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

  1. The M16 had a 250m zeroed battlesight, used from 0 to 300m. The long range aperture (300m to 400m) was never really used. This system became pretty common after WWII.
    1
  2. Actually the Italians sold the rifles and ammos dirt cheap, with a 30 years payment. It was a masked gift.
    1
  3. Actually the 7.35 bullet has a diameter of .298. Not that the Finns cared. They used metrics.
    1
  4.  @eloiseharbeson2483  The Western Cartridge ammos were not "specially loaded". They had been made to original Italian specs even in bullet construction. They only used modern propellants, because Western Cartridge, obviously, didn't have access to the original Solenite. The 6.5 Italian Carcano cartridge has much in common with modern 6.5 and not only 6.5. Being the first one to be adopted, it influenced many of them, both dimensionally and power-wise. IE back in the days when surplus Carcano cartridges were common, and 7.62X39 were unobtanium in the west, 7.62X39 were obtained by shortening and necking Carcano cartridges. The .264 USA of the US Army Marksmanship Unit still uses a shortened Carcano case. You can't put a 162gr round in a Grendel case, otherwise the muzzle velocity would have been practically identical to a 6.5 Carcano, and infact PPU 123 grains Carcano rounds achieve 2690 fps from a 21" barrel, that's even more than a Grendel does. The .264 USA, with 123gr bullet, produces 2,657 fps from 16.5" barrel. Still not that different.
    1
  5.  @jubuttib  The Finns actually worsened the sights, asking for them to be zeroed at 100m instead of 200m before the rifles being delivered. That way they were practicaly useless past 150m, well into combat distance. BTW the M16 had a two aperture sight, where the battle sight was zeroed at 250m and served 0 to 300m. The long range sight (300m to 400m) was practically never used (the US army didn't, and doesn't, train past 300m).
    1
  6.  @Victor-hg1lo  According to? The .223 Remington had been made specifically to pierce through a standard steel helmet at 600m.
    1
  7.  @Jay22222  You stated: "the problem is a whole lot worse if even when/if the ammo is okay, your zero is fixed and not where you’d like them to be at that" So the fixed sights were what made the problem "a lot worse". Now, I can understand that, for some reason (that I suspect to be mainly psychological. It's not like the Finns are a population that naturally shoot to human-sized targets with metallic sights past 300m) the Finns disliked it, but it remains the fact that the same solution became common after the war.
    1
  8.  @hoyschelsilversteinberg4521  OMG, how many people believed in that movie? That's your "head" moving towards the shooter when hit by a Carcano cartridge. The bullet's pressure wave compresses the matter into the head towards the skull bones. Breaks through them exiting. The compressed matter exits from the hole and propels the "head". https://youtu.be/AqGehPXnkBw?t=123
    1
  9.  @ForceSmart  You were arguing about "inconsistent quality of Italian ammunition". Are you really able to believe that the 381 shells and propellants were made with different tolerances than 203 ones? I understand that there are people, like you, that prefer apparently simple explanations that spare them the effort to think. There are many. For the same reason , you prefer ad hominem argument, talking about "emotional response". Again , an apparently simple explanation that, undermining your interlocutor's arguments because he's "emotional" spare you the effort to use your brain. (to remember you that someone you called an "historian" is not an historian instead, is not an ad hominem argument. I think "ad hominem" is another expression that you use randomly to be spared the effort to use your brain cells). You prefer to be spared the effort to make a simple proportion too. Someone said "over a kilometer" and you bought it, without even cheking, because cheking needs to use braincells. Of the picture shown, knowing the lenght of the HMAS Perth, the first salvo has a spread of 410m. The second one of 412m (a little more due to parallax). Or 1.7% of the distance. A single turret longitudinal spread of 2% of the distance in action was considered acceptable to good by any navy at the time. To make a comparison, US Navy obtained 1.1% single turret spread, but that was in tests, with the ship standing still and not steaming at 28 knots, after years of tuning, with delay coils already installed (Littorios had them installed in winter '42-'43) and with slower shells (for a simple geometrical reason, flatter trajectory shells, all things equal will show wider horizontal spread. That has little