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

  1. As any pre-war cartridges, it's simply too big and heavy for what it delivers. It's too powerful to be fully controlled in full auto too. It's not an intermediate cartridge.
    1
  2.  @ThePerfectRed  The .280/30, the last iteration of the .280 Brit. was already scarcely controllable. The 6.5X55 is further more powerful, and it's still too big and heavy. It's bigger than the .308 Win.
    1
  3.  @ThePerfectRed  I wrote bigger, not more powerful. The 6.5X55 is dimensionally BIGGER than the .308 Win despite being LESS powerful. It's bigger, because it had been designed for older powders, that required more volume to develop the same energy. "As any pre-war cartridges, it's simply too big and heavy for what it delivers". Space and weight are important factors in logistic. That's why new cartridges had been developed post WWII, to replace those that had been designed when smokeless powders had just been invented.
    1
  4.  @ThePerfectRed  I'm a fan of 6.5mm rounds, but the 6.5X55 in particular, in postwar years had those problems. Too big (and that means it needs also too much material too to be built. Brass is a strategic material in war) and too powerful to be controllable in full auto. Not taking the recoil into account, a round with a similar ballistic than the 6.5X55 could be obtained (like it had been obtained, see the 6.5 Creedmore) by shortening the .308 Win, that's already smaller than the 6.5X55.
    1
  5. It trades mass for speed. To accelerate a mass to double the speed in the same time, you need four times the energy, so introducing a lever that accelerates the carrier in respect to the bolt face, you need less weight than in a pure blowback system. .
    1
  6. In reality is complex and useless. ;) It was the Blish lock of its days. IRL, for when the piston had moved those about 3mm necessary to close the ports, the bullet had long left the barrel and the pressure in it dropped to safe level, so it hasn't any auto-regulatory effect. The system didn't offer any advantage over conventional ones, and had several disadvantages in return, like the fact that it could be assembled in reverse. Really simple systems have one-piece piston/op-rod.
    1
  7. Yeah but, on the other hand, when they copied the MG42 belt feed, they did it wrong. It wasn't able to pull the belt vs. the slightest resistance, so the standard manuver to stop firing was just flipping the belt over the receiver.
    1
  8. It holds 20 rounds
    1
  9.  @johncarl5505  The AR10 is another rifle already. it's normally used for hunting in Europe, but never became prevalent. Also because there's no price advantage over an high quality semiauto, like a Benelli Argo for example.
    1
  10.  @antonw-uw4ov  You know nothing about gun laws, like you know nothing about guns. You are not even capable of researching. That's why you need to invent inexistent laws. Things that require a brain developed beyond 6 years old are simply out of your reach.
    1
  11.  @antonw-uw4ov  I'm not upset and I've already schooled you on how gun laws work outside of your mom's basement, since you are clueless about that like about everything else in the real world (you even invented that "in most countries in Europe you do have to belong to a sport shooting club to own a military style semi auto, and the clubs generally require you to compete regularly to get a membership and to keep it", LOL!). Unfortunately you have not enough brain even to understand that.
    1
  12.  @antonw-uw4ov  Have you grown any brain yet?
    1
  13. "OK, lets send this nice to rifle to Italy, we don't need it." "we are fine with our Gew.41" ...
    1
  14. The bottom placement prevented to use a bigger magazine (it would have been an hindrance in firing from prone position) and drums are complicate, heavy and expensive for what they do.
    1
  15. Here the experimental Scotti LMG using the same action (here the aerial version, there were versions with buttstock too). https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/6f/8e/716f8e33be4f124274a6de9457462b65.png
    1
  16. Without knowing about the timeline, I would have said it was promising but, knowing it was the result of 10 years of development, it was still really rough. A rather small firm like Franchi delivered the perfectly serviceable LF59 in much less time.
    1
  17.  @drenek1  Both 7.62 NATO Battle rifles. Apples to apples.
    1
  18.  @drenek1  The small private business was competing for the contract to equip the whole Italian Army. Apples to apples. It lost simply because the BM59 (another product of a private firm) was not beatable price-wise, not because the product wasn't ready. After 10 years of R&D this rifle was evidently not ready for production (and two of the other three designs seemed like made in a carpentry in the spare time). Being a state arsenal is not an excuse for being inefficient.
    1
  19.  @drenek1  I suggest you to read my initial reply, when I pointed out that, knowing it was the result of 10 years of development, the prototype it was still really rough and nowhere near to be mass produced while, IE, a rather small firm like Franchi delivered the perfectly serviceable LF59 in much less time. All the crap about the French and the state arsenals is YOUR, not mine.
    1
  20. A short recoil action (Browning, Beretta/Walther, or that CZ...) opens that way. Simply the barrel recoils with the slide for the first few mm.
    1
  21.  @tommasomorandini1982  Nor you can make the rule "it's a delayed blowback if the bolt moves, but the barrel stays still", because in a Revelli action (today used by the FN Five-Seven and the Ruger 57) that's considered a delayed blowback, the barrel recoils, but at a slower pace than the bolt.
