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

  1. Because a regular Thompson was heavier than a M1 rifle.
    1
  2. The Thompson SMG is an heavy design in itself. The walls of the receiver are way thicker than what's necessary. That's why it weighted almost 2 lbs more than the grease gun.
    1
  3. ​ @user-tv4lz5ie5u  Mussolini was popular. Hitler was popular. Pinochet was popular... Dictators are usually popular until they do something massively stupid. When the regime controls the media, it's easy to be popular.
    1
  4. As quality of the single weapon, the Hotchkiss Portative, as usefulness for an army, the Chauchat (with the material, tooling, manhour required to assemble an Hotchkiss Portative you can likely produce at least three Chauchat).
    1
  5. Yes.
    1
  6. There are few problems that can't be fixed with a hammer.
    1
  7. The FNAB-43 submachinegun was also lever-delayed.
    1
  8. That was the plan. In 2014 the Ukrainian Army already had problems in dealing with the Pro-Russian militia, and when the Russian Army (not even in full force, but masked as "volunteers") showed up, it had to retreat or be annihilated. All the "plan A" was based on not finding ANY real resistance. The Ukrainian government had to flee only for the show of force and the Russian army act only as an occupation force. There was no "plan B".
    1
  9. "let's see how many functional springs we can put in a single handgun".
    1
  10. The shotguns rented by Argentine outfitters for dove hunting shoot on average 1250 rounds a day, so they can easily see who's the more cost-efficient. Their lineup is almost entirely made of Beretta and Benelli.
    1
  11. They used wood for the hunting line. That way they could use the same tooling.
    1
  12. Several semiauto shotguns have a magazine cutoff, even if not aimed at the law enforcement market. See for example the Beretta 391 or the Breda Xantos.
    1
  13. Considering that the starting rifle was fairly light, probably not that much.
    1
  14.  @robosoldier11  I would rather see those ideas used in new firearms. Like a Scotti action GPMG, or a Breda action AR. We've already seen good ideas given justice after decades of oblivion. The Steyr rotating barrel in the Beretta Series 8000 and PX4, the Bergmann floating lock in the Archon, the Revelli rotating lock (that of the Glisenti 1910 pistol and FIAT-Revelli 1914 MG) in all the 5.7x28 pistols bar the new S&W...
    1
  15. The downsides were that it was anyway a stopgap. IE, for how much reliable and simple it could be, the entire receiver recoiling was uncomfortable for the shooter (you have the cheek and the thumb near to the recoiling mass) and the barrel was not apt for semiauto shooting (the higher rate of fire of a semiauto requires a shorter and thicker barrel to avoid overheat witout gaining too much weight). In the end, the saving was not enough to justify the adoption of a stopgap weapon.
    1
  16.  @lardomcfarty9866  You should cure your alchool addiction. You started raving. Also you should learn that, if there isn't your name in front of the message, who posted it was answering to the original message, not your reply. Just a hint from someone that's "first time on the internet".
    1
  17.  @TraTranc  Uh, no, since, as you said, other higher caliber rounds WERE available. Why someone that wanted an higher caliber round would have bought a pistol in .32 ACP when 7.65 Parabellum and .45 ACP (not to say ALL the revolver calibers) were regularly on the market? The Bernardelli B76 even had two alternative versions available for civilians, one in 7.65 Para and one, blowback, in .32 ACP. It was a question of choice. But it's revealing that NO weapon manufacturer thought to build a pistol for one of the many 9mm calibers equivalent to 9mm Para (9mm Largo, Steyr, Winchester, .38 ACP/Super...). They made 9mm pistols for police/military contracts, then a version in .7.65 Para to cover the scarce civilian requests for breechlock guns they expected. Even only talking about blowbacks, had there been a real request for larger calibers than .32 ACP, even not being .380 ACP available, manufacturers would have done them in 9mm Makarov, but none did.
    1
  18.  @saoirse5308  It's not like Beretta did a .380 because they can't make a 9mm. They made a .380 because they wanted to make a .380. You liking or not, is up to you. You want a 9mm? Go buy one. None is forcing you to buy a .380. But, if you want to compare the 80X it to some other gun, you should compare it to other .380.
    1
  19. 52.000 PSI is way too much to shoot in a blowback gun without weight disadvantage (that means, the slide of a hi-point). The (comfortable) limit for a compact blowback gun (the dimension of a 80X) in 8mm is probably around 31.000 PSI (the pressure of a 9mm Makarov X the rate between the internal base area of the cartridges).
