Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Forgotten Weapons"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Studies performed after WWI concluded that the infantry bolt action rifle had been the least useful among all the weapon issued to infantrymen. Pistols, hand grenades, even knives and showels had been more effective. The recomendation for the Italian Army was to switch to "automatic muskeets" for all the infantrymen bar designated marksmen. So the Terni arsenal developed the Terni M1921 along with an intermefiate power round for it https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/raigap/40496274/928974/928974_original.jpg
The rise od fascism, economic considerations, and the conservatism of the Army prevented its adoption, but the Army still wanted a semiauto rifle in a full blown cartridge, since that was anyway a big improvement over the bolt action rifle (enemies rarely show up one at a time at 1.5 sec. distance, to give you the time to operate the bolt and realign).
The bolt and trigger assemblies of the Scotti rifle are actually simpler than those of a Carcano rifle (that's a very simple bolt action). Yeah, there is the gas piston, but the increase of complexity is negligible. Already in 1915, Maj. luigi gucci noted that, in adopting a semiauto rifle for the army, the price of the rifle was, in the end, marginal if compared to the price of the ammos for it (then, the price of a brand new semiauto rifle, not a conversion was estimated in 60L, that of a single Carcano cartridge was 0.1L, so a semiauto rifle costed like 600 cartridges).
Belt fed LMGs in the '30s were not a thing (the first one was adopted in 1938). Even the MG34 and MG42, when used in the LMG role, had many limitations (IE to change a 50 rounds belt requires more time than to change a pair of box magazines, so limiting the practical ROF). It required several decades after WWII for the concept of "general purpose machine gun" to impose itself, and it's not a definitive victory (see the Marines replacing the M249 with the M27).
1
-
1
-
IE Col. Edoardo Versè "Impiego tattico delle unità di fanteria dotate del nuovo armamento". Already in the “T batallion” model of 1918 the infantry rifle was relegated to a secondary role, while the MGs and SMGs had the main one (the end of the war stopped the implementation). Simply the infantry rifle was not used by shock troops, IE the Arditi, during the attacks, used SMGs, hand grenades, knives, pistols, but not rifles. While in defense it had a marginal effectiveness in respect to machineguns.
“Semantic” is to point to an HMG and say “that’s an LMG”. It’s not, it remains an HMG. “Semantic” is to say that the “MG34 was a 100% mature design in 1934” (probably because it has a “34” in the name). It was not until 1938.
The Madsen LMG weighted 9.07 kg, the Chauchat weighted 9.07 kg. The SIA 1918, adopted the same year of the MG08/18, weighted 10.7kg, and had a quick exchange barrel already. Those were not “unreasonably modern standards”.
Garand started to develop his rifle pretty late, took a wrong turn, had to change caliber, took another (minor) wrong turn and so had a pretty long development. But already the Carcano semiauto conversion of 1912 was deemed to be serviceable. Other projects had been hampered not by the technology, but by unreasonable requests of the military (muzzle blast actuated instead of gas actuated, possibility to be used as bolt actions…).
I never bashed machineguns.
You are again talking like the Garand was the only semiauto rifle ever made, and yes, “logistic considerations” includes the fact that, after WWI, there were shitloads of bolt actions available.
To say that the Scotti is not an example of something the way it was, but it would have been having the gas piston in another position is utter nonsense. Scotti produced a perfectly serviceable LMG in 6.5 Carcano, using the same gas system (it was used as tank gun until it was replaced by the Breda 38 in 8mm Breda) The short stroke gas piston was perfectly feasible even with WWI metallurgy, it was only a question of thinking of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Both the MG34 and MG42 are mainly delayed blowback actions, with a secondary help by the short recoiling barrel, and the Vickers unlocks the barrel from the bolt way before the barrels stops, allowing the bolt and the barrel to start to separate slowly.
None of them is a pure short recoil design. Like that of an handgun, or that of the Breda M30. They have a short recoiling barrel, a bolt, AND some other system (two piece bolt with the parts recoiling at different speed, toggle, ecc...)
