Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "WW1 Villar Perosa SMG at the Range" video.

  1. Again IT HAD NEVER BEEN INTENDED TO BE AN AIRCRAFT GUN. Less than two-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. The weapon was designed to be a point weapon. Like a long range shotgun. Put it to ward obligatory passages (alpine trails, openings in the barbed wire) and, when an enemy shows up, throw a short burst in his direction. THE WEAPON WAS MADE TO BE USED WITH A SHIELD. THAT'S WHY IT HAD THAT ROUND SPACER AND THAT SIGHT. THAT SIGHT WAS LITERALLY THE ONLY HOLE IN THE SHIELD. Obviously, in the shield, it was plenty stable. https://modernfirearms.net/userfiles/images/smg/smg127/villar-perosa_1915_3.jpg DO YOUR RESEARCHES FOR GOD'S SAKE!
    3
  2. Simply THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND, so none felt the urge to improve it. Prototypes of single barrel, stocked versions came out since 1916, but they were not put in production until late 1917 and not used until march 1918. It's meaningful that the Austrians copied it exactly as it was.
    3
  3. It provides a slight delay and an out-of-battery safety, since the firing pin can hit the primer only when the bolt is fully rotated.
    2
  4. Two 25 round magazines. 50 rounds in total. The MG42 had 1200 rpm fire rate and a 50 rounds drum magazine that took an eternity to replace. Was it Italian?
    2
  5. This is the first weapon officially designed "pistola mitragliatrice" (the same than the German "machinepistol").
    2
  6. Glisenti M915. Hotter than the standard pistol Glisenti M910.
    2
  7. They developed a pneumatic fire rate reducer (rallentatore di tiro Pavesi) that reduced the ROF selectively to 500 or 300 rpm.
    2
  8. The weapon had been higly successful both in the defence and 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. 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 adopt the MAB18 (that was 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.
    2
  9. Nothing had been "screwed up". The weapon had been higly successful, so much that the Austrians copied it, double barrel, tripod 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.
    2
  10. Actually it was exceptionally sturdy. In respect to water-cooled, breechlocked MGs there was very little that could break.
    2
  11.  @loquat4440  the Villar Perosa fired M915 Glisenti load, that are more powerful than the standard M910 Glisenti pistol loads and are like very mild 9mm para rounds (125 grains slightly subsonic).
    2
  12. They did plenty. An harness had been developed especially for that work.
    1
  13. When it was in use it was no "good", it was "the best". The weapon had been higly successful. 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
  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. 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
  16. They made an harness specifically for this.
    1
  17. This had been adopted years before any "conventional" SMG.
    1
  18. The weapon 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, that were bolt action rifles and showels. After having adopted the Villar Perosa, the Italians took almos three years 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
  19. 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, 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
  20. There were two Austrian copies actually. The first were two full-auto Frommer-Stop mounted upside-down with extended mags. The second was a straight copy.
    1
  21. The Austrians straight copied it.
    1
  22. The weapon had been higly successful, so much that the Austrians copied it, double barrel, tripod 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
  23. Actually it had been an higly successful weapon. 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. 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 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
  24. 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 early samples had the rotating collar magazine catch. It was soon changed to the rock-and-lock one.
    1
  25. "normal" was trying to strom trenches with bolt action rifles, bayonetts and showels. since "normal" sucked, they did better.
    1
  26.  @ToastytheG  The Villar Perosa was adopted in 1915. the MAB 18 (a single Villar Perosa barrel mounted on a Moschetto TS stock) was adopted in 1918. So the weapon had not been modified for almost three years. As already said THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND.
    1
  27. 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.
    1
  28. The weapon 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. It 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.
    1
  29. This is the first weapon officially designed "pistola mitragliatrice" (the same than the German "machinepistol").
    1
  30. 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, 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
  31.  @1BigBen  The Glisenti 1910 was not "crap". It was simply designed to fire a different cartridge than the 9mm Luger. Power-wise the 9mm Glisenti round was similar to several other service cartridges of the period. IE the 9mm Steyr that the Austrians adopted two years later. Like many SMGs the Villar Perosa could use an hotter version of the original cartridge. That was the M915 round, whose power was comparable to that of a mild 9mm Luger.
    1
  32.  @1BigBen  They are different cartridges from the start. They have the same dimensions because they had been obtained the same way. Both the Luger and the Glisenti were originally chambered in 7.65 Parabellum (the 7.65 Glisenti only had a shorter neck), but both the German and the Italian Army considered the 7.65 round too small for service use and requested a 9mm round. The 9mm Luger and the 9mm Glisenti were simply obtained enlarging the neck of the original bottleneck cartridge to accomodate a 9mm round (that's why the 9mm Parabellum case is not cylindrical). At that point DWM strenghtened the gun and took advantage of the bigger case to use more powder. MBT (that acquired the design from Glisenti) didn't want to change the gun, so mantained the original load. Glisenti and Luger are not the only cases where two cartridges can be chambered by the same gun.
    1
  33. This is the first weapon that had been officially designed "pistola mitragliatrice" (that's the same of the German machinepistole), so it simply defined the category. A machinegun that fires pistol cartridges.
    1
  34. 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, 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
  35. Infact. 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 bipod was added when it was seen that the shield was too heavy to be carried in attack, and, with the bipod, 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, 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