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

  1. The conservation of momentum, like in a Newton cradle. Obviously, since the form of the pieces is a lot less ideal than those of the spheres, a lot of pressure generated by the cartridge is only enought to make the slide move few mm, but that's all that's needed.
    1
  2. Inertia. The initial recoil moves the entire pistol backward in the shooter's hand. Then the frame stops (because it's held by the hand) and the slide continues for the little bit that's needed to unlock the bolt.
    1
  3. No. When the breech is closed, the lever is pushing rear of the bolt downward (in the locking recess) due to the tension of the recoil spring. Gravity is not needed for the gun to work.
    1
  4. Actually Benelli was the first company to publicily advertise the gun as being able to shoot safely extremely hot loads. (how many companies still advertise to not use +P ammunitions on their guns?)
    1
  5. 1) I can't see how this remark can apply to this gun. 2) Actually Germans are pretty famous for overengineering firearms.
    1
  6.  @76horsepower  Yes.
    1
  7.  @76horsepower  Because in locked position the lever pushes the rear of the bolt downward, so making the locking effective. When the pressure is lifted, the same lever allow the bolt to push the slide backwards. The little pin in the slide that lifts the bolt is only required to drag the bolt when the slide is manually racked. When the pistol is fired, the bolt is pushed by the residual pressure in the barrel. The lever could have been replaced by a complex curved form of the surfaces of the bolt and slide, but it was easier to machine the lever.
    1
  8.  @76horsepower  the lever can't pivot further forward, so it can't dampen the impulse coming from the case. In that respect it's like a rigid element (like the spheres in the Newton's cradle).
    1
  9.  @76horsepower  The "hammer" is the explosion of the powder. That's the first impulse. When the breech is closed, the slide is actually resting on the lever (the lever can't rotate further forward) not on the frame, so the system is tight enough to transfer the impulse.
    1
  10. Think of this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Newtons_cradle_animation_book_2.gif The case is the first element of the line, then the bolt, the lever, and finally the slide.
    1
  11. Actually, for a pistol that size and weight, the B76 was unusually robust. Benelli had been the first manufacturer to advertise his gun being able to handle extremely hot loads (how many manufacturers still recommend to not use +P loads on their guns?).
    1
  12. It has a fixed barrel and a two-pieces bolt. It's less complicate than any Browning tilting barrel design.
    1
  13. Another advantage is that, despite the apparently complicate action, the gun is easy to manufacture. The frame is stamped, and almost all the milled parts have simple straight cuts.
    1
  14. Much more pieces. Too complicated for a pistol.
    1
  15. And 9mm Glisenti, and before the 9mm Browning Long. Energy-wise they are all ain the same ballpark, "the most powerful 9mm ammo that can be shoot in a blowback handgun without weight disadvantages".
    1
  16. Contrary to popular belief, the reason to not allow civilian sales of 9X19 cartridges, while civilians can buy 9X21, 40 S&W, or 10mm without problems, is not to control people. Is to control security forces. What the government wants to avoid is a policemen, or a soldier, to enter in a gun shop and privately buy cartridges for his service weapon.
    1
  17. Bren is a gas action. Way more complicated.
    1
  18. Complicata? Ha la canna fissa e l'otturatore in due pezzi. E' meno complicata di qualsiasi pistola con sistema Browning.
    1
  19. The locking mechamism is unusual, but pretty simple. The frame is actualli stamped, so the simplest it can be.
    1
  20.  @andrewscott8892  Don't know if 9x21 is available in Mexico. I know .38 Super is used there. Don't know all the countries where 9X19 is forbidden for civilian use, but there are several (France, Belgium...) the rationale is not, as often asumed, to "control population" (it would be ridicolus, since more powerful calibers are allowed) but to control security forces. The autorities there don't want a policemen to be able to privately buy ammos for his service weapon. However in Italy only 9X19 is banned. 5.57 NATO and 7.62 NATO are allowed.