That's revealing in itself. A pure short recoil action is simpler than the systems used in MG34, MG42, Vickers and so on. Why had they to complicate the designs, if a pure short recoil action can work flawlessly?
Cause it doesn't work so flawlessly, so you have to invent something to make it work.
Obviously gas operated MGs can have extraction issues, and lever delayed blowback can have them, and simple blowbacks can have too. The fact that pure short recoil actions and long bottleneck cartridges doesn't match well doesn't mean that only short recoil actions can have extraction issues. But in those cases is really question of bad tuning.
The HS 404 is a "gas unlocked recoil operated" design. The gas doesn't cycle the action, but simply unlocks the bolt, and then the residual pressure of the gasses in the barrel cycle the action. It's not impossible to make a similar design work without oiling the cartridges (The Scotti action worked the same way, only with the bolt rotating instead of tilting, and only the Mod. X rifle required oiling, while all the MGs didn't), but to find the perfect timing to open the action (when there is enough pressure in the barrel to cycle the action and not enough to damage the cases) is more difficult than in a straight gas-operated weapon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@flightlesschicken7769 Infact I provided sources that you can check if you want to learn more about the subject instead of childlishly trying to correct who knows better. You provided nothing.
I said: ".30 carbine can be fired in a pure blowback gun of acceptable weight." not "lighter than a M1 carbine" so you can explain your supposed argument to someone else. A blowback rifle that was not really made to be the lightest possible and fired a substantially more powerful cartridge than the .30 Carbine, other than having been sold commercially, weighted less than the M1A1 thompson and and M3 Grease Gun, whose weights were considered acceptable in WWII, so, again, ".30 carbine can be fired in a pure blowback gun of acceptable weight."
The fire rate doesn't count in a semiauto firearm. Any 9mm browning system pistol would fire at over 1000 RPM in full auto, someone cares? Besides, there are other systems than the weight of the bolt to slow down the fire rate of a gun if needed.
What part of "The subsequent Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle, used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle)." was that hard to understand?
1
-
@flightlesschicken7769 Another childish attempt to difert form the subject.
Again, I said: ".30 carbine can be fired in a pure blowback gun of acceptable weight." If you assumed it was a full auto gun it was your fault not mine. Again there are other systems than the weight of the bolt to slow down the fire rate of a gun if needed.
You didn't provide any source. Also you shown that "you clearly don't understand physics" since, contrary to what you considered a physical necessity, the Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle and used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle) was slightly lighter than a M3 Grease Gun (despite being a fully stocked rifle) and substantially lighter (900g less) than the Thompson M1A1, two SMGs in .45 ACP.
Besides, the Winchester 1907 rifle had been modified by the French to fire in full auto in WWI. It fired at perfectly reasonable 600-700 RPM.
Had you known more of the subject before typing you would have known that many versions of the Thompson had been made, from 600 to 1500 RPM. the M1A1 fired at perfectly reasonable 600-700 RPM (what an "absurdly large firerate"!).
I can explain you how it's possible for the automatised Winchester 1907 and the Tommy gun to have the same fire rate despite the comparatively lighter bolt of the Winchester 1907 ("comparatively" means that it was lighter in respect to the power of the cartridge) if you want to understand a little physics for a change.
1
-
1
-
@flightlesschicken7769 Your is a faith not a source.Your faith had been already disproved by the fact that the Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle and used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle) was slightly lighter than a M3 Grease Gun (despite being a fully stocked rifle) and substantially lighter (900g less) than the Thompson M1A1, two SMGs in .45 ACP. Have you other means to prove your faith is right?
The Winchester 1907 had been a Police departments' favourite well into the '30s, many samples are still around and in working order despite being over 100 years old. Your theoretical considerations, based on a very superficial knowledge of physics, that mistake guessing for necessities, do not match reality.
Because you see plenty of new designs in .30 Carbine too, doesn't you?
To know why blowback is less suited to fire .223 Rem or 7.62X39 in comparison with the .30 Carbine and .351 Winchester, you should learn something about the magical world of chamber pressure. I can teach you if you want to understand a little real physics for a change. Besides, many good, very good and even exceptional actions are no more used for a reason or another (I can provide examples if you are interested in learning something).
