Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Forgotten Weapons"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The weapon was developed for the ground role. IT HAD NEVER BEEN INTENDED TO BE AN AIRCRAFT GUN. Less than four-hundred samples of more than 14.000 built saw limited use on aircrafts (at that time the Air Corp was a branch of the Army) waiting for the model to be in full scale production first than distributing it to the troops. It was supposed to be used with a shield, and with it it was plenty stable. https://modernfirearms.net/userfiles/images/smg/smg127/villar-perosa_1915_3.jpg That hole sight was literally the only hole in the shield.
The weapon was designed to be a point weapon. Like a long range shotgun. Put it to surveil obligatory passages (alpine trails, openings in the barbed wire) and, when an enemy shows up, throw a short burst in his direction. With half a dozen 9mm Glisenti bullets in his body, he’ll think better.
The MG-42 for example, with its 1200rpm ROF was designed with this job in mind. Not fire continuosly, but fire when you actually see the enemy.
Given the charateristics of the two warfares, it was more suited the Villar Perosa to WWI (when you almost always had some obligatory passage to surveil) than the MG-42 to WWII.
The weapon had been higly successful in the attack role too. 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. 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 develop the OVP18 and 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
-
1
-
Because it didn't "won the M9 trial in everything but cost".
In the service life test only the 92F and the H&K P7 reached the 7000 rounds threshold with all three pistols intact. The P226 cracked a frame at 6523 rounds fired, but was allowed to pass, since the requirement was just for a service life, on average, of over 5000 rounds.
the P226 failed the dry mud test, with only 79% reliability in those conditions. Being that significantly lower than the 1911 control weapon, it should have been eliminated due to the rules of the competition (notice that instead, in the XM17 trials, there was conveniently not a M9 control weapon around to be seen). It was allowed to keep on competing, because the Army wanted at least two manufacturers to compete on price, so it was simply decided that the dry mud test result was "not so important" and the result was simply not considered.
So, not counting the result of the tests were the 92F performed better than the P226, then the P226 performed better than the 92F.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@P_RO_ First of all, the answer was to Jazzmaster Jay, that said the 6.5 "had less mass" than 7.62x51. it hadn't.
As already said, the Swedes came to that determination only in 1941. The Italians introduced the lighter 7.35mm bullet three years before.
They introduced a lighter bullet three years before the Swedes exactly to have a flatter trajectory, and a projectile more easily tumbling in the body, the rationale of the decision had been even announced in newsreels of the time. So, after all, they had been able to get enough velocity increase to make difference, and didn't left it as-is.
The " weaker action" of the Carcano had been converted to shoot 7.92mm Mauser. It wouldn't have problem in firing a marginally more powerful round like the 6.5 Swede. Simply the Italians didn't see any real advantage in increasing the power of the cartridge.
Finally, 140 grains is simply what you tend to obtain if you replace a 160grains round-nose 6.5mm bullet with a spitzer without changing the OAL. The japanese did exactly the same with the 6.5 Arisaka, that had comparable power than the 6.5 Carcano, in 1905, 31 years before the Swedes.
1
-
1
-
@treyriver5676 They are obviously different bullets, one is spitzer and one is round nose. But they had been made to be used in the same barrels.
The Spitzer has actually the diameter of the grooves of the barrel of the Gew 88 post 1894 (and the Mauser Gew 98).
The diameter of the lands of the barrel of the Gew 88, in 1894, had been enlarged from the original .319 (the diameter of the bullet) to .323 because the long, round nose, bullet had a long bearing surface and a lot of material to displace to sit into the rifling, so it caused pressure spikes that "bulged" the barrel.
The spitzer, due to the reduced bearing surface, didn't need the difference, but the barrels had been enlarged, for the round nose bullet, ten years before, so it had been made of the diameter of the lands of the "new" barrels. .323.
The larger bullet needed a larger neck of the case, and so a larger cut in the chamber. But it was far easier to rebore the neck of the chambers than to replace the barrels. From the shoulder on the case is the same. Infact the Germans didnt' want to change ammo, they wanted a spitzer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1