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

  1.  @drewberg1361  Even the late .280/30 had 40% less recoil than the 7.62X51. The .223 Rem was introduced as an answer to the 7.62x39. Had the US troops in Nam already had an intermediate cartridge and lighter rifles when they encountred the 7.62X39, they would have introduced the .223 Rem in response to... what exactly?
    1
  2.  @drewberg1361  So you know absolutely nothing about recoil too. Why I'm not surprised? Recoil is proportional to momentum (mass for speed), not energy. To the momentum generated by a 147gr bullet leaving the barrel at 2700fps (7.62x51 M80) vs. a 140gr bullet leaving the barrel at 2595 fps (late .280/30) you must add the momentum of 46gr powder leaving the barrel at 4700fps (7.62x51 M80) vs 32gr of powder leaving the barrel at 4000fps (late .280/30). Someone able to multiply and add the results (so not you) will find at this point that the late .280/30 will have 37.33% less recoil than the 7.62X51 M80, or that the 7.62X51 M80 will have 54.73% more recoil than the late .280/30, that's indipendent form the unit of measure. You should pay for the lessons you are taking, but I'm pretty sure they are flying over you, so...
    1
  3.  @drewberg1361  Your words: "the AR-15 was tested at Aberdeen (US Army weapons testing grounds) in direct response to the US Army offering an open contract for an intermediate rifle chambered in .22 caliber. There were several entrants..." FALSE, there was not an open contract and there were not "several" entrants. The only comparable rifle the AR15 was tested with during its development and before its adoption was the wooden stocked Winchester LMR, that fired an almost identical round, in the late '50s. Those were NOT open tests, they were limited specifically to those two weapons and the M14 and there were NOT contracts involved. then: "funny considering the Winchester prototype wasn't even delivered as it wasn't completed in time for the test. The AR-15 ended up testing alone against a control group of M14 rifles" FALSE (where had the "several entrants" gone BTW?) 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. But if you want to keep on embarassing yourself, go ahead, I've no objections.
    1
  4.  @drewberg1361  So what happened to the .243 Winchester being the parent case now? They started from identical studies, but they were still not called .222 Remington, or better, Stoner called them .222 Remington, but Winchester called them another way, so they didn't start form the .222 Remington, even if it had exactly the same dimensions? LOL!
    1
  5.  @drewberg1361  The G3 is a direct derivate of the CETME that former Mauser (and later H&K) engineers designed in Spain. It was adopted for that, and for the fact that it could be licence produced in Germany, while FN wasn't disposed to grant the production licence to the Germans. Why should I list more accurate rifles than the M14 now? Another one of your made-up necessities? You talked of the M14 as the epitome of battle rifles and having stellar accuracy. It's not and it doesn't have it. "Almost any rifle in 7.62 NATO can be acuratised to serve as a marksman/sniper rifle. It had been done with the FAL and the G3 as well. The M14 are not particularly accurate, reliable or lightweitght. They are used for the limited use of battle rifles in today's US military only because they are already in the inventory.
    1
  6.  @drewberg1361  So you know absolutely nothing about ballistic too. Why I'm not surprised? The 7.92 mm kurz at 200m travels at 1650 fps. It becames subsonic only past 400m, That's because the Germans were absolutely not interested in what would have happened past 300m, since 99% of rifles exchanges in WWII happened below that distance (and 90% below 100m for that matter). It's quite hilarious how, having learned (you prefer learnt my little grammar nazi? LOL!) a new word (this time is "Gen. Wyman") you try to use it as a spell capable of clear all the nonsense you said before.
    1
  7.  @drewberg1361  Probably you didn't know who he was when you blabbered about "several entrants" and "open contracts".
    1
  8.  @drewberg1361  Oh, the one that finds the other "hilarious" feels insulted, poor fella. I feel for you (of what intelligence are you talking of BTW?) He even became a grammar nazi of nonstandard terms, the last resource of the losers. It seems that you forgot what your argument was another time. You said that the FAL had been adopted because Europe was poor (oh, sorry, "economically destitute", in the '50s LOL!) after the conflict. 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) and 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) used it, so of what are you talking about? You only came out with an idiocy to support your point.
