Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Beretta 57: Italy Makes a .30 Carbine SMG for Morocco" video.

  1.  @Paladin1873  The charging handle is where it almost always is. The safety is visible when you are aiming, so it's easier to remember it. M1's magazine release was made only for right-handed. This is actually more immediate to use and ambidextrous. Rear sight is stiff on this sample, that has been in a museum without being used for who knows how long. It' suse is more immediate than the M1 one.
    12
  2.  @Paladin1873  Fact is that almost all the rifles, SMGs, LMGs, HMGs etc... that are not ambidextrous have the charging handle on the right side, M1 Carbine included (maybe because right handed shooters doesn't find it so convenient to place it on the left side?). To say that Beretta's charging handle is: "bassackwards" when is exactly where the same M1 carbine have it... "intuitive" in weapons is a WAY overused word. People are supposed to know their weapon and there is no rule, or intuition, "forward for fire, rearward for safe". The safety is bigger, more easy to operate (especially with gloves), to see and to remember than that of the M1 carbine. The push button magazine release of the M1 Carbine is supposed to be used with the right hand tumb when at the same time the shooter is pulling out the magazine. Those are two completely different movements to do at the same time. With the paddle lever of the Beretta carbine, you only have to grab the magazine to activate the paddle. It's ambidextrous and simpler, so nothing had been " flubbed". You can see in the actual video that the magazine doesn't need to be "rocked" at all. It goes straight in and out. You are tinking of the M14, not of this gun. A peep is what you want, not necessarily what's better. Many rifles have no peep sights. To judge the sight picture without having handled the rifle makes no sense at all. Many successful rifles/AR have the rear sight further forward than this one. An open notch sight MUST be placed further forward than a peep sight.
    9
  3.  Jackie Tearie  Infact, as said, if the gripping hand is reloading, there is no risk of the shooter pulling the trigger until the operation is complete. In general, lefties that use a right hand charging handle (that's, reversed, the same thing) are divided among those that use the steadyng hand to charge, and those that use the left hand, charging the gun from over the top.
    7
  4.  @Paladin1873  Maybe you mean "I have never heard a right-handed shooter praise a right-side charging handle, but I have heard many complain about it." Obviously those that speaks are those that complain. Those that are fine with it take it for granted.IE the Beretta ARX100 has switchable charging handle. How many right handed shooters have switched it to the left side to you? On military rifles, made thinking to right-hand shooters, the charging handle is on the right side for two reasons: 1) A right hand shooter mantains the alignment of the rifle with the left (forward) hand, so better mantain the alignment of the rifle, and use the most able hand to reload. 2) If the right hand is reloading, there is no risk of the shooter pulling the trigger until the operation is complete. Infact, when you say "forward for fire, rearward for safe" you are not talking of "intuition", you are talking of what you are used to. For someone that don't practice regularly, "forward for fire, rearward for safe" and "forward for safe, rearward for fire" are completely indifferent. Motion memory are formed through practice, and soldiers practice with their weapons. For someone used to the AK-47, the AR-15 controls are awkward at first, and the AR15 was not a thing in 1957 anyway. The safety on the M1 Garand and on the M14 is "forward for fire, rearward for safe", but at the same time is easy to engage, but not easy to disengage (to push forward that little lever with the trigger finger is really not natural). Many shotguns have a cross-bolt safety but, when a cross-bolt safety shows up on rifles or pistols, many complains about it, not because it doesn't work as well as a lever safety, but because it's not what they are used to.
    7
  5. Jager mod. Dakota.It's the first Peacemaker clone made in Italy. It was offered in many caliber variants. .30 Carbine among those. https://www.sackpeterson.com/models/dakota.html
    6
  6. In this case, the disassembly is really similar to that of the M1 Carbine, and sometimes Ian does errors. In this case, IE, to unscrew the rear screw was completely unnecessary, like it is in the M1 Carbine.
    3
  7. The competing design, the Franchi LF-58, was rated at exactly 520 RPM, so this was probably in the same ballpark.
    3
  8. Franchi made a .30 Carbine weapon in competition with this one (the FL-58) and then a bigger version in 7.62 Nato (the LF-59).
