Comments by "SlavicCelery" (@SlavicCelery) on "Forgotten Weapons"
channel.
-
524
-
466
-
368
-
265
-
227
-
202
-
187
-
186
-
70
-
68
-
64
-
62
-
60
-
59
-
56
-
54
-
53
-
51
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
@tidge879 Well the problem with that criticism is that full auto on battle rifles is just a bad idea. Unless you got the weight and proper bipod/tripod for it, it's not as important as some people say. They were trying to combine everything into a single package, smg/lmg/rifle. That's where the real issue with 7.62 nato lies. It's not that it's a bad round, it's a bad idea to replace an LMG with a light rifle.
That said, putting everything into a 5.56/5.45 get's people into a similar problem. Yes the ammo is lighter and it's easier to handle in full auto capacity...but it makes for a crappy LMG/support round. This is easily seen with the fact that most countries are backing away from the M249 SAW (Minimi) but keeping with the M240B.
Basically, there's a whole narrative about how the US stopped development of "intermediate rounds" with the 7.62 NATO. They didn't ultimately. The rounds being offered compared to 7.62 all had their flaws. They make better battle rifle rounds, but worse LMG rounds. Also, they're going to ultimately get replaced with a SCHV round. There's no free lunch in physics. 7.62 NATO is a great round, for MG usage.
Did the USA force the hand for the 7.62 NATO? Yeah, not arguing that. If there was adoption of a 6-7mm rifle round, would 5.56/5.45 not happened? No. It's going to happen because of the benefits that there are with it.
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@allangibson8494 I really don't think that in the absence of the post war restrictions, the handgun development would look that different from today. Once the various patents ran out, short recoil tilting barrels will dominate the action type as far as pistols are concerned.
With all the time since then the top two actions are still, Tilting Barrel short recoil, and blowback. Yes there still is the falling block, ala Beretta and rotating barrel designs. Other designs are much more limited use, delayed blowback (gas, lever, roller), pederson, etc. But cost and efficiency has shown that the tilting barrel is the most cost effective/package friendly systems. I don't think that would change.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Also, the M240 is a reworked BAR action. Meaning the children of that design are still in use today. JMB pretty much defined most modern firearms. The sheer scale of his impact is impressive. Maxim really spent his life mainly refining and developing a single idea. JMB touched everything, pistol designs (martial and civilian), Shotguns (pump, lever, semi-auto), Machine guns (LMG, MMG, HMG, BAR), and so so many rifle designs.
He basically introduced the effective pocket semi-auto. Cartridge designs that are still used today.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
I seemingly love how so many people act as if 5.56 and 5.45 are terrible rounds and bemoan the loss of .280 British. Ultimately, the round does fail at being the absolute universal round. It would probably be an excellent SAW round. But, for the regular grunt, 5.56 and 5.45 are pretty much just about a perfect balance of weight and effectiveness. The goal of the .280 was a universal round. They were trying to logistically bring it to a single round. Which doesn't work then, nor does it work now. Given a larger development cycle to .280 Brit - there would still be a large need with the PDW - close combat ranges which would have brought us back to something akin to 5.56.
A 7mm round has a potential niche role in the military.
That said, once you upscale to vehicle based guns, it really needs to be .50+ caliber or a cannon. 7.62 NATO still has relevance for a heavy support weapon. In my honest opinion, .280 is still too much. I can see the arguments for something more akin to 6.5 grendal or 6.8SPC, wherein, terminal ballistics are boosted but carry weight and recoil isn't overly increased.
Last point - the US raised a big stink in 1951 regarding rifle rounds. It wasn't until 1952 that the UK actually tested a Nuclear weapon. At that time, the US had immense leverage concerning that they were the only ones, outside of the USSR who was packing nukes.
2
-
@Azrael R. "European pistols like the astra, the ruby, the tt33, the luger, the webley, the c96 etc ..." - TT33 is a copy of JMB designs, Lugar is it's own thing, but toggle locked is a nightmare (which Ian has covered many times over) - Webley which one are you talking about?, C96 - developmental but a dead end.
So you're salty that dead end designs or direct rip offs of American designs don't get enough love? Okay sir.
Lastely, any discussion of Spain is literally for most of their creations (WHAT DESIGN FROM JMB or SOMEONE ELSE CAN WE RIP OFF!?). Seriously dude?
You didn't focus on any of the REAL developments from Europe, like the percussion cap system, modern bolt fire, or readapting american machine gun designs.
You're just being salty for the sake of being salty, and not even informed. Whatever.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Azrael R. If we're going to go back to "historical arms development", get the hell out of Europe and America and focus on Asia. I'm not crapping on Spain (I love the country and I have siblings who live there).
What I am saying is Spanish arms development throughout the 20th century and before that, are taking designs from other people and adopting that to their own manufacturing capabilities.
