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

  1. Who had he better economy. I'ts not an answer to who had the better rifle cartridge like it's not an answer to who had the better underwear.
    1
  2. Infact they had to adopt the M1 Carbine in .30 carbine.
    1
  3.  @Caseytify  How did they pay for the billions of new rounds they manufactured, that were even more expensive? They were adopting a new semiauto rifle (a pretty expensive item) for ALL the Army. ANY previous study concluded that semiautos enhanced the consumption of ammos, so regardless the quantity of ammos in the storage THEY WOULD HAVE ENDED. For much of their expected service life the NEW rifles would have used NEW ammos, and, since the new rifles would have mostly used new ammos, it would have been better if the new ammos were cheaper to manufacture. ALSO, by adopting a lighter service ammo, they would have avoided to adopt a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT action and ammo for the carbine. A problem that was immediately recognizable. They doubled it with the .30 Carbine. More M1 carbines were manufactured than M1 rifles during WW2. Yeah, and it would have been better to spend some money and test it BEFORE the war, instead than adopting it without having tested it, and spending some year IN the war with tropedoes that didnt' work. Sometimes, stupid decisions are not justified by the mindset of the time. They are simply stupid. Comparatively poor countries in respect to the US had working torpedoes. Japan started war also for the US announcement that it would have built a fleet bigger than the world's second and third ones combined. So they had some money to spend. Yeah, I explicitly stated it: "With the benefit of hindsight".
    1
  4. With the benefit of hindsight since: - they had to manufacture billions of brand new rounds during the war, and it would have been easier and less expensive to manufacture rounds requiring less materials. - the millions of 30-06 would have been shot anyway, in existing machineguns, even only in the ones placed on vehicles. A different infantry round, one that would not have forced to adopt the .30 carbine to have something lighter, would have been better.
    1
  5. That would have not been wasted anyway, since there were enough MGs to use all of them, and much more.
    1
  6. There were not those huge stockpiles of .30-06. Traditionally the US had a small army and historically the adoption of a new rifle was the moment to adopt a new cartridge. The old rifles didn't disappear anyway, so there were ways to use the old cartridges.
    1
  7. Making it able to shoot .30 Remington. Still small, still lightweight, still not too powerful to require an heavy weapon, but more effective than .30 Carbine. .30 Remington is practically the same energy than 7.35 Carcano in a smaller package.
    1
  8. During WWII more M1 carbines than M1 rifles had been manufactured. Maybe there was something wrong with the greatest battle implement.
    1
  9. Same for the 6.5 Carcano and 6.5 Grendel for that matter. They have exactly the same ballistic. What differentiates a first gen smokeless powder cartridge and a modern one is exactly the fact that, working at a higher pressure and with some more knowledge about how the internal shape of the case works, modern ammos have the same performances in a smaller package.
    1
  10. The 7.35 Carcano has practically the same dimensions than the .276 Pedersen (same base diameter, 11.4 mm; same case lenght 51.4mm-51.5mm; and only one mm more OAL 72.5mm-73.5mm), so ten rounds can likely enter in a M1 clip. To me, even better than the 7.35 Carcano, but not in competition because none used it, despite having been widely available for more than 30 years, would have been the .30 Remington. Rimless, same energy than the 7.35 Carcano in a smaller package. (base diameter 10.7 mm, OAL 64.1mm).
    1
  11.  @notsureyou  If you use a full blown round for standard infantry, then you are going to need another round for SMGs, and if you want to use semiauto carbines, lighter than the main infantry rifle, you are going to need another round as well. That way the US had to provide 30-06, .30 Carbine and .45 ACP. That's why, right after the war, the Soviets came up with ONE round for infantrymen (7.62X39 in SKS and AK, to replace the Mosins and PPSh) and ONE round for MGs (7.62X54r).
    1
  12. The 6.5X54 MS is a 6.5 Carcano, only different enough to not violate the patent.
    1
  13. The army "works on marksmanship" only up to 300m (then 300 yards, 274 meters). You can work to handle recoil as well as you want. The 30-06 remains heavier, so heavier rifle and less rounds carried. Were the Marines not men enough? Yet they had to use the .30 Carbine.
    1
  14.  @justnotg00d  Those are miths. If someone think the lighter ammos don't work, he'll find only confirmation to his bias. Anectodes are not statistic Studies are for that.
