Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "S&W 1940 Light Rifles: Receiver Breakage is a Problem" video.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@flightlesschicken7769 Infact I provided sources that you can check if you want to learn more about the subject instead of childlishly trying to correct who knows better. You provided nothing.
I said: ".30 carbine can be fired in a pure blowback gun of acceptable weight." not "lighter than a M1 carbine" so you can explain your supposed argument to someone else. A blowback rifle that was not really made to be the lightest possible and fired a substantially more powerful cartridge than the .30 Carbine, other than having been sold commercially, weighted less than the M1A1 thompson and and M3 Grease Gun, whose weights were considered acceptable in WWII, so, again, ".30 carbine can be fired in a pure blowback gun of acceptable weight."
The fire rate doesn't count in a semiauto firearm. Any 9mm browning system pistol would fire at over 1000 RPM in full auto, someone cares? Besides, there are other systems than the weight of the bolt to slow down the fire rate of a gun if needed.
What part of "The subsequent Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle, used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle)." was that hard to understand?
1
-
@flightlesschicken7769 Another childish attempt to difert form the subject.
Again, I said: ".30 carbine can be fired in a pure blowback gun of acceptable weight." If you assumed it was a full auto gun it was your fault not mine. Again there are other systems than the weight of the bolt to slow down the fire rate of a gun if needed.
You didn't provide any source. Also you shown that "you clearly don't understand physics" since, contrary to what you considered a physical necessity, the Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle and used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle) was slightly lighter than a M3 Grease Gun (despite being a fully stocked rifle) and substantially lighter (900g less) than the Thompson M1A1, two SMGs in .45 ACP.
Besides, the Winchester 1907 rifle had been modified by the French to fire in full auto in WWI. It fired at perfectly reasonable 600-700 RPM.
Had you known more of the subject before typing you would have known that many versions of the Thompson had been made, from 600 to 1500 RPM. the M1A1 fired at perfectly reasonable 600-700 RPM (what an "absurdly large firerate"!).
I can explain you how it's possible for the automatised Winchester 1907 and the Tommy gun to have the same fire rate despite the comparatively lighter bolt of the Winchester 1907 ("comparatively" means that it was lighter in respect to the power of the cartridge) if you want to understand a little physics for a change.
1
-
1
-
@flightlesschicken7769 Your is a faith not a source.Your faith had been already disproved by the fact that the Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle and used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle) was slightly lighter than a M3 Grease Gun (despite being a fully stocked rifle) and substantially lighter (900g less) than the Thompson M1A1, two SMGs in .45 ACP. Have you other means to prove your faith is right?
The Winchester 1907 had been a Police departments' favourite well into the '30s, many samples are still around and in working order despite being over 100 years old. Your theoretical considerations, based on a very superficial knowledge of physics, that mistake guessing for necessities, do not match reality.
Because you see plenty of new designs in .30 Carbine too, doesn't you?
To know why blowback is less suited to fire .223 Rem or 7.62X39 in comparison with the .30 Carbine and .351 Winchester, you should learn something about the magical world of chamber pressure. I can teach you if you want to understand a little real physics for a change. Besides, many good, very good and even exceptional actions are no more used for a reason or another (I can provide examples if you are interested in learning something).
To be a good design it only needs to safely going bang and reliably cycling, and it did both. Many samples are still existing and working.
To decide if a firearm can safely operate with normal loads, it doesn't fire thousands, and not even hundreds, of proofloads.
You understood that this video was about a 4 pounds carbine in 9mm didn't you? Tons of perfectly safe and lighter 9mm carbines had been made. How can you pretend to be taken seriously if you try to extend the problems of a faulty design to another one that you don't know?
1
-
1
-
@flightlesschicken7769 Aaaand you are still here. Not that there had never been any doubt. It was not really that difficult to guess that all that you wanted to have is the last word.
You are (conveniently) mistaking PSI with CUP and mixing them. Saami max pressures for .30 Carbine and .351 SL are 40.000 cup and 45.000 cup respectively so, surprise surprise, .351 SL, other than being a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND worked at a HIGHER PRESSURE.
I'm glad you finally decided to learn something. Let me introduce you to the magical world of chamber pressures and how it relates to blowbacks.
In a blowback system, the base of the cartridge starts moving backward the same moment the bullet starts moving forward. Is largely that initial movement that allows the entire action to work. But, since the walls of the cartridge are stuck to the chamber by the same pressure, the integrity of the cartridge, until the pressure into the barrel drops to safe level and the cartridge can be entirely extracted, depends, other than the weight of the bolt:
1) on the capacity of the brass at the base of the cartridge to stretch without rupturing until the pressure drops to safe level,
2) on the pressure that, if low enough, can allow some backward movement of the brass (the lower, the better),
3) on the same pressure that tend to cause the rupture the cartridge (the lower,the better).