    1
  9.  @drewberg1361  Your words: "the AR-15 was tested at Aberdeen (US Army weapons testing grounds) in direct response to the US Army offering an open contract for an intermediate rifle chambered in .22 caliber. There were several entrants..." FALSE, there was not an open contract and there were not "several" entrants. The only comparable rifle the AR15 was tested with during its development and before its adoption was the wooden stocked Winchester LMR, that fired an almost identical round, in the late '50s. Those were NOT open tests, they were limited specifically to those two weapons and the M14 and there were NOT contracts involved. then: "funny considering the Winchester prototype wasn't even delivered as it wasn't completed in time for the test. The AR-15 ended up testing alone against a control group of M14 rifles" FALSE (where had the "several entrants" gone BTW?) 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. From what you write and forget to have wrote, it doesn't seem that you have 2 working braincells.
    1
  10.  @drewberg1361  It was so the Winchester .243 the parent case that, as strange it may seem, despite starting from bigger a round in all dimensions, they CASUALLY ended up with a round that had all the dimensions of a .223 Rem, apart for being shorter, just like a .222 Rem. LOL!
    1
  11.  @drewberg1361  So now 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? Is quite hilarious to see you backpedaling with your tail between your legs while barking at the same time.
    1
  12.  @drewberg1361  You can tell yourself the story you like more. The .280 Brit was developed to be controllable in full auto. It's at the high end of intermediate cartridges, but it's an intermediate cartridge. Even in its more powerful iteration, the .280/30, the .280 provided 2/3 of the recoil of the .308 Win while at the same time exceeding all those non existing "NATO ballistics requirements" you are fabling about. What round was better for a select-fire weapon was a no-brainer. The Winchester prototype was ready and tested. It was publicly demonstrated in oct 1957, only five months after the first demonstration of the AR15. Around the same time the Infantry board requested for the respective cartridges, both obtained from the .222 Rem., thus not identical, to be interchangeable for further testing. The Winchester prototypes with the modifications required arrived at Fort Benning in July 1958. The report of the tests was released in september. the Winchester rifle was determined to be slightly inferior to the AR15, Winchester declined to develop its rifle further. That's the story. The Winchester cartridge was not a Remington ammo, but was obtained from the .222 Remington as a parent cartridge, like the .223 Remington was. In tests, the AR15 could shoot the .224 Wincester ammo, but not the contrary, because the .224 Wincester was slightly shorter. It's not a power contest. The .280 Brit is controllable in full auto, the .308 Win is not. What round was better for a select-fire weapon was a no-brainer, but you are reasoning like Colonel Studler did "IT HAS MORE POWAH! YEAH!", with the result of adopting the shortest lived infantry rifle in US history. Unfortunately the history did not agree with you on the importance of volume of fire in infantry battles, and the M14 had consequently been the shortest lived infantry rifle in US history.
    1
  13.  @drewberg1361  The Winchester prototype was ready and tested. It was publicly demonstrated in oct 1957, only five months after the first demonstration of the AR15. Around the same time the Infantry board requested for the respective cartridges, both obtained from the .222 Rem., thus not identical, to be interchangeable for further testing. The Winchester prototypes with the modifications required arrived at Fort Benning in July 1958. The report of the tests was released in september. the Winchester rifle was determined to be slightly inferior to the AR15, Winchester declined to develop its rifle further, so only limited tests with the AR15 went on in the subsequent years. The tests were not open. Only Armalite and Winchester were invited. You are only trying to make up a story of your like.
    1
  14.  @drewberg1361  The FN CAL was developed years after the AR15 for the sole reason that the adoption of the AR15 came as a surprise and without any competition, so any other rifle in 5.56 NATO was developed after the AR15. Is like saying that any pistol in 9mm luger had been developed years after the luger. In 1958 there had been nothing like your precious "open testing", sorry.
    1
  15.  @drewberg1361  When FN saw there was a market for 5.56 rifles, it evolved the FAL design into the FN CAL and FN FNC.
    1
  16.  @drewberg1361  It had been the US that imposed the "big heavy rifles" to the NATO partners when any other had pretty much estabished that intermediate cartridges were needed for select fire weapons since the '20s (see the Terni M1921 rifle for example). Germans came out with the STG-44, and the Soviets, after having tested the AVT-40 in actual combat (there had been some actual combat on the Russian Front), came out with the AK-47.
    1
  17.  @drewberg1361  Who is talking of "this era"? "Had the rifle the US troops were using in Vietnam been "good enough", the US would have probably never adopted the M16. Maybe they would have adopted an intermediate cartridge rifle much later, but it would have been a different rifle."
