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

  1. 13
  2. 13
  3. 13
  4. 12
  5. 12
  6. 12
  7. 12
  8. 12
  9. 12
  10. 12
  11. 12
  12. 12
  13. 11
  14. 11
  15. 11
  16. 11
  17. 11
  18. 10
  19. 10
  20. 10
  21. 10
  22. 10
  23. 10
  24. 10
  25. 10
  26. 10
  27. 10
  28. 10
  29. 10
  30. 10
  31. 10
  32. 10
  33. 10
  34. 10
  35. 10
  36. 9
  37. 9
  38. 9
  39. 9
  40. 9
  41. 9
  42. 9
  43. 9
  44.  @Paladin1873  Fact is that almost all the rifles, SMGs, LMGs, HMGs etc... that are not ambidextrous have the charging handle on the right side, M1 Carbine included (maybe because right handed shooters doesn't find it so convenient to place it on the left side?). To say that Beretta's charging handle is: "bassackwards" when is exactly where the same M1 carbine have it... "intuitive" in weapons is a WAY overused word. People are supposed to know their weapon and there is no rule, or intuition, "forward for fire, rearward for safe". The safety is bigger, more easy to operate (especially with gloves), to see and to remember than that of the M1 carbine. The push button magazine release of the M1 Carbine is supposed to be used with the right hand tumb when at the same time the shooter is pulling out the magazine. Those are two completely different movements to do at the same time. With the paddle lever of the Beretta carbine, you only have to grab the magazine to activate the paddle. It's ambidextrous and simpler, so nothing had been " flubbed". You can see in the actual video that the magazine doesn't need to be "rocked" at all. It goes straight in and out. You are tinking of the M14, not of this gun. A peep is what you want, not necessarily what's better. Many rifles have no peep sights. To judge the sight picture without having handled the rifle makes no sense at all. Many successful rifles/AR have the rear sight further forward than this one. An open notch sight MUST be placed further forward than a peep sight.
    9
  45. 9
  46. 9
  47. 9
  48. 9
  49. Actually that would be the most useless part. Much of those old designs required handfitting, because the admitted tolerances were so that, in a batch of supposedly identical parts, the right ones had to be chosen and coupled for the weapon to work. Worse, there was the "cascade matching" problem. When you took, IE, three parts that matched toghether, because they were all at one end of the tolerance scale, and then there was no fourth part that matched with them, because it should have been beyond the scale. It was a so common issue that, for the Winchester .224 prototype (the competitor of the AR15 in the CONARC competition) Winchester explicitly stated that they designed their rifle so that it couldn't happen. And we were in the late '50s. It was still a severe problem for the M60 MG. Modern CNC machines can't work like that. so the modern designer has to come out with his own completely different, set of admitted tolerances. Not to say that steel of the original composition is often unobtanium. The REAL problem is that most of those designs were not that great to begin with. Even the most successful ones, (IE, the M1 Carbine, to say one) were good FOR THEIR TIME. But the eventual purchaser of a modern repro would expect form it MODERN reliability and durability, otherwise "This is shit! The manufcturer scammed me!". For the designer of the repro, it's like a nightmare. To him is like designing a completely new weapon, with the adjunctive constraint that he can't chose the solutions he KNOWS will work flawlessly. He has to keep it consistent with original solutions that he know work "so-so". That's why modern repros mostly dont' have part interchangeability with the originals.
    9
  50. 8