So, the higher the pressure, the more difficult is to use a blowback action, because an higher pressure narrows the margin in which the base of the cartridge initially moves enough to cycle the action, but not enough to have a case rupture. That happens largely INDIPENDENTLY FROM THE POWER OF THE CARTRIDGE. Low pressure rouds can have high power, but generally pay for this by being bigger. Modern propellants and metallurgy allowed to have very high pressure cartridges in respect to those of the late 19th early 20th century.
.223 rem and other modern cartridges are generally high pressure cartridges, even the ones that produces moderate energy, and that leaves a more little margin for safely operate a blowback action.
That's not the case of the .30 carbine, that worked at lower presures than the .351SL that was safely used in a blowback rifle that weighted less than a .45 ACP SMG.
Please. Really you want to be taken seriously with arguments like "N***s would have done it"? With a completely different, bottleneck, cartridge? That's not even close to be a demonstration of anything. N***s didn't make a simple blowback handgun for the 9X18mm Ultra. It had been done after the war. They didn't make a simple blowback handgun for the 9X19, but used, ordered and paid the Astra 600.
The Winchester 1907 had been a Police departments' favourite well into the '30s, many samples are still around and in working order despite being over 100 years old. We were talking about .30 Carbine not other cartridges used in WWII in other rifles. How many powers used a similar cartridge DIRECTLY DERIVED FROM A CARTRIDGE SPECIFICALLY CREATED FOR A BLOWBACK ACTION during WWII?
My source is backed by reality, your faith is disproved by that. The Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle and used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle) and that OPERATED AT A HIGHER PRESSURE (45.000 cup vs. 40.000cup) was slightly lighter than a M3 Grease Gun (despite being a fully stocked rifle) and substantially lighter (900g less) than the Thompson M1A1, two SMGs in .45 ACP. Have you other means to prove your faith is right?
I appreciate Ian, but don't believe something just because Ian says it. He's mostly right, but i've noticed many mistakes over the years, and others did as well.
1
-
@flightlesschicken7769 Again, I didn't search for you, did I? For me this discussion could have very well not even started.
The .30 carbine had been developed starting form the .32 Winchester Self Loading cartridge used in the Winchester 1905 rifle that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle. The subsequent Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle, used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle) and that OPERATED AT A HIGHER PRESSURE (45.000 cup vs. 40.000cup). The Winchester 1907 rifle was slightly lighter than a M3 Grease Gun (despite being a fully stocked rifle) and substantially lighter (900g less) than the Thompson M1A1, two SMGs in .45 ACP that had been used in WWII (and the M3 for decades later). So what exactly prevents the .30 Carbine from being fired in a blowback firearm of reasonable weight?
Are you sure you are looking at the right rifle? The 1907 had a merely 2" longer barrel than a M1 Carbine (actually longer barrels are worse for blowbacks, because it takes the bullet more time to exit from them) and THE ACTION IS REALLY SHORT. The magazine is right in front of the trigger and the action doesn't extend behind the trigger. Do you think the buttstock is part of the action?
No, they are not nearly equal. 53.000 psi (max C.I.P pressure for .351 SL) is not "nearly equal" to 62.000 psi (max C.I.P. pressure for .223 Rem). Even not counting that blowback actions don't cope well with bottleneck cartridges and, again "the N***s didn't do that" IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. N***s didn't do a lot of things.
The argument is: The .30 carbine had been developed starting form the .32 Winchester Self Loading cartridge used in the Winchester 1905 rifle that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle. The subsequent Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle, used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle) and that OPERATED AT A HIGHER PRESSURE (45.000 cup vs. 40.000cup). The Winchester 1907 rifle was slightly lighter than a M3 Grease Gun (despite being a fully stocked rifle) and substantially lighter (900g less) than the Thompson M1A1, two SMGs in .45 ACP that had been used in WWII (and the M3 for decades later).SO WHAT EXACTLY PREVENTS THE .30 CARBINE FROM BEING FIRED IN A BLOWBACK FIREARM OF REASONABLE WEIGHT?
Please, you didn't state facts, but guessings at best. You asked why blowback is not used on modern cartridges of moderate power, and I answered you. If you don't understand pretty simple explanations is not my fault. Modern cartridges are mainly high pressure cartridges. In a blowback firearm, energy mainly affects the required minimum weight of the bolt. Pressure narrows the window of usability of blowback actions (the higer the pressure, the narrower the window from when the bolt is too heavy to reliably cycle the action to when it's too light to safely do it) until other factors (material of the cartridge, presence of dirt, moisture, lube, ecc...) become too relevant. Even not counting that blowback actions don't cope well with bottleneck cartridges (I can explain you why if you want).
7.62x39 is not only a bottleneck but a heavily tapered cartridge. I can explain you why that doesn't cope well with blowback actions if you want.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1