Comments by "" (@RedXlV) on "Royal Armouries" channel.

Difference being that Ernest Vervier did it right.
6
The Vetterli-Vitali worked pretty well to convert a single shot into a magazine rifle. But really, single-shot bolt-action rifles were the only ones that it was practical to convert to magazine repeaters. The only lever guns to work well with magazines were the ones designed from the ground up for them.
5
Give it a proper rifled barrel and sights, and just about any other type of folding stock. That'd about do it, I think.
3
Imagine if MacArthur hadn't insisted that the M1 Garand be chambered for .30-06. Not only would this have resulted in the Garand entering service sooner (meaning more units would actually have them by the time of WW2), being a pound lighter, and having a 10 rather than 8-round clip, it would also mean that by the time NATO standardization was being discussed, the US would've already been standardized on a 7mm round for 18 years. As such, the only likely resistance to .280 British would've been the insistence on making an American version of it and calling it ".276 Springfield" or something to pretend there was no British influence. In other words, like with so many things if you go back far enough it's MacArthur's fault.
2
@stamfordly6463 Probably because the Swiss Army specified a side-mounted magazine. Since bottom-mounting such a big magazine would make prone firing impossible. And likewise would make the aircraft-mounted version impossible.
2
@exploatores As far as combining the best weapons, the spear is one of the most effective weapons in history. Combining it with the rifle was an excellent and highly effective idea.
2
@Stanb662000 Correct. Lee-Enfield actions captured at Gallipoli were converted to 8mm Mauser and given the same fore end design as Turkish Model 1938 Mauser. This is the same time they were cutting off the barrel jackets of their Gewehr 88s and converting them to match the Mauser configuration. They'd decided they wanted every rifle in inventory to have the same handling characteristics, even if they had different actions.
2
The gold AK was just gaudy. This is art.
1
@LUR1FAX Yes, but given that there already significantly more of the M1917 than the M1903 as of 1920, it would've made more sense to standardize on the M1917 at the time. Unfortunately, at the time target shooting was considered a higher priority than practicality on the battlefield. And target shooters preferred the M1903's windage-adjustable rear sight, even though the rear-mounted peep sight is obviously the better choice for the average fresh out of boot camp soldier who's not an Olympic-level marksman.
1
Mr. Shlock Had the .276 Garand been adopted, NATO most likely would've standardized on the British 7x43mm round (or a near-identical American round), since that would simply be a shorter version of what America was already using, just like how 7.62x51mm is a shorter .30-06 with nearly the same ballistics. And as for the Garand itself, it would've been about 1 pound lighter (very nice for soldiers in the field) and had a 10-round instead of 8-round clip. Something akin to the M14 probably still would've been adapted from its basic design in the 1950s, but with the lighter, lower-recoiling bullet it would've been a proper assault rifle. The smaller round might also have resulted in a higher-capacity magazine, like 25 or even 30 rounds. Or they might have kept it to 20 rounds anyway, on the premise that keeping the mag shorter would be good for firing in the prone position. After all, even the M16 started out with a 20-round mag until they decided it needed to match the AK-47's 30 rounds.
1
I think it would look even more like a Wookie's weapon with the foregrip/monopod attached.
1
It was an issue item in the Swedish Navy for decades, so it must have had some merit. This was in a period when Sweden was fighting actual wars at sea, so they'd have opportunity to find out if this axe-pistol was too fragile.
1