    1
  21. In italy 9x21 replaces 9X19. It's even a hotter than most commercial 9mm loads (its equivalent to 9mm NATO). The overall lenght is the same of the 9x19. Only the case is 2mm longer, with the bullet seated 2mm deeper. It had been noticed that the longer case feeds more reliably too.
    1
  22. Infact that's the reason 9mm Luger case is not perfectly cylindrical.
    1
  23. Breda shotguns are inertia locked too. The Breda inertia lock had been the last design made by Bruno Civolani, the same guy that previously designed the system for Benelli . Really, when Benelli introduced the Inertia lock, the firm was owned 50% By Beretta and Breda, and Civolani worked for Breda. Also in the '70s decockers for SA/DA pistols were not that common. The CZ75 and the original Beretta 92 had 1911/style safeties too. It would have been interesting to note that the frame is stamped. Among the possible advantages of the system, it has to be said that Benelli was the first company to publicily advertise the gun as being able to shoot safely extremely hot loads.
    1
  24. The locking mechamism is unusual in it's operating principle, but the pieces are pretty simple to machine. The frame is actually stamped, so the simplest it can be. As for the benefits, actually Benelli was the first company to publicily advertise the gun as being able to shoot safely extremely hot loads. (how many companies still advertise to not use +P ammunitions on their guns?)
    1
  25. In a pure inertia system, like that of the Benelli inertia shotguns, yes. If the gun doesn't move, the bolt doesn't unlock. This is more a mix of inertia, lever-delayed blowback, and mechanical disadvantage (already the Bernardelli Victor, a very interesting shotgun, used a mix of inertia and mechanical disadvantage), so it's possible it works even with the gun solidly locked.
    1
  26. It cycle in any direction. It's the recoil spring that hold it tight.
    1
  27. It thad been the first 9mm pistol where the manufacturer advertised the gun was designed to shoot very hot loads without problems (at the time there was not the definition of "9mm +p").
    1
  28. The external semi-auto switch is not necessary to continue using the M1 trigger group, as the BM59 demonstrated (and the BM59 simply adapted to the M1 Garand the switch of the M2 Carbine).
    1
  29. Not a MAB38, but a nice attempt at.
    1
  30. @Joel McBain Instead there was not US military equipment in Germany... Oh, wait!
    1
  31. Maybe a decocker would have helped.
    1
  32. No.
    1
  33.  @alangordon3283  If you think so...
    1
  34. But in the cramped space of a vehicle you risk to have to charge it right in your chest. That's why it had been modified later.
    1
  35. It's quite simple actually.
    1
  36. Several Soviet designers had to keep on working from the gulag, but to infer without basis that there were problems with a certain product was even more dangerous. For who denigrated a product that later tests would have proven capable, there was almost certain execution.
    1
  37.  @Israel_hans  As said, for sustained fire, water cooling is unbeatable. But it's only viable for firing from a fixed position. It's not only the weight of the water jaket. That water evaporates quite fast, so you need other water tanks, and a recirculating pump (you don't want to expose yourself to fill the water jacket), THEN the water jacket is exposed and gets easily damaged (and, without it, the MG overheats in a moment) so you have to add more armor to protect it, that's more added weight...
    1
  38. Any cartridge can be safely fired in a blowback design. It's just a question of weight of the bolt/slide. Almost any 9mm Para SMG is a blowback design, and they are super-safe. Actually the weight of the slide to be safe against case ruptures in a 9mm para design is pretty low. More weight and/or more stiffness of the main spring and/or bufer springs/recoil pads are needed to prevent the slide to slam into the frame with enough force to damage one, the other, or both.
    1
  39.  @americanmade6996  The "tail" of the barrel can't really pass through the frame when the halves are screwd togheter. Other screws do the work of tightening the frame, and others can be added without interfering with the barrel (IE in front of the "tail" of the barrel). All the barrel need is one or two pins to secure it to the frame. That can rise the manufacturing price of the gun of few cents, but mind that the competitor was a Makarov clone, that didn't need tools to be disassembled.