IRL effect since ships are not just horizontal targets and the flatter trajectory reduces the vertical spread - that's why flatter trajectory is preferred in rifle shooting - and the error in distance and bearing, by reducing the flight time). Richelieu shown a 2.1% single turret spread in tests (four guns in it's case) still in 1948, after delay coils had been installed, and that was considered acceptable. The service of the Regia Marina, or its "worthiness", is not in question, and I don't need any treat. That's anoter mental shortcut of you. Since I'm being "emotional" I'll give you another (other than the high speed of the shells) real reason why the dispersion of the Italian 381 was just average and not exceptional. All the Littorios were very "new". The first two had been commissioned only in 1940. At the time, it took years of tests to "tune " the guns of a big ship (Nelson class shown horrible dispersion in tests still after 10 years since their commissioning). And in wartime those tests are just seldomly made, because there isn't the time, the fuel, and every time the ship leaves the port, it's at risk of being torpedoed. That's what Adm. Emilio Brenta stated. By 1939 the Regia Marina corrected the dispersion of all of their guns, big and small, so much that, for some of them, there had been the necessity to open the spread, to maximise the probability of a hit (infact, the best dispersion is not the tightest one. That's, IE, a criticism the Americans made on Japanese gunnery). For the 381 there had simply not been the time. But I'm sure you'll prefer to believe in "inconsistent quality of Italian ammunition". For some mysterious reason, only of 381 shells. It spares you to think.
    1
  10.  @ForceSmart  A youtuber that "just opened a channel on the Regia Marina" is not an historian. The same youtuber, Jun 15 2022, made a streaming with a real naval historian, and ballistic expert, and guess what? The "inconsistent quality of ammunitios and charges" disappeared.
    1
  11. A shame Drachinifel contributed to spread that bogus info. Infortunately he does not read Italian, so he has to rely on what he finds in English. Second hand sources, wartime propaganda, etc... A common problem between self-made historians. The only source for the problem with Italian naval shells was Adm. Iachino, that had to justify his fiasco at Gaudo / Cape Matapan, and had been debunked by other sources, IE Adm. Emilio Brenta. Reality is that in the conditions of the clash at Gaudo, no WWII battleship would have hit anything. As a matter of fact, the Italian 152mm and 203mm are the only Cruiser naval guns that obtained some +20km hits during WWII (even twice in the same battle, so it was not a fluke).
    1
  12. There was no logistic needed for the clips. Rounds were packed into the clips right from the factory. You couldn't have the ammos without the clips.
    1
  13.  @nja7402  Finnish Mosins had a 200m battlesight as well.
    1
  14.  @nja7402  200m battle sight make sense because the maximum elevation of the bullet over the line of sight is just few cms regardless of the environment. The M16 had a dual aperture sight, with the battle sight, zeroed at 250m, used from 0 to 300m (the long range sight, 300m to 400m was practically never used). It had been made to be used in forests.
    1
  15. It has much to do with not fixing what’s not broken. At this point, the geometry of reliable single feed magazines and reliable feed ramps are well known. Designers haven’t to spend time, AND MONEY, to redesign those parts. If they want a "proprietary" magazine, they can (and they do) take an existing design, and only change some little bit, like the position of the magazine release cut. If they choose double feed instead, they have to design magazines and feed ramps from scratch, and that takes time AND MONEY. That’s why it seems are mainly manufacturers that don’t have to compete on the market and/or are government funded that nowadays decide to invest in designing double feed pistols (see Norinco CF98, GSh-18, MP-443 Grach…)
    1
  16. Also the Norinco CF98 and the Stechkin APS are double feed pistols manufactured in relevant numbers.
    1
  17. Because it was not an issue IRL.
    1
  18. Because modern days complaints about weapons' charateristics have almost nothing to do with real life experiences and most with miths and modern day guessings.
    1
  19. Both fired from a 18" barrel (the lenght of the M1 carbine) the .30 Carbine is less powerful than a 10mm Auto, or a .357 Magnum, that are pistol cartridges. Also the M2 has half the weight than the STG44. As a soldier that had to carry his weapon, I would have probably preferred the M2 over the STG44 or the Tommy gun.
