Comments by "geodkyt" (@geodkyt) on "Forgotten Weapons"
channel.
-
73
-
I don't think we should overlook the US 6mm SAW program of the late 1960s and early 1970s. That was really the final "kill shot" on the Stoner in Big Army and Big Marine Corps - "Look, the Stoner has some issues (mostly because of compromises to make it 'modular'), and we'll have this much better squad LMG, optimized for longer ranges and better penetration & terminal effects in a few years, so let's just skip the Stoner altogether." The SEALs, being willing to put up with the Stoner idiosyncrasies and limitations in exchange for having a really lightweight belt fed LMG at the small unit level, stayed with the Stoner - after all, they were paid for and in inventory, and provided a capability nothing else currently in inventory.
Fast forward a few years, and logisticians point out that adopting the 6mm SAW cartridge for just the squad LMG (the plan to originally make 6x45mm SAW a "universal" cartridge having been dropped, as it was "too beaucoup" for the rifles and "too weak" for the platoon/company GPMG) is going to be a real PITA in terms of keeping troops supplied. It literally shared ammo with *nothing*, nor was there any remaining consideration towards making it a more widely used cartridge for any role other than "squad LMG". (And they weren't wrong...)
So, focus shifts back to the idea of a squad LMG in the same caliber as the riflemen are using (even if it is belted), at right about the same time that NATO is getting ready to adopt a new standard rifle cartridge (which ended up being the SS109 family of 5.56x45mm), and FN (who had developed the SS109) already had the Minimi prototypes fairly well vetted (among other things, it had been tested alongside the 6mm SAW candidates, despite not being in the competition formally), ready for adoption barrelled for the new SS109.
73
-
@TugaAvenger Because for US legal purposes, the critical thing was whether the gun could go full auto or not. Which is why they ruled the AR15 lower to be the defining part - that's where all the "Go Faster" magic occurs (or doesn't occur, as the case may be). ATF even acknowledged the issue when they initially classified AR15s. AKs are the same way.
The FNC should have been ruled to use the lower as its receiver, in accordance with previous ATF rulings (and arguably, the HK roller lock trigger pack should have been ruled the "receiver" - although that would have necessitating HK to serialize the trigger pack frame and cut a window in the grip assembly sheet metal to expose that serial number and manufacturer markings).
The reason is quite simple- traditionally, the US hasn't cared if you had a gun , but we have cared (for nearly 100 years) if you have a machinegun . (There was a secondary interest in trying to shadow ban "concealable" guns by treating them as machineguns, which is why we have silly laws on rifle and shotgun minimum lengths- originally, the NFA was supposed to cover handguns as well, before handguns got removed from NFA regulation... unfortunately the categories created to stop folks from sawing off shotguns and rifles as a loophole remained in the NFA because most people in 1934 just didn't care about them as long as they could have handguns.)
So, when writing the law that established which part of a gun is the "firearm" for legal purposes (as opposed to just being "parts" that could be freely replaced), they focused on the part that, A., was essential, and B., controlled whether the gun had a "Talk To Crowds" function. There was no intent, consideration, or willingness to control firearms in general - only the guns they perceived as being "gangster guns". Even the most strident gun control advocates in 1934 understood that the Second Amendment precludes restricting guns in general (which is why the NFA was set up as a tax law - they acknowledged that it would be unconstitutional to simply ban the "gangster guns", but Congress is free to tax almost anything they like, even at punitively high tax rates.)
The problem is that when politicians defined "frame or receiver" back in 1934, by and large the recievers they were familiar with were revolvers, semiauto pistols like the 1911 (note, a typical seniatuo pistol frame is exactly analogous to an AR15 lower) and rifles where the barrel is threaded directly into the thing (which US law considered the "receiver") that everything else hangs off.
The 1934 NFA is also somewhat ambiguous (as at least some politicians were aware that not all guns are revolvers or Mauser style rifles), leaving the ATF some legal wiggle room so they can classify what the receiver is for a particular gun model based on what makes technical sense in controlling "machineguns". Unfortunately (as in the case of the FNC), occasionally ATF makes a stupid call and classifies a part that really isn't relevant to the "Go Faster" capability of a particular gun as being the "receiver".
72
-
@capt.raptor4650 And if they had followed the actual nomenclature rules, the M1, M1A1 (an M1 with a folding stock), M2, and M3 would have been the M1, M1A1, M1A2, and M1A3, respectively. Because the M2 and M3 are not sufficiently distinct to justify their own independent model number rather than an "A" suffix.