    1
  15. Yes, if least powerful means lighter (more ammos can be carried) and lower recoil (faster follow up shots). Post war studies shown that there were no significative differences in terminal ballistic due to the power of the rifle cartridge. Not by chance, during the war, more M1 Carbines (that fired a dignified pistol round) than M1 rifles had been manufactured.
    1
  16.  @Horseshoecrabwarrior  Yet is above, and infact, when they had to design a light semiauto/auto rifle, the Terni 1921, the italians designed a true intermediate cartridge for it, the 7.35X32, that developed around 1200 foot pounds. Also the 7.62 NATO is capable to operate in full auto. to keep it on target firing from the shoulder is another thing. "the other category" can be called as that of the "light" full blown cartridges, as the .30 Remington, the 30-30, or all the first gen 6.5 cartridges.
    1
  17. The .276 Pedersen. Dimensionally almost identical to the 7.35 Carcano, but hotter.
    1
  18. .276 Enfield was too powerful and too big and heavy.
    1
  19. No, roller locked.
    1
  20.  @Seb-Storm  Not really blasts. Nothing you can see. But there are abundant leaks of carbon particles from the barrel to the chamber-bolt area.
    1
  21. Since it tends to extract the brass under pressure and usually is coupled with chamber fluting, there is a lot of dirt that comes from the barrel to the bolt. That worsen with a suppressor (suppressors usually keep the pressure in the barrel higher, and suppressed firearms always run dirtier than unsuppressed ones).
    1
  22. More than other, the autor of Gunsmith Cats believed in the "CZ75 mithology" that was going on in the US in the '80s, fuelled by the appreciation of Jeff Cooper and by the fact that, since it was very difficult to import original ones, there were almost no other opinions on them.
    1
  23. Actually Tanfoglio introduced the "large frame", to shoot .45 ACP, a pair of years before CZ introduced the 97b. The magazines they introduced then have the same dimensions later used by CZ for the 97b (infact they are interchangeable). All the metal frame Tanfoglio in 10mm are "large frame". The matter of which would be a higer quality firearm is debatable.
    1
  24. Already did by Tanfoglio (EAA Witness).
    1
  25. Today it's easy to say that a detachable magazine would have been better, but, back then, it was a real problem to manufacture a magazine that was, at the same time, so cheap to be discarded on the field and so well and consistently built to not have feeding problems. LMGs like the BAR or the BREN were plagued by feeding problems caused by badly manufactured magazines, and those were valuable pieces of equipment, not relatively cheap infantry rifles. Infact both the SVT 40 and the Gew 43 had detachable magazines, but they were really intended to be loaded with stripper clips. Even the M1A and the M14 had stripper clip guides. At least en-bloc clips were faster than stripper clips.
    1
  26. No military rifle would have been approved for use without the possibility to field strip it. You only have to know the passages. As for the charging handle, the same spring that closes the bolt has to be compressed in opening it. Seeing how powerful it is, the designer probably concluded that some form of lever action was needed to do it.
    1
  27. He wasn't a sniper in the true sense. More a master at ambush tactics.
    1
  28. That's deluding, you know? It's a lot cooler with the D pronounced.
    1
  29.  @richardsmith4794  Please, you can't draw conclusions from a single 100 years old sample tested using a magazine of the same period. Over 90% of jammings are magazine-related and, to me, the conclusion of THAT test was decided in advance. If you WANT a weapon to fail, it's easy to obtain the desired result. You can see countless tests on the tube of the weapon running flawlessly, and it had been the sight of the Chauchat used on assault en masse that inspired Vladimir Grigoryevich Fyodorov to build the Fedorov Avtomat. The Chauchat had some well known drawback (IE the action locking due to overheat) but it's strong point had been that France was able to manufacture over 260.000 samples in a partially invaded country while UK built 50.000 Lewis guns in the same time span. Individually the Lewis Gun was a better weapon. 1 vs. 5? No way.
    1
  30. ​ @jimmydesouza4375  That's only valid as long as the treaty is valid. Since Austria broke the treaty, first invading a country in the Balkans without previous agreement (and that would have already been enough), and then refusing to give compensations (and that would have already been a concession on Italy's part), Italy was no more bound by it. If you want others to respect the treaties, you should respect them first, not violate it, and then cry foul when others consider them expired. It's pretty funny how, contrary to you, the Germans of the time had no problems in understanding this fact, and considered Austria's position to be irrational. Sorry, it's "temporary or permanent" occupation, not only conquest. As above, the Germans of the time had no problems in considering a military invasion an occupation. Only you have. Sorry, but Austria had not been "threatened" by Russia. It started a war with Serbia. Your very personal opinion of Russia threatening Austria via Serbia is pretty ridicolous, and had not weight in 1915. Trying to rewrite history to your liking is not going to do you any favour. Grow up.