    1
  20. It probably needed only a simple compensator cut to make the thing controllable.
    1
  21. The .30 carbine is really in a gray zone. Both fired from a 18" barrel (the lenght of the M1 carbine) it's less powerful than a 10mm Auto, or a .357 Magnum, that are pistol cartridges.
    1
  22. Beretta adapted the M2 semiauto-auto switch to full size M1 rifle receiver and used it on the BM59. There was no need to reinvent the wheel.
    1
  23. Precisely. the Steyr GB pistol works the same way. They use gas as a recoil buffer.
    1
  24.  @vthegoose  In case of the P7 the gas is taken directly in front of the combustion chamber, and the gas piston is smaller, so the gas can really have a role in delaying the opening of the action. Hovever is revealing that the system, despite being quite simple, is not used by any rifle-cartridge action. Even in case of the P7 the action is mostly a pure blowback, with the piston mostly acting as a pneumatic brake, to slow down the slide and prevent it slamming into the receiver too harshly
    1
  25.  @thomaszhang3101  To call this, and the Steyr GB for that matter, "gas delayed" is a far stretch. In reality, in those guns, the gas does nothing to delay the opening of the action. The bullet leaves the barrel well before enough pressure builds up into the piston to delay the opening. The piston only acts as a pneumatic brake, to slow down the slide and prevent it slamming into the receiver too harshly (that would enhance the felt recoil and reduce the life of the weapon).
    1
  26.  @stivsparrow3554  The "news"?😂 There had been a criminal case, more believable than any Russian shill.
    1
  27. The same peaceful Donetsk that used an AA missile illegaly smuggled from Russia to shoot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, and tried to blame Ukrainians for that?
    1
  28. In the Italian Army, the standard infantry wooden stok rifle is considered more controllable, and less punishing for the shoulder. In practice soldiers preferred to carry the folding stock versions, but use the fixed stock at the range.
    1
  29. They are both rated for 750 RPM, that's higher than desiderable but, in the case of the BM59, there was little to do, since the receiver and trigger group had to be the same of the M1 Garand. BM59's competitor for the Italian Army contract, the Franchi LF59, had a "double hammer" system to reduce the ROF to 500 RPM, and be even more controllable.
    1
  30. It's a grenade launcher, AND a muzzle-brake/compensator AND a flash hider, hence the name "tri-compensator".
    1
  31. Very complex for a rifle.
    1
  32. The grenade sights double as gas cutoff. When it's raised, the gas port is closed. If the soldier wants to launch the grenade from the ground, and the sights are not usable, the original sling double as an emergency sight. With the stock on the ground, the number of studs on the sling you can see off the ground is the distance in meters.
    1
  33.  @mattholland8966  As said, the selector lever was not physically installed on M14 infantry rifles. It was given separately to the unit armorers "in case" and it remained in storage. The M14, as it was used in Vietnam, was a 20 rounds Garand.
    1
  34. How effective was the BAR? The BM59 can't really be fired in full auto from the shoulder, but it can be fired in full auto from prone position.
    1
  35. It's a grenade sight, when lifted up, it also acts as gas-cutoff. The rifle could shoot Energa and Super-Energa grenades, the muzzle-brake/compensator is also a grenade launcher and a flash hider, hence the name "tri-compensator". The original sling acts as a secondary grenade sight when the butt of the rifle is on the ground, the number of studs over the ground is the range in hundreds of meters.
    1
  36. Usually the soldiers were issued with spare needles.
    1
  37. To make it shoot from a mag and be select fire, but none of the thecnical solutions had been reused. The MB59 actually "made it right". It uses a proprietary mag that feed reliably. A straight op rod, more apt to full auto fire than the original bent one. The selector is completely different, it links the op rod with the sear, so that, only when the action is in full battery, it releases the hammer. That way the action is safer and more reliable, and the ROF is reduced to 750 RPM. It has a muzzle brake that compensates the recoil, the muzzle flip and the spin that the bullets engaging in the rifling give to the rifle (the last seems a minor issue, but it's actually what makes the bursts in 7.62 battle rifles uncontrollable, since the shooter instinctively tends to compensate the muzzle flip, but can't compensate the spin, so the burst widens in a spiraliform pattern). Every rifle was provided with a bipod, to function as a squad LMG when needed.