    1
  18. Mind that the AR10 entered in several adoption trials along the FAL, and the FAL generally won. The AR10 was sligtly lighter (not even that much after the modification suggested by field use had been implemented), but the FAL was more easily mass producible (stamped steel), robust, and could mount a folding stock. Both had a stock in line with the barrel. It's difficult to believe that, in a trial for the adoption of an intermediate cartridge rifle, an AR15 could have shown so much advantages over an enlightened FAL to justify its adoption.
    1
  19. The AR10 entered in several adoption trials along the FAL, and the FAL generally won. The AR10 was sligtly lighter (not even that much after the modification suggested by field use had been implemented), but the FAL was more easily mass producible (stamped steel), robust, and could use a folding stock. Both used an inline stock, so recoil management was even.
    1
  20.  @GeorgiaBoy1961  The 7.62X51 CETME was a ballistic marvel, unfortunately developed in the wrong country. At the time none would have considered for widespread adoption something out of Spain (since it took no part in WWII). The problem for a scaled down FAL, after the return to intermediate cartridges in the '60s, was the AR18. The AR18 (and all the derivatives, copies and clones) was functional and much cheaper than what a scaled down FAL would have ever been, so it would have put a scaled-down FAL out of the market that the original FAL had. Infact FN simplified the action the most that was possible to create first the FN CAL and then the FN FNC.
    1
  21. The "heat extraction thru metal cases" had ALWAYS only meant "in respect to caseless ammos". Caseless ammos are ineherently hotter than brass ammos, because the burning powder is in direct contact with the chamber. Here's the opposite. Plastic shields the chamber from the heat of the burning powder MUCH better than brass. Heat remains in gasses (that expand more, that's why they need less powder for the same muzzle speed) and it's expelled from the barrel with them, because also gasses are very bad at heat transfer. Plastic cased ammos actually heat up the weapons MUCH LESS than brass ammos.
    1
  22.  @My-Name-Isnt-Important  Mind that Beretta already entred in the GD bid, to improve ergonomics of the "second generation" prototypes, and already assured high-volume production capabilities, through the Tennesse factory, should the bid win the contract.
    1
  23.  @fraleo2192  Mind that those weapons are meant for infantry support on the field, so there are weight constraints. They don't want the MG gunner to have a significative mobility disadvantage this time. The other two bids had always been shown with very small belt pouches. But even with a 100 round belt the total time lost in reloading is practically even. Obviously, on a vehicular weapon, you can attach a 250 round belt, but, in the GD bid, the vehicular role is covered by the existing MGs with just a barrel change.
    1
  24.  @Barabel22  Thanks to those few inches of barrel, the ammo reaches the desired performances with normal operating pressures, and so can be used on any existing 7.62 NATO firearm with just a barrel change.
    1
  25.  @fraleo2192  Have you seen how much time it takes, even for trained professionals in the best conditions possible at the range, to replace belts on the other two bids, for puny 50 rounds? To use mags is not a defect, is an advantage.
    1
  26. TV cartridge needs a 20" barrel to reach the desired preformances, so a bullpup.
    1
  27.  @tls6198  The firerate of the 38/A is slightly faster than that of the 38/42.
    1
  28. it has a 320mm barrel, longer than the Thompson SMG (267mm) and way longer than the grease gun (203mm)
    1
  29. And they are wrong. The original bullet was truncated cone 123-125 grs. The 4 grs bullseye was the load that USCCo used for a batch of 84 million rounds they made for the italian Army in 1917-1918, but those were cartridges for the Villar Perosa SMG. SMGs blowback actions were less picky than pistols, so they could handle a load that is in the same ballpark of the 9mm Parabellum, but pistol cartridges were closer to 3.3 grs bullseye. The MAB 18/30 is a blowback that was intended from the start to handle the hotter load, but it's a weapon that is nearly 80 years old. There is no reason to stress it. Pistol specs works just fine. Here there are the right specs for 9mm Glisenti pistol actions (in Italian , but easily comprehensiible) http://www.grurifrasca.net/Sito/Ricarica/pistole/9glisenti.html
    1
  30. The 9mm Glisenti is a pretty powerful round actually. It's more powerful than a 9mm Makarov, and with a better ballistic coefficient than the 9mm Makarov bullets usually have. And 9mm Makarov SMGs are used with success, by armies and special forces, even nowadays.