To be a good design it only needs to safely going bang and reliably cycling, and it did both. Many samples are still existing and working.
To decide if a firearm can safely operate with normal loads, it doesn't fire thousands, and not even hundreds, of proofloads.
You understood that this video was about a 4 pounds carbine in 9mm didn't you? Tons of perfectly safe and lighter 9mm carbines had been made. How can you pretend to be taken seriously if you try to extend the problems of a faulty design to another one that you don't know?
1
-
1
-
@flightlesschicken7769 Aaaand you are still here. Not that there had never been any doubt. It was not really that difficult to guess that all that you wanted to have is the last word.
You are (conveniently) mistaking PSI with CUP and mixing them. Saami max pressures for .30 Carbine and .351 SL are 40.000 cup and 45.000 cup respectively so, surprise surprise, .351 SL, other than being a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND worked at a HIGHER PRESSURE.
I'm glad you finally decided to learn something. Let me introduce you to the magical world of chamber pressures and how it relates to blowbacks.
In a blowback system, the base of the cartridge starts moving backward the same moment the bullet starts moving forward. Is largely that initial movement that allows the entire action to work. But, since the walls of the cartridge are stuck to the chamber by the same pressure, the integrity of the cartridge, until the pressure into the barrel drops to safe level and the cartridge can be entirely extracted, depends, other than the weight of the bolt:
1) on the capacity of the brass at the base of the cartridge to stretch without rupturing until the pressure drops to safe level,
2) on the pressure that, if low enough, can allow some backward movement of the brass (the lower, the better),
3) on the same pressure that tend to cause the rupture the cartridge (the lower,the better).
So, the higher the pressure, the more difficult is to use a blowback action, because an higher pressure narrows the margin in which the base of the cartridge initially moves enough to cycle the action, but not enough to have a case rupture. That happens largely INDIPENDENTLY FROM THE POWER OF THE CARTRIDGE. Low pressure rouds can have high power, but generally pay for this by being bigger. Modern propellants and metallurgy allowed to have very high pressure cartridges in respect to those of the late 19th early 20th century.
.223 rem and other modern cartridges are generally high pressure cartridges, even the ones that produces moderate energy, and that leaves a more little margin for safely operate a blowback action.
That's not the case of the .30 carbine, that worked at lower presures than the .351SL that was safely used in a blowback rifle that weighted less than a .45 ACP SMG.
Please. Really you want to be taken seriously with arguments like "N***s would have done it"? With a completely different, bottleneck, cartridge? That's not even close to be a demonstration of anything. N***s didn't make a simple blowback handgun for the 9X18mm Ultra. It had been done after the war. They didn't make a simple blowback handgun for the 9X19, but used, ordered and paid the Astra 600.
The Winchester 1907 had been a Police departments' favourite well into the '30s, many samples are still around and in working order despite being over 100 years old. We were talking about .30 Carbine not other cartridges used in WWII in other rifles. How many powers used a similar cartridge DIRECTLY DERIVED FROM A CARTRIDGE SPECIFICALLY CREATED FOR A BLOWBACK ACTION during WWII?
My source is backed by reality, your faith is disproved by that. The Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle and used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle) and that OPERATED AT A HIGHER PRESSURE (45.000 cup vs. 40.000cup) was slightly lighter than a M3 Grease Gun (despite being a fully stocked rifle) and substantially lighter (900g less) than the Thompson M1A1, two SMGs in .45 ACP. Have you other means to prove your faith is right?
I appreciate Ian, but don't believe something just because Ian says it. He's mostly right, but i've noticed many mistakes over the years, and others did as well.
1
-
@flightlesschicken7769 Again, I didn't search for you, did I? For me this discussion could have very well not even started.
The .30 carbine had been developed starting form the .32 Winchester Self Loading cartridge used in the Winchester 1905 rifle that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle. The subsequent Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle, used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle) and that OPERATED AT A HIGHER PRESSURE (45.000 cup vs. 40.000cup). The Winchester 1907 rifle was slightly lighter than a M3 Grease Gun (despite being a fully stocked rifle) and substantially lighter (900g less) than the Thompson M1A1, two SMGs in .45 ACP that had been used in WWII (and the M3 for decades later). So what exactly prevents the .30 Carbine from being fired in a blowback firearm of reasonable weight?
