Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Winchester Experimental Mag-Fed Garands" video.

  1. 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.
    3
  2. +burger1690 Cause the mistake was not in the rifle, but in the cartridge. It was clear from the start (and I mean the start, from the Federov Avtomat, if not from the Cei Rigotti) that "select fire", in a weapon with the weight of a rifle, required an intermediate round to make the burst controllable. For that reason the British, after the war, proposed the 7mm British as the universal NATO cartridge. But the US Army didn't accept a round less powerful then the 30-06, so the 7.62X51 was adopted instead. The British, discouraged, adopted the FAL in semiauto only, cause, with the 7.62X51, the possibility to control the burst was only theoretical. The Italians made the BM59, with a complex muzzle brake and an integral bipod, to make it's burst at least a bit controllable, and the US replaced the M14 as soon as they realized that the guy with the M14 was outgunned by the guy with the AK-47.
    3
  3.  @diablojd52  Mechanically they were all select fire, but the M-14 and the selector switches were delivered separately. The selector switches were secured in the armory away from the rifles and only designated individuals were issued with rifles with the switch lever.
    2
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9.  @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
  10. 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