    1
  31.  @jimmydesouza4375  So the reaty stated that: a) Italy had no obligation to fight alonside Austria in a war it declared. b) a "temporary or permanent" "occupation shall take place only after a PREVIOUS agreement between the two Powers" c) Austria (in this case) had to give compensations for changes in the status quo in the Balkans. Austria invaded Serbia in 1914 (that's a change in the status quo and an occupation) without any previous agreement (breaking the treaties). Despite the obvious violation of point "b", Italy was willing to get over it in case Austria complied with "c". Austrian foreign minister Berchtold, agreed on some concession (the recognition of the Italian occupation of the Dodecanese and Valona, that already happened). Italians wanted the cities of Trento and Trieste. German mediator Bernhard von Bülow pushed for the Austrians to accept the cession of Trento, and the Italians to accept a bigger degree of autonomy for Trieste in the Austrian Empire. That would have been probably enough, but unfortunately on 13/01/1915 Berchtold had ben replaced by Stephan Burián, that retired any concession made by his predecessor, so breaking the talks, and exposing the Italian "neutralists" politicians (like Giolitti, that publicly stated Italy could gain much by peace) to ridicule, since it was evident that Austrians were not willing to give anything. After two months of unsuccessful attempts to obtain anything Italy started the talkings with the Entente. Bulow considered the Austrian position to be irrational. That's his opinion on the matter, from a letter to a friend, the journalist Felix von Eckhardt: "We must influence Vienna. It would be unheard of, for Austria, after pulling us into this war for its own incapacity in last two or three years, to deprive us of the collaboration of Italy and Rumenia, and to throw two million more enemies against us [. ..] I'll do what I can to spare us a new, great and not needed trouble. I'll do it for ourselves and for Austria, which must be saved from the hereditary defect of always arriving too late ". That's what you call "betrayal".
    1
  32.  @jimmydesouza4375  The Triple alliance Treaty says that status-quo matters. Maybe you should learn to read first to write ("apparent" lack of knowledge? LOL!).
    1
  33.  @jimmydesouza4375  Declaring war to Serbia broke the treaty, since it broke the status quo without previous agreement and not for the action of a third power. Doing something and having perhaps the intention of doing something are different things. Not sure where your issue with that is? Possibly you're not a human, and those simple concepts are alien to you? Any loosing party of a war surrender or ask for peace in the end. If you want to call this "betrayal", your choice, but you asking the others if they know the meaning of words is quite hilarious at this point.
    1
  34.  @jimmydesouza4375 No, sorry. Austrians broke the Triple Alliance pact when they declared war to Serbia (art. 7. of the 1891 treaty). Italy invaded Tyrol only at the and of WWI (where do you hear that the Italians invaded Tyrol? Lol! That's your knowledge of the facts?). So the Germans were going to win? To simply extend the pain of your population and the death of your soldiers when there are no possibilities of winning, and any further day of war is going worsen the peace conditions, is simply stupid and criminal. the Finnish quit way before Italians did (in terms of conditions on the field), and rightly so. However, according to your reasonong (if it could be called that way) Japanese were a bunch of pussies. They surrended when only a small island had beeen invaded.
    1
  35.  @jimmydesouza4375  In WWI the Austrians broke the Triple Alliance pact. In WWII is like saying the Germans betrayed the Japanese by surrendering before them.
    1
  36.  @obviouspseudonym9345  Ross rifle had ABSOLUTELY been Canada's choice. The refusal of the licence was of 1903. the Canadians had 11 YEARS to choose any rifle they wanted, there were tons of designs and available licences to choose from, and they chose the Ross. In 1914 they were at the 4th iteration of the rifle. The "we were a colony" argument can work had the Brits IMPOSED a rifle, but they didn't. Any country can refuse a production licence to another, it happens evey time. It's not like the other country is forced to use garbage only because they didn't get a specific licence. "oh no!, the US didn't grant me the licence to produce the Humvee! Now our soldiers should reach the battlefield by bycicle!" No, there are many other light trucks to chose from. Canada chose the Ross not because they had been forced. They did because they thought it was good and the Canadian government kept on defending the rifle against any evidence, even accusing the British officers that rised the issue of ignorance and incompetence, so much an oppressed colony they were. The Ross was a piece of equipment specific of Canadian soldiers, as many other pieces of equipment were specific for canadian troops, and none of them had been "forced" onto them.