    1
  22.  @Getpojke  If you mind that still in the '50s with the M14 and the FAL, the soldiers were supposed to carry part of the ammo in stripper clips, and load the 20 round magazine with two 10 round ones, even the 30 rounds stripper clip of the Cei Rigotti was VERY modern for 1900 (the year that picture was taken), not to say of the detachable magazines in 1896 (the year of the other picture).
    1
  23. Complexity? The bolt of this gun is made of four pieces. The one of the MG34 is made of 28 pieces.
    1
  24. The reloading is a false problem, and infact wartime Allied reports didn't indicate it to be a problem at all. It's only different to what youi are use to. BREN instructions indicated an ideal ROF during battles of a magazine (of 30 theoric rounds, and 27 practical ones) a minute, and an emergency ROF of 4 magazines a minute (alerting that, at that rate, the barrel had to be changed every 10 magazines, and the entire provision of the squad was of 20 magazines, so 5 minutes of fire). You can easily keep that pace with the Breda 30 as well.
    1
  25. IE cause the MG34 had been adopted four years later, and usually armies don't replace their weapons after only four years since the adoption.
    1
  26. If you copy something four years in advance, is not copying.
    1
  27. And what I'm saying is that the Breda 30 had been adopted in 1930. The MG 34 did non exist then. In 1930, the only LMG design that was demonstrabily better than the Breda 30 was the ZB vz. 26. In the subsequent years, some other better design was introduced, but the armies usually don't replace the weapons they adopted after only few years, only cause something that could be better had been introduced somewere. Think, for example, that the US soldiers fought in Korea with a semiauto rifle, six years after the adoption of the AK47 and ten years after the adoption of the STG44. Shouldn't the US have copied and produced a weapon such as the STG44 or the AK47, instead of providing his army with an obsolete weapon? And, in 1959, ten years after the adoption of the AK47, and 15 after the adoption of the STG44, the M1 rifle had been replaced with a battle rifle that was already obsolete the moment it had been adopted. Cause sometimes armies keep on designing weapons based on obsolete ideas until those proved to be obsolete on the field.
    1
  28. But the Beretta doesn't need to be disassembled to be field-stripped.
    1
  29. It's simply a weak magazine spring. You need spring tension to keep the rounds in place in a downward looking double feed magazine, and no magazine is designed to last 100 years.
    1
  30. 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
  31. It's a foldable shoulder support. It's useful when you fire from prone position (that way the weapon is suspended between the bipod and your shoulder, and you don't have to keep it high with your arms.
    1
  32. Original Italian 7.35 Carcano were zeroed at 200m. The Finns required them to be set at 150m first to be delivered.
    1
  33. They used it in 8mm Lebel, like thy used the Chauchat in 8mm Lebel.
    1
  34.  @LunaDevaKitty  It's actually historical. Only few samples of Chauchat in 30-06 had been made, and they had been used for training only (they were found to be quite unrelaible due to incorrect measures of the cartridge had been provided). In combat the US troops used the Chauchat only in 8mm Lebel.
    1
  35. the MG42 is a recoil operated weapon, but is not a purely recoil operated weapon, like a semiauto pistol, where there is a single piece bolt that recoils at the same speed of the barrel until the barrel stops and the bolt continues snatching the case out of the chamber. The wedge that pushes out the roller is both part of the striker and of the bolt carrier, as the bolt carrier is in direct contact with it during recoil and, when the wedge shaped part recoils in respect to the bolt head , pushed by the rollers it pushes back the bolt carrier too. The iternal spring around the striker (bolt catch) wasn't generally present in wartime MG42s, it had been introduced very late in the war only to adress cases of out of battery shots caused by the rebound of the bolt carrier. It only serves to provide to the bolt carrier a "soft landing" when the action closes. There are several models of it, some of them doesn't load the locking wedge at all (so working purely by inertia). As for the Breda 30, I would not have adopted it. It was not that poor of a design, but it was not easily improvable, and there were better designs to start from, transfering in them the good features of the M30 (essentially, the quick exchange barrel). IE the Brixia 1920 (a rather unfortunate HMG, but a good base for a LMG), or the SIA 1918 (a scaled up Villar Perosa, but a good base for a lever delayed LMG, it already had a two piece bolt with the rear one recoiling faster due to inclined surfaces, but the rear bolt-striker was really too light compared to the front part). Waiting a couple of years, they could have adopted a gas operated LMG based on the Breda PG instead.
    1
  36. ? Actually this is a simple action even by modern standards. In WWI, only the Hotchkiss was simpler than this.