I mean, there is literally no difference between an M2 and an M1 that has had a few parts added to it (different stock, which is really just relieved to allow the added trigger group bits to move), and the M3 is really just an M2 with the rear sight foundation milled flat and a scope mount for the giant IR searchlight and scope.
71
-
I also wonder if they didn't out-think themselves by trying to convert existing No4(T) rifles for this program. After all, while the No4(T) rifles had been hand selected from No4 Mk1 rifles for accuracy before being converted to No4(T), after converting the rifles to 7.62x51mm, you've basically reset the rifle back to "normal production", and so you have no idea if the converted caliber rifle is an example of a "typical"production rifle, an exceptionally accurate example, or "just barely meets minimum standards" rifle. They probably would have seen better results if they had followed the same process as was originally done to create the No4(T) rifles - hand select exceptionally accurate L8 rifles ( after the NATO conversion) and then send them to the top gunsmith to get fitted into a "sniper" configuration and married to a scope.
Had Britain finalized the L8 program in the early to mid 1950s, and followed the same plan as the original No4(T) by "sniperizing" exceptional L8 rifles instead of trying to convert existing No4(T) rifles to NATO caliber sniper rifles, they might have ended up adopting an "L8(T)" as their Cold War sniper rifle (rather than develop the L42A1), even if the "infantry" L8 rifles ended up only briefly equipping Territorials until they could get L1A1s. But this would have hinged on having enough L8 rifles produced to be able to cherry pick the best ones for sniper conversions, fast enough that they didn't see a need to do a more extensive sniper development. By 1965, having survived with the WWII era No4(T) just fine (despite them using a now "nonstandard" catridge), the pressure to get a NATO caliber sniper rifle into service simply wasn't great enough to justify not going the extra mile for more accuracy, especially as Britain was not in a "wartime economy" production mode nor trying to also completely replace all of the rest of their small arms suite at the same time. So, taking an extra 5 more years to get the L42A1 was worth it by then.
Ultimately the L42A1 was a far superior sniper rifle, but one that probably wouldn't have been feasible in WWII, amd probably wouldn't have been considered worth the effort in the 1950s The No4(T) was a pretty limited conversion path nowhere near how involved and extensive the conversion process was for the L42A1 ("take an exceptionally accurate standard infantry rifle, install a rear sight with the battlesight aperture ground off, screw on a cheek riser, install a 3rd sling swivel in front of the magazine, and drill and tap for a scope mount" as opposed to "do all that, but also rebarrel them with a unique match grade barrel, and cut down and accurize the stock) how much production capability it would have cost them... after all, in addition to fielding the No4(T) quite widely as a sniper rifle, in WWII they were using it as a section ("squad", in American parlance) level SDM in parachute rifle units.
70
-
66
-
64
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
55
-
@TheArchaos I have never noticed an issue with a lack of vertical fore grip on the Sten to be an issue, much I haven't notice the lack being important on Sterlings, AKMs, pretty much every 5.56mm assault rifle (I got out before the US Army put rails on "ALL THE THINGS!!!" and the rest of the world followed, and most pre-May transferrable MGs lack fitment for VFGs because May 1986 was even before I enlisted), etc. The barrel shroud on the Sten makes a very good hold location, especially if you use the clip on "ejection port hand stop" Canada manufactured during WWII.
Give me a Sten with known good magazines with feed lips within spec, and I'll be perfectly happy. Although the need for a loading tool (the joke amongst many Sten owners is the loading tool is what the federal government should regulate as an NFA controlled item, not the receiver) for the Sten is a major downside... albeit one shared with many lauded WWII SMGS.
But the PPS-43 is still better than a Sten Mk2, and at least as good as a Sten Mk5 (the real advantage of the Mk5 is the improved balance from the pistol grip and wood stock more than anything else, IMNSHO... although the front sight and anti-rotation pin for the barrel are also nice improvements...)
But finding "good" Sten mags can be as trying as finding a replacement mag for a PPSh-41 that runs reliably in a particular gun, whereas PPS mags just work and don't require a loading tool.
53
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
There is literally no reason why processing should take any longer than a "Brady Check", as they aren't checking background in any greater detail than the NICS check.
Fingerprints aren't actually used to determine identity the way CSI:Anytown and other police procedurals show. They are used to compare fingerprints when there is a need to do so . Which they don't do as part of the NFA process - they literally just file them.