    1
  40.  @americanmade6996  Screws are not bad and their price is hardly beatable, but a ball-lock pin costs few cents, and a pair of them could have made the disassembly process entirely tool-less.
    1
  41. Sam Moon "Did I say the Germans produced SVT-40s, or did I say they had the ability..." Do you really read the comments first to answer to them? The "ability" and the "tooling" ARE DIFFERENT THINGS. The tooling are the machinery and facilities required to specifically produce something, not the ability to make them. It's obvious that the Germans had the techical knowlege to manifacture SVT40, or M1 Garand for that matter, but they didn't made the tools to do so, so they had not the tooling. "Also, I said I cannot prove a negative" You clearly stated it was a "fact" that the rifles that needed reconditioning, "wasn't a significant number". It's a positive statement, that, if true, can be proved. Were are the sources of that "fact"? What's that "not significant" number? It's not that you "cannot prove a negative", is that you stated to be a "fact" something that you don't know. And are now stating that the fact that you don't know the number is a proof that it was small. Sorry, but ignorance is not proof. What's a "fact" is that the Germans came up with an official accuracy test required (after having zeroed the rifles, so the Germans were expecting to not find the captured rifle to be even properly zeroed) on captured rifles (so on rifles that have been already iussued) to accept the rifles to be used by their soldiers. That shows that they didn't trust the Soviet quality control. An official acceptance test would not have been required, if only seldom samples would have been out of tolerance. "Here, I'll even show you..." ...that you are good at googling "1384/42-AHA/In(VII)". Learned something?
    1
  42. Sam Moon "I cannot prove" So it's not a "fact". What's a "fact" is that the Germans came up with an official accuracy test required (after having zeroed the rifles, so the Germans were expecting to not find the captured rifle to be even properly zeroed) on captured rifles (so on rifles that have been already iussued) to accept the rifles to be used by their soldiers. That shows that they didn't trust the Soviet quality control. An official acceptance test would not have been required, if only seldom samples wuld have been out of tolerance. "it is fact that the Germans tested EVERY piece of captured equipment they intended to use". So what's the official acceptance test, to say one, of the Scotti 20/77 (renamed 2cm Scotti by the Germans)? To test a weapon, to simply see if it works, and to have an official acceptance test to pass are two different things. "It is not my invection" "the majority were out of tolerance and 'discarded'" Your invenction. "you said the percentage was 'good'" An official acceptance test would not have been required, if only seldom samples wuld have been out of tolerance. Instead you said it's a "fact" that those that needed reconditioning, "wasn't a significant number" Where are your sources? "This line confirms to me you're just making stuff up; "Germans had not th(sic) tooling to make that rifle" You're kidding, right? The Germans absolutely had the tooling to produce whatever small arms they wanted" So you are stating Germans produced SVT 40? Good to hear. You have a source stating it, right? Otherwise it's another invenction of your.
    1
  43. Sam Moon "fact" Ahem, not. The same fact that there were an accuracy test required (after having zeroed the rifles, so the Germans were expecting to not find the captured rifle to be even properly zeroed) on captured rifles (so on rifles that have been already iussued) shows that they didn't trust the Soviet quality control. An official acceptance test would not have been required, if only seldom samples wuld have been out of tolerance. What you are stating would be a "fact" if you have a source stating that those that needed reconditioning, "wasn't a significant number". A source that you obviously don't have. And the fact that those not readily accepted to be uesd, cause found to be out of tolerances, would have been sent to the armourer, does not mean that all of those would have been effectively reconditioned. "sent to the armourer" does not mean "repaired and then reiussued to the troops". Germans had not the tooling to make parts for that rifle. Those that would have required excessive work to adjust them, would have not ben repaired. I'm not suggexting you are a troll for trying to correct someone. I'm suggesting that you are cause you are fabricating my statements. I never stated that "the majority were out of tolerance and 'discarded'". That's your invenction. And the fact that you continue to repeat it from your first post ("The Germans were not throwing away a larger number of the SVT-40 than they were using") sems to show that you are only a troll.