    1
  38.  @gravelydon7072  Lately (in the last 20 years more or less) there had been a renewed stress on long range accurate fire over short range volume of fire, and the old battle rifles happened to be available at a relatively low cost. They are used as designated marksman rifles in semiauto only. A support weapon anyway, not the service rifle of the army. Versions of the FN-FAL and G3 are used for the same purpose elsewere. It's interesting however that the Argentine Army, to replace the old FAL, instead of switching to an AR, selected a new battle rifle in 7.62 NATO (the Beretta ARX200).
    1
  39. l. kerr The M14 had (and has) at least a good feature. Having the gas port moved back from the muzzle in respect to the M1 that doesn't affect the bullet any more, so, in semiauto, it's a very accurate rifle. Well suited for sharpshooters.
    1
  40. Bring me Peter pan "m14s were full auto?" Yes and no. They could have, or not, the selector installed. Originally the M14 was intended to replace the M1 and the BAR with a single design, but the conception was still that of the riflemen squad, with the M14 in semiauto only, supported by LMGs, that were M14 with the selector and the bipod. But, when the soldiers begun to fight enemies armed with assault rifles, many formations switched all their M14 to full auto. At least to have a higher volume of fire. To hit what you was aiming at, was another story. The problem in using a full power cartridge like the 7.62 NATO in full auto is triple. There is the recoil, there is the muzzle flip, and there is the spin that the bullets give to the rifle (the reaction to the bullets being put in rotation by the rifling). The shooter, instinctively, tend to compensate the muzzle flip, so the burst tend to widen in a spiraliform pattern.
    1
  41. As other said, it had been Remington and Springfield efforts in the same direction that ultimately evolved into the M14. After the war Winchester simply dropped all things M1 related, and their tooling were handed over to Beretta, that used them first to produce a short run of M1 in 7.62 NATO for the Italian Army, and then to produce BM59s.
    1
  42. It has to be noted that the BM59 was made using that same Winchester tooling (Beretta inherited them after the war) that made those M1s and their modifications. However, the designer of the BM59, Domenico Salza, "made it right", solving all the problems of the conversion, even the controllability of the burst, in few months.
    1
  43. The M14 is an evolution of the M1 where everything is similar but nothing is identical, so there's no part compatibility but, from the user's point of view, is a 20 rounds Garand, no more, no less. The BM59 is a direct modification of the Garand, but it's not only a 20 rounds Garand. It's a 20 rounds Garand AND an LMG (bipod and muzzle brake/compensator) AND a grenade launcher (grenade sights and gas cutoff).
    1
  44. I understand economy, and the bolt is elegant in its simplicity, but the upper, in respect to the FN CAL, or other stamped ARs, seems really crudely made.
    1
  45. The magazine is form a Beretta .22LR carbine of the ’60s-’70s (as the Olimpia), so it’s not difficult to find spares. http://armeriarcm.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/IMG_20171116_105128.jpg However Mr. Osorio filed the tip in front of the magazine and cut a notch for his magazine release button, so it requires adaptation. https://youtu.be/ZpRxORxA2gg?t=92
    1
  46. Because it was not an exact copy, it only used the same locking system in a different caliber, and it had been put in production, with new tooling and changes in respect to the prototypes, even before the prototypes had been throughly tested. There are many unreliable Browning short recoil pistols out there. That doesn't mean all the Browning short recoil pistols are unreliable.
    1
  47. That multi-lug bolt had been already used on the 1912 Carcano semiauto conversion, for the same reason. To limit the degrees of rotation of the bolt before unlocking in a short recoil action. https://youtu.be/jrp7QLSlKD4
    1
  48.  @ProSimex84  It's very heavy too.
    1
  49.  @Auriorium  Actually your question is grammarly correct. He's just a moron.
    1
  50. For the metric issue, It's not "Pylon". Any industrial design in 1985 was long made in metric. Not only in UK, but in the US too. To submit blueprints in imperial was incredibly backward. Especially coming from young engineers. For the rest, that's why you prefer to have firearm companies to built firearms. Because for the guys that work in firearms companies all those charateristics are their bread and butter. They doesn't need to be instructed on the importance of all those things.
    1