    1
  37.  @matthewbrian6360  You could have read the answers above, had you been able to understand them. Unfortunately they are above your level of comprehension. The colonial power had not been able to force Canadians to use British rifles, British webbings, British uniforms... but they could force them to use British ammos? Please...
    1
  38.  @matthewbrian6360  Ian is not necessarily right but, as already stated, Had the Canadians tought their ammos were useful to keep their rifles working, they could have easily kept them. So the Canadians didn't keep track of their equipment? That's not how intendance works. None ever questioned the accuracy of the rifle. Fact is that the "ham fisted" British ammos worked just fine in the British rifles. Again, had the Canadians tought their ammos were useful to keep their rifles working, they could have easily kept them.
    1
  39.  @LilSwinney  Yes. it's how it works. Had the Canadians tought their ammos were useful to keep their rifles working, they could have easily kept them. Nothing more difficult than to say "our rifles don't work with your ammos, sorry". The Brits had no interest in having some hundred of thousand soldiers on the frontline with useless rifles and, even had they been those cartoonish bad guys you are depicting, they were not in position to impose anything, because they need Canadian men and materials, not the contrary. And please, don't invent supply line issues. To supply the Canadians with their own manufactured ammos was not more difficult than supply the Canadians with their own manufactured rifles. Canadians had been able to keep their rifles, hadn't they? They had been able to IMPOSE the use of their Ross rifles, while the Brits were using Enfields, hadn't they? The supply lines supplied them with spare parts for the Ross, even if the Brits used another rifle, didn't they? Logistically it was a pain in the ass, but THE BRITS COULD DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. Because the Ross had been Canada's choice and the Canadians wanted to use it. Now you are telling me that the supply line could supply them with their rifles, their spare parts, their specific Canadian made uniform, their specific Canadian made webbing, their specific Canadian made showels, every piece of their equipment that was different from the British one, but was unable to supply them with their ammos? They had a sudden amnesia on how to delivery items when it came to rounds? What kind of shitty supply line the Canadians had?
    1
  40.  @LilSwinney  What The Brits would have done? Invading Canada? During the IWW?
    1
  41. Heavy. Expensive. Despite being heavy and expensive, several parts were flimsy and had to be changed during the war. Several parts of the action were not correctly dimensioned and/or were made of too soft metal. It needed the highest quality ammos and no dirt at all to work properly. If the correct reassembling procedure was not followed (those rifles were issued to conscripts), the rifle could seriously harm the user. It was really a series of defects with only one redeeming quality. If everything was perfect, it was an accurate rifle.
    1
  42. "Falcon" is simply the semiauto model without the forward handle and folding stock (the one Ian is showing), while "Spectre" refers to the entire family.
    1
  43. You should really do a segment on the Bernardelli Semiautomatico shotgun of 1949. That design was phenomenal. Not only because it didn't use the then ubiquitous Browning long recoil action and used a prismatic magazine, but it's like if Baldassarre Belleri (the designer of the action https://patents.google.com/patent/US2622359 ) had seen a SVT-40 and thought "oh, nice rifle, it could be a great shotgun, but that gas piston is so unnecessary" and redone it as a delayed blowback action only changing the inclination of the locking surface. And it worked flawlessly, absorbing a lot of the recoil too. https://www.armeriasebina.it/uploads/2013/06/Fucile-Semiautomatico-BERNARDELLI-.jpg
    1
  44. The MAB38 is still in the Italian Navy inventory, mostly for parading.
    1
  45. It would be great ot have a review on the "Bernardelli Semiautomatico" shotgun, made form the end of the '40s to the end of the '60 (so a quite successful design). Other than having a detachable magazine, it used a peculiar delayed blowback action that many think it's a forerunner of the Inertia system. https://www.armeriasebina.it/uploads/2013/06/Fucile-Semiautomatico-BERNARDELLI--800x533.jpg
    1
  46. Around that same time Bernardelli designed a semiauto shotgun that closely resembled an SVT-40, thus having a completely different action. https://www.armeriasebina.it/uploads/2013/06/Fucile-Semiautomatico-BERNARDELLI--800x533.jpg
    1
  47. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDS1OcfAw5Q the Bernardelli fires 4 rounds every 3 fired by the Beretta.
    1
  48. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDS1OcfAw5Q
    1
  49. "commercial" meant governments' agencies. They wanted new stuff anyway, not armies' leftovers.
    1
  50. Sneaky.
    1