    1
  44. Sam Moon I never stated that "the majority were out of tolerance and 'discarded'". That's your invenction. And the fct that you continue to repeat it sems to show that you are only a troll. The same fact that there were an accuracy test required (after having zeroed the rifles, so the Germans were expecting to not find the captured rifle to be even properly zeroed) on captured rifles (so on rifles that have been already iussued) shows that they didn't trust the Soviet quality control. An official acceptance test would not have been required, if only seldom samples wuld have been out of tolerance.
    1
  45. Sam Moon I know perfectly that the Germans liked it, gave it a German designation (that was absolutely common German practice for every captured weapon reiussed to their troops), and stamped a manual for it. Like i know that they were reiussued after having passed an accuracy test, three shots into 10cm at 100m. Order 1384/42-AHA/In(VII).
    1
  46. Sam Moon What "isn't true at all? "Germans not only reused the gas system for the G43, but reused every captured SVT40 as long as it showed to be accurate enough" That was the statement, and that remains. I have no need to post sources to confirm your invenctions.
    1
  47. Err... not really. An M16 is a quite complicate gun to manufacture. It's made of over 100 parts. Only the bolt is made of 19 parts.
    1
  48. Probably more the fact that Beretta outsourced the building of many parts to family workshops in Val Trompia (they still did for their shotguns for several decades after the war). Once the workshop had tooled to produce a part, it was simply not economical to retool, and, since the workshops were labour-intensive family business, the economy in building a part that was intended to simplify mass production was negligible so, along with the mass produced parts built directly by beretta, there was still a continue influx of original M38A parts.
    1
  49. Considered how reliable were the magazines and drums of those weapons...
    1
  50.  @Tom-zc9gs  Those that used daily it used it in the sands of Egypt and the snow of Russia, and deemed it to be very reliable. None noticed this supposed "lot of work to maintain on the field of battle" or that "Other MGs had far more reliability in the same conditions". It seems like something you decided by yourself. Canvas belts had been dropped as well, aren't they? One can invent supposed "general problems" of belts without taking in consideration the weapon he'stalking about at will. Judge them without having ever touched one, decide they are easy to damage... talking of the strips being "hard to keep clean and running" in comparison with belts is really funny anyway. 500m? Please. 90% of rifle exchanges in WWII had been fought at less than 100m, and 99% at less than 300m. So what's the use of doubling the weight for something that's useful in maybe 1% of the cases? And ist's not like the .30 carbine is harmless over 300m. Even a 9mm Para can still pass completely through a human body at 500m. Between the MP44 and the M2 Carbine (select fire M1, it's not like at Aberdeen didn't know them) I would have selected the M2. The Mp44 WAS heavy (it was heavier than a FAL or an M14. 1.2kg heavier than an AK47 unloaded. 2.1kg heavier than a M2 carbine, almost double its weight) in exchange of what? The fact that it's concepts (but not the gun) imposed themself after the war didn't mean it was a superior weapon at the time. the "tons of improvements that could be made" had not been made yet, it was the Mp44 that had to be judged, not "tons of possible improvements". Still in 1958 the contender of the AR15 was the Winchester Light Weight Military Rifle, a classic wooden-stocked forged-receiver rifle (and it could have won, the testers listed many advantages over the AR15) and, guess what? Both contenders had weights comparable to that of the M2, not that of the Mp44. A rifle really similar to the M2 Carbine was still a contender, an Mp44 would not have even been considered. The Mini14 is still appreciated now, and it's largely the same rifle, What modern weapon is really similar to the Mp44 as the Mini14 is similar to the M2?
    1