    1
  31. The grandsons of the "Tromboncino".
    1
  32. The Schmit-Rubin was clearly the inspiration. However is peculiar the choice of a short stroke gas piston.
    1
  33. The Schmidt-Rubin has nothing to do with Mauser. ;)
    1
  34.  @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
  35. The locking block seems to be actually more efficient than the Walther/Beretta one (the part is mechanically less stressed, and infact is way smaller) and it can be simplified further (probably it doens't need to have that "L" shape, a straight bar is sufficient). The opening is complicate, probably for the short time spent in designing (usually mechanical designs tend to be complicate at first, then are simplified later, Browning's original designs too had been much simplified with time).
    1
  36. Walther P38 and Beretta 92/M9 series have a separate locking block. This allow the barrel to recoil in a straight line instead of tilting
    1
  37. It's not DA/SA, so no.
    1
  38. In war magazines fails non-stop. Thinking of this magazine as a delicate piece of watchmaking, it's a problem. But, had this gun been mass-produced (a thing that couldn't happen. It's too expensive to produce), if a magazine would have failed, the soldier would have simply slammed another one in the gun.
    1
  39. For that, or for other reasons, the weapon was very sensible to dirt, and that's the reason why, in the '30s, it was considered obsolete and phased out from first line service by almost all it's previous users. A notable exception was the Dutch army, that originally adopted the weapon as standard LMG in 1920, and it's last version still in 1940.
    1
  40. It's interesting to note that its director, Gillo Pontecorvo (brother of the famed nuclear physicist Bruno Pontecorvo and of the famed geneticist Guido Pontecorvo. What a family) directed a total of five movies in his career (plus several documentaries). All of them higly regarded.
    1
  41. Is practically a Carcano action with rear locking lugs. Even the safety works the same way (it only had to be turned in the opposite direction. That's odd, since, in the Madsen, a right-handed shooter can't work it wit the right thumb while holding the rifle).
    1
  42. Infact. It's a rifle designed for "old school" mass production that entered in service when the era of mass produced individual weapons was at it's end.
    1
  43. Apart for the problems, compared to the FAMAS and the AUG, despite those had been adopted earlier, the L85 seems to be a weapon of a previous generation. Stilistically, constructively and ergonomically, it seems more a close relative of the AK47 and the Sturmgewer 44 than a weapon of the ’80s. Remove the plastic parts, and it could easily pass for a last ditch weapon of the Third Reich.
    1
  44. And the will to adopt an indigenous design anyway, even if, in the mid '80s, there were better options around, even among the bullpups.
    1
  45. Peter Pang The supposed fact that lefties in HM armed forces didn't complain about an AR that requires them to shoot from the right shoulder doesn't make this less of a defect. It's the problem to have to work around the tool instead of having the tool to work for you. Really the fact that British soldiers are not used to complain about their equipment probably covered many of the defects of this weapon until it was too late.
    1
  46. If a service rifle would require to right-hand soldiers to shoot from the left shoulder, we'll simply call it crap regardless of all the other considerations. The fact that the L85 requires 10% of the soldiers to use it from the wrong shoulder makes it 1/10 crap.
    1
  47. FAMAS any day. Ergonomically it's on another planet even in respect to the A2, and, at least with the rounds it was designed for, it's reliable.
    1
  48. 1) It had been put in service in 1985 with a 1945 mindset, where ease of mass production was all that mattered. See the overuse of simple stamped metal parts, the non existence of ambidextrous features... 2) it had been adopted without a real competition. There were not alternatives, so no better design to compare it with.
    1
  49. Talking of an unsuccessful design. The thing is quite big and bulky to be a 9mm carbine, yet, while plenty of lighter SMGs were capable to fire +P or +P+ rounds (blowback actions tend to be quite sturdy), this couldn't reliably fire the basic stuff. It's even funny that they put in it a completely useless, and detrimental, ejection tube (they could have made it way shorter, retaining the downward ejection while avoiding any problem) but failed to see the usefullness of a buffer spring or tab to safely stop the travel of the bolt.
    1
  50. Had they did it at least in .30 carbine (yeah, .30 carbine can be fired in a pure blowback gun of acceptable weight. Trials made during the war tith a modified Thompson demonstrated that a merely 570g bolt was enough even for proofloads) sturdy enough, and shortening the silly ejection tube, it would have been a really interesting design.
    1