    1
  20. ​ @drewberg1361  It seems that you are legitimately special needs (not that it comes as a surprise at that point). Because, (unfortunately i'm sure you'll not understand however simply i can explain it) if the same equipment is used for every cartridge, it will have the same effect on every cartridge. It's not like, if that equipment says that the 7.92x33 mm Kurz is supersonic at 400m, and another cartridge is supersonic at 500m, that other cartridge is effectively supersonic at 500m, but the 7.92x33mm kurz became subsonic at 200m because the fairies that live in your world stop it. Your halving the range the 7.92x33 kurz is supersonic was just A LIE you came up with to "prove" (LOL!) your point.
    1
  21.  @drewberg1361  And now is the moment you embarass yourself by giving some completely useless datas to show you can type. Have I ever said the .224 win is identical to the .222 rem? Obviously not because, like the .223 rem, it DESCENDED from the .222 rem, it's not the same cartridge.You didn't give any sample on how the .224 win should have descended from the .243 win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same base dimension of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same thickness of the rim of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same dimension of the extractor groove land of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same angle of the shoulder of the extractor groove of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. That means that the The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same dimensions of the extractor groove of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same shoulder angle of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same lenght between the base and the shoulder of the .223 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same diameter at the shoulder, of the .223 Rem. and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same taper of the .223 Rem. and different than that of the .243 Win. The two cartridges are IDENTICAL in every dimension and angle from the base to the neck, and different from the .243 Win. For EVERYONE that can read and understand what he's reading. So not for you. EVERYONE with at least a working braincell would have long realized that both the .223 Rem and the .224 Win are enlogated .222 Rem (that not means to take a .222 rem and stretch it, but that obviously will fly over you). . So not you. "curious didn't you say earlier that is nearly impossible?" It was written that it would be almost a miracle starting form different parent cartridges, while in this caseTHEY DIDN'T START FROM DIFFERENT PARENT CARTRIDGES. but obviously you didn't understand. "because while they share some commonalities in sizes the .224 E2 was designed by different engineers and based off a different round and made to work in .22 caliber. Crazy right?" No. Because the .224 win was designed by different engineers STARTING FROM THE SAME PARENT CASE. EVERYONE with at least a working braincell would have long realized that it's impossible to have all those dimensions EXACTLY identical starting from two parent cases that have COMPLETELY different dimensions. And that excludes you. You even came to te point of telling they used different bullets! LMAOF! You don't even know that different bullets can be used even on the same cartrige! But really, where did you come from? Because you are not of this world. The next one will be that their brasses were of slightly different colour.
    1
  22.  @drewberg1361  Surely you don't know how rounds are tested, if you can believe that they changed the specifications of the 7.92X33 kurz, incredibly managing to increase the muzzle speed of the bullet so much that his supersonic range more than doubled without blowing up the weapon (and you want to give lessons, LOL!), just for the joy to make the sights of the only weapon the cartridges were intended for, useless. But no, now, in your world of fairies and unicorns, are the super duper special equipment used for testing, different for the equipment used to test every other cartridge, that gave super duper special result for the 7.92X33 kurz, different from the result they gave for every other cartrige. What a joke you are...
    1
  23.  @drewberg1361  You are embarassing yourself. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same base dimension of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same thickness of the rim of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same dimension of the extractor groove land of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same angle of the shoulder of the extractor groove of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. That means that the The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same dimensions of the extractor groove of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same shoulder angle of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same lenght between the base and the shoulder of the .223 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same diameter at the shoulder, of the .223 Rem. and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same taper of the .223 Rem. and different than that of the .243 Win. The two cartridges are IDENTICAL in every dimension and angle from the base to the neck, and different from the .243 Win. For EVERYONE that can read and understand what he's reading. So not for you. EVERYONE with at least a working braincell would have long realized that both the .223 Rem and the .224 Win are enlogated .222 Rem. So not you.
    1
  24.  @drewberg1361  Yeah, they changed the specifications, incredibly managing to increase the muzzle speed of the bullet so much that his supersonic range more than doubled without blowing up the weapon (you should have "a clear grasp of ballistics" LOL!), just for the joy to make the sights of the only weapon the cartridges were intended for, useless. And, starting from this folly, you arbitrarily more than halved the range the bullet is supersonic in respect to all the known ballistic charts. Please, stop embarassing yourself.
    1
  25.  @drewberg1361  You evidently don't know how calibers work if you believe all those dimensions could be exactly the same by chance (not similar EXACTLY THE SAME. the .223 Rem and .224 Win HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME DIMENSIONS FROM THE BASE TO THE NECK). Or you are in bad faith, like it's becoming quite evident.