    1
  37.  M Via  http://soldiersystems.net/2012/07/20/marsoc-winning-colt-guns/ "Due to cracks which developed in the pistol slides during Reliability Testing, that test was not able to be completed as planned. Testing was planned for 15,000 rounds per pistol, but stopped early at 12,000 rounds"
    1
  38. No. An MG34 bolt is composed of 28 parts. This one is composed of ...four parts, recoil spring included. The barrel change of the Breda 30 is way faster and easier. To change an MG34 50 rounds "drum" magazine requires more time than to reload the Breda 3 times.
    1
  39. Have you infos about this rifle not being reliable?
    1
  40. All the viable 6.5 rifle cartridges (6.5X52 Carcano, 6.5X53R, 6.5X54 Manlicher Shonauer, 6.5 Arisaka, 6.5 Grendel, .264 USA...) tend to have more or less the same ballistic once the different weight of the projectiles is taken into account. Is a "sweet spot" that's known since the late 19th century.
    1
  41. 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
  42. The ban of military calibers for civilians is not meant to "control population" or to "don't give them too powerful military cartridges" (infact civilians can purchase firearms in more powerful cartridges). It's meant to control armed forces. To not allow soldiers and policemen to privately purchase ammos for their service weapons.
    1
  43. Like making British battleships hit the bottom at Alexandria.
    1
  44. Good luck in dark bluing stainless steel.
    1
  45. 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
  46. Among the desiderabile features of a firearm "no stamped parts" is probably at the bottom of the list. IE, in the same timeframe, the Benelli B76, that was a high quality firearm, with a competition-level trigger out of the box, and one of the first 9mm officially advertised to be capable to fire +P ammunition, had completely stamped frame and slide. As a thumb rule forged>stamped>cast (not that cast=bad. IE the CZ75 had cast frame).
    1
  47. I sometimes wonder if people know what a "Rube Goldberg" design means. An MG34 bolt is composed of 28 parts. That of a BAR is composed of 18 parts. This one is composed of ...four parts, recoil spring included.
    1
  48.  @BobSmith-dk8nw  You are looking at all the weapon. I said "bolt". ONLY the bolt of an MG34 is made of 28 parts, and that of a BAR is made of 18 parts. Breda 30 bolt is made of bolt body, extractor, firing pin, recoil spring. It's as simple as that of an SMG. This is the bolt (only the bolt) of an MG34. https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1524/1342/products/MG34GDF1_12.jpg?v=1600557086 Rube Goldberg for you. That of the MG42 had been greatly simplified, but was still composed of 16 parts.
    1
  49.  @BobSmith-dk8nw  Mind that any WWII LMG team was composed of several people. The US Army B-team (the one with the BAR) was composed of machine-gunner, assistant-gunner and ammo bearer. In the British BREN team it was the assistant that changed the magazines (and communicated to the gunner that the weapon was ready by patting his helmet). the task of the gunner was to aim and fire. Actually one of the advantages of the Breda 30 (recognised by Allied reports) was that the weapon could be reloaded and the barrel changed by the gunner without he having to move the weapon or change his firing position (the designers of the M60 should have taken note). That of the magazine was a false problem. WWII LMGs actually didn't fire that much. In the British manual on the use of the BREN the ideal ROF was of one magazine (of 30 theoretical rounds, and 27 real ones) a minute. It was contemplated an emergency ROF of 4 magazines a minute, keeping in mind that at that pace, the barrel had to be changed every 10 magazines, and the provision of the entire squad was of 20 magazines (so of only 5 minutes). A Breda 30 could fire at the same practical ROF without problems. To reload the MG34 with the "drum" 50 rounds magazine (in reality a can containing a 50 rounds belt) took so long that it was faster to reload a Breda 30 three times. All in all, the Breda was not a great weapon by any means, but it was not so bad either.
    1
  50.  @BobSmith-dk8nw  I saw that clip. But I read wartime reports as well. The Allied ones. So the ones that could compare the Breda 30 to the Allied weapons their soldiers were used to. The Brits reused the captured Breda 30, wrote manuals for the Allied gunners issued with them, and wrote intelligence reports. The magazine had never been mentioned as a problem, and not even as a curiosity. At all. The reason is the one i mentioned. The magazine didn't limit the practical ROF in respect to other LMGs (real LMGs, better to not even talk of the BAR, forced into a LMG role without even having a detachable barrel. Mind what Ian mentioned. After the first battles the provision of spare barrels of the Breda 30 was enhanced from 2 to 4. That meant that the Breda faced the real problem to fire more than 600 rounds continuously in battle). You could fire 6 Breda 30 magazines (so 120 rounds) in a minute reloading the magazine while it was attached to the weapon (the practical ROF was actually indicated in 150 RPM). And that practical ROF was needed only in dire emergency. Because the squad had not enough ammunitions to sustain it for long anyway. Battles don't last five minutes. BTW, the M1919 had the same problem of the BAR. If you didn't want to overheat it, your ROF was limited to 60 rounds a minute. The faster you decided to shoot, the sooner you'll have to stop to cool-off the weapon. simply, if the US had a problem with their weapons, they could throw more weapons to the problem.
    1