What I am saying, is that when it comes down to MASSIVELY influential designers of firearms, they're not from Spain. Sorry, but that is fact. There are Belgium, German, English, Italian, and yes even American arms developers. When it comes to 20th century arms developers, there are a number of names. Most of them had an influence on both Europe and the USA.
The channel focuses on both items. Considering Ian's first book is about French arms development, he's not entirely focused on the USA. Their second book in on English Bullpup designs.
So I'm not sure where you get their their American bent... outside of the fact that FW resides in the USA and has a bunch of videos from there.
That doesn't change the fact that most of the important designers of firearms are from the USA in the last 100 years (like it or not). I didn't tell you to eat shit. But you're going to to the exact opposite of whatever I tell you, so... Eat healthy, have a long life and I wish you the best. I say that because it's the truth, have a good life, eat good food (and there's some damned good ham from that part of the world) .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dathkami Well it was adopted by 1911. Before that point in time the amount of semi-auto pistols in Europe was varied depending on country. That said, many many revolvers were still being used by militaries USA and European.
So, your statement about unreliable is a general statement about early semi-automatic pistols. Not to mention many of the initially developed were not good enough for military use. C96 and Luger are the stand out designs from Europe at that time. But, adoption wasn't decades before the USA. 1904 is the earlier adoption of the Luger before they standardized on the P08 model. Which is all of two years before the 1911. And all of that to say that the 1911 was part of a number of trials that predated the adoption.
So, historical evidence says that USA or Europe was not "preferred one or the other". USA police forces did use revolvers as a duty weapon for a long time after reliable semi-autos were on the market. That said, you can point at many European police forces that used revolvers late into the 20th century as well.
As far as semi-automatic rifle designs, the most successful ones largely were the designs of JMB. The RSC would be the largest issues Semi-auto rifle until really the Garand. Yes there are a few Russian designs that were interesting, but not practical.
So in conclusion, I really don't get where you're coming from. This isn't an American exceptionalism... This is both sides of the pond didn't want a new design that couldn't hold up to combat needs. Until proper semi-auto rifle designs came along, both sides tested various designs. Semi-auto pistol adoption is not separated by decades. Revolvers got used for decades after they had become obsolescent.
As far as lever action rifles, yes those were more popular in the USA side of things than Europe. But that's probably as influenced by the fact that the best lever gun designs were all being made in the USA at the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dunadan7136 DMR is a role. A battle rifle is a full caliber rifle that is semi-auto (it can be full auto but it is not a requirement). Battle rifles include G3, Garand, FAL, M14, etc. Nearly any battle rifle can be made into a DMR. But a DMR rifle doesn't even need to be semi-auto. DMR or Sniper rifles typically (in the modern era) are scoped. But just being scoped does not make them the same.
What separates a DMR from a Sniper rifle is the role they play in combat.
A sniper is a 1-2 man team that primary role involves recon, along with focused fire. Carlos Hathcock would be a prototypical sniper.
A DMR would be a designated marksman. This is a man working along side his unit to provide accurate firepower. It can fulfill the roles of overwatch, commonly. In the movie Saving private ryan, the "sniper" is actually a DMR. He's working with the platoon with a scoped '03.
DMR as a "rifle" is about it's role. Now some people will say a DMR will need to be semi-auto, like the Dragunov, or the modernized M14 (nomenclature isn't coming to mind at this very second). But technically, it's not required at all. Sort of like how a PDW, isn't a specific SMG. It's a role it fills
So yes, I do know the difference. Perhaps you do not?
1
-
1
-
@dunadan7136 A designated marksman rifle - meaning the rifle a designated marksman uses. Traditionally a rifle fitted with a scope. There are rifles that have been specifically developed for DMR roles as I noted, however it's a role and not a specific line of rifles. Seeing as a DMR within a company may have a standard rifle, merely with improved sights. A DMR can also use an intermediate round, a battle rifle cannot.
Indicating use at greater distance is an important distinction. Seeing as until recently, magnified optics were not a standard issue optic. Even though it was attempted a number of times, but relatively unsuccessfully.
I won't argue that a GMPG is more useful than a battle rifle. I merely indicated that they, battle rifles, can serve a niche role. I don't get why that concept is alien. The M79 still sees some use in niche roles. Is it the best grenade launcher available right now? No. Is the best one for specific moments? Potentially. Same story.
Not all DMR roles are specifically "designed". Many of them were simply optics mounted main line rifles. Sometimes, DMR were simply rifles that showed greater accuracy at the factory and were issued directly to soldiers who were more accurate at distance than their peers. Meaning, they can get more out of their rifle at distance. So more useful at distance? Yeah...more useful at distance.
Have there been rifles specifically designed to fulfill the role of designated marksman better? Yes. I never denied that. In fact I noted some in my last post.
DMR is like the concept of Sniper in a way. The way is, it's a battlefield role. Sometimes gear has been modified for the specific role. Sometimes, it's people fulfilling the role with the standard gear. The famous Finnish Sniper simo, killed many Russians with an iron sighted Finnish Mosin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1