Are you sure you are looking at the right rifle? The 1907 had a merely 2" longer barrel than a M1 Carbine (actually longer barrels are worse for blowbacks, because it takes the bullet more time to exit from them) and THE ACTION IS REALLY SHORT. The magazine is right in front of the trigger and the action doesn't extend behind the trigger. Do you think the buttstock is part of the action?
No, they are not nearly equal. 53.000 psi (max C.I.P pressure for .351 SL) is not "nearly equal" to 62.000 psi (max C.I.P. pressure for .223 Rem). Even not counting that blowback actions don't cope well with bottleneck cartridges and, again "the N***s didn't do that" IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. N***s didn't do a lot of things.
The argument is: The .30 carbine had been developed starting form the .32 Winchester Self Loading cartridge used in the Winchester 1905 rifle that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle. The subsequent Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle, used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle) and that OPERATED AT A HIGHER PRESSURE (45.000 cup vs. 40.000cup). The Winchester 1907 rifle was slightly lighter than a M3 Grease Gun (despite being a fully stocked rifle) and substantially lighter (900g less) than the Thompson M1A1, two SMGs in .45 ACP that had been used in WWII (and the M3 for decades later).SO WHAT EXACTLY PREVENTS THE .30 CARBINE FROM BEING FIRED IN A BLOWBACK FIREARM OF REASONABLE WEIGHT?
Please, you didn't state facts, but guessings at best. You asked why blowback is not used on modern cartridges of moderate power, and I answered you. If you don't understand pretty simple explanations is not my fault. Modern cartridges are mainly high pressure cartridges. In a blowback firearm, energy mainly affects the required minimum weight of the bolt. Pressure narrows the window of usability of blowback actions (the higer the pressure, the narrower the window from when the bolt is too heavy to reliably cycle the action to when it's too light to safely do it) until other factors (material of the cartridge, presence of dirt, moisture, lube, ecc...) become too relevant. Even not counting that blowback actions don't cope well with bottleneck cartridges (I can explain you why if you want).
7.62x39 is not only a bottleneck but a heavily tapered cartridge. I can explain you why that doesn't cope well with blowback actions if you want.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The front sight on the barrel shroud, or the rattling barrel, are those problems that exist only in tabletop reviews, when the reviewer knows that the weapon is "bad" and has to find some reason for it to be bad. None noticed them being problems in 60 years of use of the MG42/MG3. ALL Modern general-purpose machineguns have a single optic, mounted on the receiver, how do they cope with barrel change? https://blog.1800gunsandammo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/fn-762-minimi-4.jpg
The oiler was a minus. but it wasn't strictly needed, and many gunnenrs didnt' use it. Simply, already during WWI, it was noticed that, whit automatic weapons, it was all peaches and dandelions until you could use brass cased ammos but when, due to war shortages, you had to use steel cased ammos, extraction was a lot less granted. However, despite the oiler, allied reports praised the behaviour of the weapon, compared to the BREN, in dusty conditions. The heavy bolt, so with a greater inertia, star-shaped to give the dirt somewere to go instead of locking the mechanism, were plusses.
To use more than 20-25 rounds for magazine in WWII meant to be in search of problems, and it was a REAL problem to manufacture magazines that were, at one time, so cheap to be discarded on the field and so consistently manufactured to not have feeding issues (it was a problem still for the US in the '50s, that's why the M14 has the stripper-clip rail, and that was the US Army). Even the Brits tried a fixed tilting magazine for the BREN (it had not been adopted in the end, but it was much more awkward than the Breda one). The reduced volume of fire was not really a problem. A BREN gun was supposed to fire a magazine a minute in normal battle conditions. At the start of the war it was allowed an "emergency" rof of seven magazines/minute. during the war, due to battel experiences, that was reduced to four magazines/minute, and advertising the gunners that, in those conditions, the barrel had to be changed after ten magazines, and the entire provision of the squad was of just 20 magazines.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1