    2
  9. Actually Italian Carabinieri adopted the M1. The gas system is clearly similar, while receiver and bolt are completely different.
    2
  10. It doesn't seem to be required infact.
    2
  11. It disassembles exactly like the M1 carbine. The front screw is made to be unscrewed with the rim of a cartridge (see the shape https://youtu.be/IcGskHGcC3A?t=317 ). To unscrew the rear one is unnecessary (like in the M1 it's not part of the receiver but only reinforces the stock, Ian botched that one).
    1
  12. Probably more than the M2 Carbine, due to the reduced rate of fire.
    1
  13. If they are not pressed by war needs, armies rarely want to be equipped with others' surplus weapons.
    1
  14. Surfaces are very simple (simpler than those of a M1 Carbine). Pieces were forged and then only machine-finished to the right dimension, that's not really expensive. Add that the entire trigger group on the M1 Carbine is machined, while this is stamped.
    1
  15. It's practically identical.
    1
  16. And the action is much more closed, one of the problems of the Garand actions, and it has several stamped parts to ease production... I wonder if this rifle, converted in in .223 Rem, competed with the AR15, instead of the Winchester Lightweight Military Rifle, what would have happened.
    1
  17. It's like the M1 Carbine.
    1
  18.  @ScottKenny1978  Unfortunately the round was not really suited to be used in semiauto handguns (too long to be comfortable. Its' considerably longer than 10mm, and 1.5mm longer than 5.7X28mm, that's already a long cartridge for a pistol). Had they chosen at the start to give it the same base diameter of 9mm or 10mm (so still perfectly fine for double stack magazines) in exchange of a shorter overall lenght, we would have seen a lot more .30 Carbine chambered pistols, and so a lot more .30 Carbine chambered carbines, around. It would have been the 10mm Auto many years in advance.
    1
  19. Many wildcat cartridges had been made by necking down .30 Carbine cases. That way you can easily obtain bi-sonic muzzle speed in a bullet that has better ballistic coefficient than that of the .30 Carbine, and so can really be considered an intermediate cartridge. The problem was that the only available rifles you could use those were converted surplus M1 Carbines.
    1
  20. Its field strip is a bit easier than that of the M1 Carbine.
    1
  21. That was the Cei-Rigotti.
    1
  22. It's a bit easier than a M1 Carbine.
    1
  23. Like the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine.
    1
  24. Ehh... no. L'otturatore è completamente differente.
    1
  25. The Beretta 57 had been designed in competition with the Franchi LF58 (that was inspired by the Stg.44 in shape, like the Beretta 57 was inspired by the M1 carbine http://www.exordinanza.net/reprint/Franchi_LF-58-59/LF58.jpg ). The problem adressed was that of the controllability of fire. Any sane manufacturer knew that .308 Win. was not controllable in full auto. While the Brits tried to impose the .280 British, the Italian manufacturers thought there was no need to reinvent the wheel and, since the Carabinieri had already adopted a good number of surplus M1 carbines, so the round was already in use by the Army, tried to offer ARs in .30 Carbine (if more muzzle speed was required, the cartridge could have been easily necked down, so saving all the design apart for the barrel). In the end, the 6.72 NATO was forced on all NATO countries, so there was no market for .30 Carbine rifles. When it was time to switch to 5.56 NATO, other manufacturing tecniques were available.
    1
  26. The Beretta 57 had been designed in competition with the Franchi LF58 (that was inspired by the Stg.44 in shape, like the Beretta 57 was inspired by the M1 carbine http://www.exordinanza.net/reprint/Franchi_LF-58-59/LF58.jpg ). The problem adressed was that of the controllability of fire. Any sane manufacturer knew that .308 Win was not controllable in full auto. While the Brits tried to impose the .280 British, the Italian manufacturers thought there was no need to reinvent the wheel and, since the Carabinieri had already adopted a good number of surplus M1 carbines, so the round was already in use by the Army, tried to offer ARs in .30 Carbine (if more muzzle speed was required, the cartridge could have been easily necked down, so saving all the design apart for the barrel).
    1
  27. And the Franchi LF-58, in .30 CArbine too http://www.exordinanza.net/reprint/Franchi_LF-58-59/LF58.jpg
    1