    1
  26.  @drewberg1361  Sorry, to believe that the performances of cartridges that had been created later affects the performances of cartridges that had been created before without changing the specifications is beyond ridicolous. To believe that a cartrige, that was in standard production in the '50s, to be used in those same STG-44 manufactured during the war, misteriously had more than double the supersonic range of the ones used during the war (just for the fun of fucking the sights of the rifle), using a bullet of the same weight and dimensions, means not only to not have a grasp of the matter you are talking about but not even wanting to understand it. To have STATED that the 8.92X33 mm kurz was subsonic at 200m, arbitrarily halving all the datas avaliable means to be in bad faith too.
    1
  27.  @drewberg1361  The .224 Win has exactly the same base dimension of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. The .224 Win has exactly the same thickness of the rim of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. The .224 Win has exactly the same dimension of the extractor groove land of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. The .224 Win has exactly the same angle of the shoulder of the extractor groove of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. That means that the The .224 Win has exactly the same dimensions of the extractor groove of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. The .224 Win has exactly the same shoulder angle of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. The .224 Win has exactly the same lenght between the base and the shoulder of the .223 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. The .224 Win has exactly the same diameter at the shoulder, of the .223 Rem. and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. The .224 Win has exactly the same taper of the .223 Rem. and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. The two cartridges are identical in every dimension and angle from the base to the neck, and different from the .243 Win in every single dimension and angle. It's evident to ANYONE that they are enlongated .222 Rem, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. It's quite evident that you are not able to understand the same datas you post. Sorry, but you are a joke.
    1
  28.  @drewberg1361  Sorry, after you posted the datas demonstrating exactly why those two cartridges were interchangeable, I can't take you for serious any more. You are a joke.
    1
  29.  @drewberg1361  So you are unable to understand what you read. Exactly the same base dimension of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem... by pure chance. Exactly the same thickness of the rim of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem... by pure chance. Exactly the same dimension of the extractor groove land of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem...... by pure chance. Exactly the same angle of the shoulder of the extractor groove of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem...... by pure chance. Exactly the same shoulder angle of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem...... by pure chance. exactly the same lenght between the base and the shoulder of the .223 Rem. by pure chance. Exactly the same diameter at the shoulder, of the .223 Rem. by pure chance. Exactly the same taper, of the .223 Rem. by pure chance. And for you the 224 Winchester is evidently derived from a cartridge that is different in all this dimensions. Really, you are a joke.
    1
  30.  @drewberg1361  Your the statemet, your the burden of proof. Otherwise those are only things you have pulled out of your ass.
    1
  31.  @drewberg1361  If I could still take you for serious I could have told you that different ballistic tables could provide slightly different results and, for a bullet with a 2250fps muzzle speed, 1650 fps at 200m and 1500fps at 300yds are compatible results, while the bullet being subsonic at 200m isn't. I could have told you that many rounds made for black powder had been converted for smokeless powder, mantaining the same performances (obviously using less powder) because those were the performances (max allowed pressure) they were designed for, but I really can't take you for serious any more You are a joke.
    1
  32.  @drewberg1361  And that's another thing that you pulled out of your ass. To lie is not doing you any favour.
    1
  33.  @drewberg1361  Oh my god you really believe it! You think cases are filled with powder to the brim, ad modern, more powerful powders make the bullet go faster! LOL! Rounds have maximum specified pressures, and is pressure that push the bullet. Infantry (United States Army Infantry School, 1968 Issue, p22) 7.92mm Kurz, muzzle speed 2250 fps; at 300 yds 1500 fps; at 800 yds 960 fps. You (well not you, someone that knows math) can do the interpolation.
    1
  34.  @drewberg1361  You are stil not providing anything that datas you pulled out of your ass.
    1
  35.  @drewberg1361  Dimensions that you evidently don' t know.
    1
  36.  @drewberg1361  Your is the statment that bullpups (no weight distribution, design of the rifle,function of the gas impingement. BULLPUP AND NOTHING ELSE) have less recoil. Your the statement, your the burden of the proof. Otherwise in another wild statement that you pulled out of your ass.
    1
  37.  @drewberg1361  I said controllability in full auto. If you are able to point where I stated that the FAL has less recoil impulse than the M14 do it, otherwise that's another thing you pulled out of your ass. Like the others you are pulling in the same post.
    1
  38.  @drewberg1361  Your the statement, your the burden of the proof. Until then , those are datas you pulled out of your ass.
