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

  1. The only real problem with the gun is the presence of the oiler. Too much oil in the action in sandy environments is no good. Fot the rest, it was not overcomplicate (IE the bolt of this gun is made of 4 parts in total. The one of an MG34 is made of 28 parts) or too hard to disassemble and clean (the BAR is way harder). Even the"problem" of having the front sight on the barrel shroud, or a rattling barrel, are invented problems that exist only in tabletop theorical reviews (none ever noticed those being problems in over 60 years of use of the MG-42 / MG-3, and it's not that the modern MG optics, all mounted on the receiver, compensate for the change of barrel).
    1
  2. At 5000$ for sample, an Indian workshop can reach the same and even better quality. Is double the price of a Pardini GT9-40-45, and I really doubt it's better made.
    1
  3.  @bacanthony3659  $5000 is the price they had in the '80s in today's value, as it's clearly stated in the video. Since they are not made any more and they are rare, they are more valuable today, like many other guns that had no success when they were made. BTW, you could still buy one in perfect conditions for less than $5.000 ten years ago. The price skyrocketed only recently, as a result of internet reviews.
    1
  4. Only loaded magazines were supposed to reach the first line, like only loaded belts. To manually reload the magazines of this gun during the action was like to manually reload the cloth belt of a Maxim.
    1
  5.  @PapaSchultz74  The tool was provided. but it was not supposed to be used during action. To load magazines was an activity to do during rest time.
    1
  6. In 1983 Taurus could manufacture 92 clones without any licence because the patent already expired. Beretta knew it when they sold them the plant with all the tooling, but they didn't care, because Taurus, at the time, could legally only clone the original 92, while Beretta already designed the 92S, 92SB and 92F, three furter steps of evolution. The patent of the model Vektor wanted to copy instead didn't expire yet, so they needed a licence. Today the patent of the 92F/M9 long expired too, infact Girsan can manufacture a copy without any licence.
    1
  7. Some special unit was given that Colt, without any competition, mostly due to Gen. William M. Keys connections, When they tested them, they found that they couldn't even complete the planned reliability test, since none of them could pass 12.000 rounds count without the slide cracking. 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
  8. Compared with the tilting barrel design, breechlock rotating barrel actions tend to reduce perceived recoil, but are more demanding in terms of precision machining and, since there are more sliding surfaces, in terms of lubrication needed. The gun can be more accurate, since the bushing of the slide can be tigher, but in a typical handgun fight scenario, that's hardly noticeable.
    1
  9. The ARX 160 is currently in service.
    1
  10. Err... no.
    1
  11. Yeah. the "pistol grip, fixed stock" is more a way to get around the rules that ban the import of weapons with collapsible stocks. This rifle was designed to have or the collapsible stock or the standard rifle "non pistol grip" one.
    1
  12. Malfunctions happened on fairly old guns with worn-out springs, are not indicative of the performance of the weapon at the time.
    1
  13.  @taunteratwill1787  It's not his collection. Those are weapons he had the occasion to fire without knowing how they had been mantained for all those years.
    1
  14. The weapon had been higly successful in the attack role. So much that the Austrians copied it, double barrel, bipod and all. At the end of the conflict a total of 14.564 MGs had been produced (so, more than 29000 barrels, VS only about 5000 MP18), and 836 millions of 9mm Glisenti rounds for them. Mind this. THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND. When the guy with the Villar Perosa, after having thrown a couple of offensive grenades into the enemy trench to stun the enemies, came over the edge with the SMG in his hands to clear it, he didn’t find the guy with the MP18 waiting for him. Because there was not any MP18, or anything similar. There were only bolt action rifles and showels. What he had in his hands was incredibly better for that role than anything the enemy had. After having adopted the Villar Perosa, the Italians took almos three years to field the MAB18 (that were nothing more than a single Villar Perosa barrel mounted on a Moschetto TS stock) not because the Villar Perosa was unsatisfactory, but because it was so satisfactory that none felt the urge to modify it.
    1
  15. Yeah. All the Italian and German 20mm AA ammos could be used in this gun. The S18-1100, that was full auto capable, was used as a flak gun too.
    1
  16. Any SS semiauto released in the '70s had galling problems. It's difficult to think a bunch of guys that used cast alloys could solve a problem much bigger gun manufacturers were unable to. They simply were fascinated by making a stainless steel gun and overlooked the problem. The carburizing treatment was only a late attempt to fix a project that chose the wrong material from the start.
    1
  17. Long stroke inherently filthy? Hard to clean a rifle where you can remove the gas block? Are you joking?
    1
  18.  @sergecashman4822  so you base your experience on an AK derivate and a MG? Not to say that you state "you have to oil everything" and then complain about dirt? Oh, yeah. It's not like with the Stoner action the bolt and receiver themself are filled with carbon debries. I wonder if you ever shot anything at this point. Delayed blowbacks are notoriously dirty. Pretty much like Stoner actions.