And this should hold true for even John Q. Public who hasn't had a security clearance. Again, the standards for identification and background check for NFA items are literally the same as if you were buying a Cowboy Action Peacemaker reproduction revolver, other than whether the law in your state permits you to own whatever you are buying. If you're 21 years old*, not a "prohibited person" (which has the same meaning under NFA it does under GCA), and your state doesn't prohibit your ownership of that class of "firearm", you're allowed to acquire and possess it.
The only reason you are required to submit photos and fingerprints is that those were required by statute way back when, before computers or online databases were a thing. The fingerprints and photos are simply elements of the identifying information, but are not used to determine identity, nor have they every been. (BTW, a plain language reading of the applicable statute section - 26 USC 5812(a)(3) - would contradict the current ATF position on requiring photos and fingerprints from trustees for weapons registered to a trust or other corporate entity; there is literally no statutory authority to require them from any transferee who is not doing a transfer as an "individual".)
.
.
* There are a handful of cases where someone 18-20 can have an NFA "firearm" registered to them, such as inheritance, private sales, private builds, or even FFL transfers of shotguns and rifles - apparently including SBRs and SBS according to the ATF at https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/how-old-i-have-be-make-or-own-nfa-firearm#:~:text=Regardless%2C%20federal%20firearms%20law%20prohibits,than%2018%20years%20of%20age.
43
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
A friend of mine of ahold of one of the US Cold War pneumatic subcaliber mortar adaptors. 1" runds, and a variety of sleeves (for 60mm, 81mm, and 4.2" tubes) and a pneumatic valve at rhe bottom.
Pretty cool - the valve arrangement would be set for the appropriate "caliber" youre trying to simulate, and the round would be propelled at about a 1:36 range reduction (so, every inch equals a full yard).
He made up a tube, baseplate, and T&E bipod that would accept the kit (but wasnt an NFA DD).
We had a BLAST one afternoon, thunking rounds down his 100 yard driveway at 1:36 scale targets of AFVs, troops, and small buildings.
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
34
-
34
-
Honestly, with smoothbore guns, more rounds than you're likely to be carrying.
20 rounds in a single session from a flintlock musket is do-able- after all, there's a reason you see cartridge boxes holding 20, 24, even 30 rounds. (12-20 was more typical for the period, but that was as much the fact that you'd rarely fire more than that in an open field battle before going for the bayonet charge).
With this gun, each magazine only holds 7, and you aren't having to load past fouling until all your magazines are exhausted (and that presumes you're still in combat and thus can't boil out the magazines before reloading).
The pan and hammer ("frizzen" in modern terms - that thing most folks call a hammer is actually a called a "cock") will likely benefit from a quick swipe with a rag between each magazine, along with a stab with the touch wire to the flash hole, but that's like 5 seconds or so, if you've set your kit up smartly so you don't have to fish around in the bottom of your box (under the wooden cartridge block) for the wire.
You'd probably be able to get at least 5 full magazine tubes out before fouling in the barrel would become a noticeable problem (recoil will progressively get stiffer), and you might be able to get more out before it becomes dangerously fouled. Each mag tube should be able to be loaded and fired at least 3 times before becoming so fouled they are difficult to charge, more likely 4 times.
So, a typical soldier will end up running out of ammo before he runs afoul of fouling in a single battle. 😉
33
-
33
-
The reliability issue adds up when you look at the state of pistol ammunition at the time. It's not at all like the state of handgun defensive ammo today, where pretty much everything in what a US police department would consider a "service caliber" performs about the same with the top tier of mass production defensive ammo, and they tend to feed quite reliably through almost any off the shelf handgun that isn't garbage tier. It's hard to relate just how different the situation is today versus the 1970s, when semiauto JHPs tended towards either gimmick rounds, rounds that were basically FMJs with a tiny hole that didn't reliably expand, or rounds that had cavities large enough to present feeding problems... along with most semiauto guns only being set up for feeding FMJ (and gunsmiths could make a decent living doing nothing more than feed reliability packages on common handgun designs).
If you don't have highly reliable, excellent terminal performance JHPs in your typical semiauto pistol calibers, going with a .357 Magnum revolver goes a long way towards giving you noticeably better terminal effects. Even a SWC full house .357 Magnum would be an improvement over a round nosed jacketed 9mm that didn't expand (whether or not it had a cavity), and the revolver was perfectly fine with a SJHP that looked like a shot glass.
In the 1970s, revolvers were very much the best handgun for the job, and .357 was pretty much the best commonly available caliber.
33
-
32
-
32