, on the striker, or on the hammer), different from that of the sear. They are designed so that the chain of events described cannot happen.
    1
  44. Infact that's the correct procedure, and, since you have your forward hand around the magazine holder, you can't miss it while changing the magazine, even if you are operating in the darkness, or not looking at the weapon at all. 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.
    1
  45. It's not that leftie-unfriendly actually. He'll do all the recharging operations with the left hand while holding the safety/magfazine holder with the right. He only has to operate the charging handle from above.
    1
  46. It's simply a severe case of "if it's different from what I'm used to, then it must be wrong". It's a disease that affects many firearms commentators.
    1
  47. In all the pictures taken at the time, and all the preserved samples, the safety is still there. It was not a problem at all IRL.
    1
  48. It pretty much worked very well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKx49JQ5Jt8
    1
  49. The safety lever had never been a issue IRL. None used this one-handed. The front safety solved a real issue of early SMGs, and had never been a problem in combat situations. The fact that a design is unusual does not mean that's failed.
    1
  50. It's not cause they were planning to issue them to 15 and 12 YO soldiers that much of the SMGs designed after the war uses some kind of automatic bolt locking safety. It's that the experience of WWII taught that the main sources of incidents with those weapons is a hit in the back, that makes the bolt retreat enough to catch a round, and not enough to catch the sear, so cycling and accidentally discharging it. That's ony a very simple (it's a last ditch weapon after all) way to solve that problem that, by 1945, was well known.
    1