    1
  19. The "not fixed barrel" was a non-issue. The barrel rattles only as long as the round is not fired. When a round is fired, the expansion of the cartridge tightens the action that, at that point, works like a free floating barrel.
    1
  20. Malfunctions happened on fairly old guns with worn-out springs, are not indicative of the performance of the weapon at the time.
    1
  21. Actually the rifle is very simple. Apart for the burst mechanism, that's an added part, not required for it to work, the parts count is the lowest it could be, and the field strip can be made in seconds without tools, that was not a given at that time. To have access to the gas chamber and the gas ports (that's the thing that requires cleaning, there is not actually much that could happen to the piston and op rod) you only have to remove the muzzle cover. To inspect the recoil spring, you can remove it from the trap door. To remove the bolt you only have to remove the dust cover and the rear buffer ("when the dust cover is off, it just slides out") and it comes out from the rear of the receiver. It isn't needed to remove the receiver from the stock. Like almost every bolt action rifle up to then, and several semiauto rifle after then, this rifle is not made to have the trigger group and the receiver removed often from the stock. While the parts that require cleaning, and/or have to be replaced more often (for the second case, almost universally the recoil spring and the firing pin) are very easily reachable. An M1 Garand, for example, is made with a completely different philosopy. The rifle can be easily disassembled, but is not really field-strippable. To reach the firing pin, you have to completely take the rifle apart (and have several small parts flying around you).
    1
  22. Not only the tooling, but even the existing parts. The BM59 receiver, stock, rear sight and trigger group were the original M1's slightly modified, and often they retain their original Winchester and Springfield markings.
    1
  23. Actually the Villar Perosa had NEVER been designed for aircraft use. Unfortunately Ian's previous video contributed to spread this old tale, but it's evident from all the paperwork, relations, manual, ecc... that it was originally meant to be a field light machinegun and it had been used in this role right from 1915 (Italy's first year of war). It and had been adapted to aerial use in very limited numbers, simply because the Army destined the first 350 samples manufactured to the Aviation (that was a branch of the Army at that time) because they wanted it to be in full production first to start to distribute it to the troops.
    1
  24. It probably needed only a simple compensator cut to make the thing controllable.
    1
  25. Beretta just introduced the PMX to replace the M12. It's simple blowback, but, thanks to the use of polymers, is lighter than the MP5 for the same barel lenght, and fires form a closed bolt (so no delay for the first round): https://www.berettadefensetechnologies.com/pmx-submachine-gun
    1
  26. Carcano bolts are not serialized. Most likely, AFTER the war, when that rifle had been imported, the importer grabbed an available bolt and put it in the rifle.
    1
  27. They used wood for the hunting line. That way they could use the same tooling.
    1
  28. "not designed here" And different regard for the MGs. Germans built their entire squad tactic around the MG. Brits built their entire squad tactic around the BREN (every rifleman was supposed to know how to use it and, if there were only one alive, he would have used the BREN). For the Americans, MGs were just support weapons for the riflemen. In the US Army squad, only two people were instructed in how to use the BAR (that was not even a real LMG, like the M1919A6 wasn't). In the post-war reports, they were almost surprised to know that, IRL, squads tended to gather around the BAR and almost every firing action was started by the BAR.
    1
  29. No, it's called an "expander lock" patent US461968A. Due to the position of the pivots, the recoil tend to push the intermediate lever against the frame and not to make it rotate. There's no limit to the power of the cartridge that breech can control, as long as the frame is strong enough.
    1
  30. Early ammunitions shown some gas leak problem from the primer (those were among the first high pressure smokeless powder ammos ever made). That groove and matching surface on the bolt, under pressure, act as a further gas seal. In the subsequent years they had never been changed because those were the approved specifications and, after WWI, the round had always been on the verge of being replaced. See: https://www.il91.it/il91.html "munizionamento del '91" (in italian).
    1
  31. Yeah.
    1
  32. They had a spare magazine, like a lot of other things, but really it wasn't such a issue. Mind that the "fast" fire rate of a BREN (to use only in emergency conditions) was of 4 magazines in a minute, and the gunner had to keep present, that, at that pace, the barrel had to be changed after ten magazines, and the provision of the entire squad was of 20 magazines (so, 5 minutes of fire).
    1
  33. The Volksturmgewehr was heavy.
    1
  34. What shown is not a field strip, but a disassembly of the rifle. A normal field strip (to clean the gas chamber, inspect and maybe replace the recoil spring, clean the bolt and maybe replace the firing pin) can be made in seconds without tools, that was not a given at that time.
    1
  35. 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
  36.  @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
  37.  @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
  38.  @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
  39.  @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
  40.  @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
  41.  @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
  42.  @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
  43.  @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
  44.  @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
  45.  @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
  46.  @drewberg1361  Probably you didn't know who he was when you blabbered about "several entrants" and "open contracts".
    1
  47.  @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
  48.  @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
  49.  @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
  50.  @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