    1
  39.  @drewberg1361  Oh sorry, since we were interloking answers, I lost three of yours, so: Sorry, but posting something you don't understand or know how to use counts for nothing. So the use of an older kind of powder with the same bullet dimensions, weight and muzzle speed, will change the speed of the bullet at mid course in the air? LOL! Oh, my god. It had been one of your supposed armorer friends that told you that? That explains many things. You must be their laughing stock. Infantry (United States Army Infantry School, 1968 Issue, p22) 7.92mm Kurz, muzzle speed 2250 fps; at 300 yds 1500 fps; at 800 yds 960 fps. You (well not you, someone that knows math) can do the interpolation.
    1
  40.  @drewberg1361  another demonstration that you know nothing about the matter. Tons of slightly underdimensioned rounds had been fired by any kind of firearm. So you passed from being a supposed armorer to be someone that supposedly talked to an armorer. Sorry, but having seen a picture of the cartridge counts for nothing, and the extractor groove in the .243 Win is much larger than that of the .224 Win and .223 Rem, No wonder that a manufacturer crimped the ammos like it was used to do even if the parent case was that of another manufacturer.
    1
  41.  @drewberg1361  Kinda like you are keeping on pulling datas out of your ass?
    1
  42.  @drewberg1361  Sorry, but it's YOUR lack of formulas, or any understanding of the matter (bullpups would reduce recoil impulse? LOL!). I've no doubt you will stick with the datas you invented. The FAL has less muzzle rise than the M14, so it's more controllable, for the simple reason it has an inline barrel.
    1
  43.  @drewberg1361  Err... no. Anyone with a grasp on the matter knows that only to have compatible extractor grooves would be a miracle, not talking about base diameter, taper, neck lenght or shoulder angle. The AR15 could chamber and cycle the .224 Winchester. The contrary was not possible, since the .224 Winchester was slightly shorter than the .223 Rem, like the .222 Rem was. That's becasue the .222 Rem WAS INTRODUCED IN 1950 FOR THE MODEL 722 RIFLE. It was a commercially available and well known ammo way before the studies for the two rifles started, and way before the 7.62X51 NATO was adopted, for that matter. And that COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE round was the parent case of both the .223 Rem and the .224 Win. The 5.56X46 can cause serious damages to .223 Remington chambers because it requires an European style chamber, and will develop excessive pressure in an American style chamber. It's like trying to fire a 9mm +p+ in a pistol not apt to fire +p.
    1
  44. ​ @drewberg1361  Sorry, but to believe that two indipendent design, having only a certain range of energy, weight and caliber as a goal, will end up with two cartridges so similar that they could chamber and cycle the same weapon, you should really believe in fairies and unicorns.
    1
  45.  @drewberg1361  You actually didn't provide any formulas, only blabbered about muzzle energy, making pretty clear to anyone that you know nothing about recoil. The .308 Win producing 10.2 ft-lbs of recoil in a EM-2 when it produces 15 ft-lbs in a M14? LOL!
    1
  46.  @drewberg1361  Even later .280/30 have 40% less recoil than 7.62X51. What was better for a rIfle-sized automatic weapon was a no-brainer, but the US, like you, were obsessed with "MORE POWAH!".
    1
  47.  @drewberg1361  Sorry dude, but if you are able to believe that, starting from a case that's bigger in every dimensions, they casually ended up with a cartridge that had exactly the same dimensions of a .222 Rem, then you are able to believe in fairies and unicorns too.
    1
  48.  @drewberg1361  You need to read what you write. Your argument was that the FAL had been adopted because Europe was poor (oh, sorry, "economically destitute", in the '50s LOL!) after the conflict and couldn't afford the M14. apart the fact that in the '50s the reconstruction had amply ended (everyone with a grasp of economic history knows that and, BTW, public debt of European countries in the '50s was generally low, it increased only in the '70s), FACT is that in Europe the FAL had never been so widespread. Among the major European armies only the Brits (that would have gladly used their bullpup rifle in .280 instead) adopted it. Now you are saying that they didn't adopt the FAL because they were poor? And you don't want to be called "stupid"? (not that I did before, you find the definition for yourself).
    1
  49.  @drewberg1361  A demonstration is not a test. Tests made by the developer during development don't count. Everyone makes them. The Winchester prototype was was publicly demonstrated in oct 1957, only five months after the first demonstration of the AR15, the Winchester prototypes with the modifications required arrived at Fort Benning in July 1958, were tested, and the report of the tests was released in september of the same year. The AR15 was praised for reliability and the Winchester rifle for accuracy, but both were deemed to be inferior to the M14 anyway. Winchester declined to develop its rifle further, so only limited tests with the AR15 went on in the subsequent years. I never called you "stupid", but, since you are evidently unable to understand simple concepts, maybe you have found the right definition fo ryourself (for how incredible it may seem).
    1
  50.  @drewberg1361  Oh, another time the last resource of the losers.
    1