Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "The Armourer's Bench" channel.

  1. It can also be easily dismantled in 12 packs, the heaviest of them weighting 132 kg, to be carried by mules.
    33
  2. Also the OTO Melara SIDAM 25 would be. It's a M113 hull with a turret armed with 4 × 25 mm Oerlikon KBA cannons and a thermal-laser sight-rangefinder-predictor. Italy built 275 of them in the '80s, and they should currently be in reserve.
    7
  3. Who is fighting Russians right now?
    4
  4. Proof of Ukraine getting weapons.
    3
  5.  @triactv7692  It's a roller delayed system, so a derivate of the MG45, so it's nearest cousins are the CETME AMELI and the SIG M710.
    3
  6. Don't forget there is a lot ot fighting going on in open fields, with the soldiers covered by bushes and branches. That's like the ideal ground for the FAL and other battle rifles.
    3
  7. You can always migrate there and check.
    3
  8. NGSW is DOA. It's adoption is far from "inevitable". BTW The M14 was the choice of the Ordnance corp. Like the XM7 is. The M16 was an oddball side project of the CONARC, like this is of the AMU and the IWTSD. The Army didn't "didn't back down". To the Army was given the M16 because, with the Springfield Arsenal closing down, there was no way to manufacture enough M14 up to spec., so the Ordnance Corp had to accept the M16. The soldiers didn't hate 5.56, they weren't happy with the M16, because it was unreliable, and it was unreliable because the Ordnance Corp hated it (it wasn't their idea) and ACTIVELY sabotaged it. Once solved the issues (M16A1) none missed the M14. Because the lighter rifle that allowed to carry more rounds was what ANYONE wanted. Everyone happy? No. Nobody came out of Vietnam asking for a heavier, longer M16 with more complicated sights that’d be a bitch to clean and maintain. Nobody. Yet, what'd the Ordnance Corp prepare for them? The M16A2, a rifle optimized for Camp Perry matches. And then what happened, when the Infantry saw the M4 carbine, which was only ever supposed to be this thing carried by support troops, to make their lives a little easier while performing manual labor under arms? Yeah; none of said “supporting arms” saw their M4s up until the early 2010s. Infantry instantly grabbed every one of those things they could put their hands on and discarded the M16A2. Because the lighter rifle that allowed to carry more rounds was what ANYONE wanted. The Ordnance Corp lives in the mith of the lone "one shot, one kill," long-range rifleman, not in the reality where 99.9% of the rounds shot in battle miss the target.
    3
  9.  @Ming-Chan  The NARP is not going to replace the ARX160 in Italian service. The ARX 160 is an Army rifle. It's lightweight, relatively cheap, ambidextrous, runs forever on little maintenance. If you have to train an entire army to use a rifle, that's still the best solution. The NARP is a special forces rifle. Most of them are already trained on some sort of AR15 platform. Things like trigger and accuracy are more important, unit cost is less important. For Beretta also, if there's some foreign customer that doesn't want polymer rifles, or want AR15 ergonomics, that's a further possibility to close a contract.
    3
  10. It has to be said that the BREN is not an easy gun to manufacture. It's "'30s easy", not "'50s easy". The piston-bolt assembly alone is composed of 30 parts, and there are too many machined parts in general.
    3
  11. Check the FAMTD (Fusil Argentino Modelo Tirador Destacado). After a long test and evaluation process, Argentine started to distribute it. It's a 1MOA FAL with rail, optic, light bipod and adjustable stock.
    3
  12.  @joemama.556  Because it had been tested and it failed, and by simple physics. A plate that’s made to resist to an a AP, steel-core, 165gr bullet fired at 850 m/s at point blank, is not going to be penetrated by a lead, or steel-core, 135gr bullet fired at only 60 m/s more at any reasonable combat distance and, even in the case, to slightly change the specifics of the plates to regain protection is IMMENSELY easier than changing the service rifle. It penetrates with tungsten penetrators, but so do 7.62 NATO and 5.56 NATO, so what's the point? "Army came out hard with the program’s aims and expectations, unreasonably so, practically declaring a War on Physics from the outset. Unfortunately, like so many other antecedent programs Army has lost the war again, badly."
    3
  13. Have the Ukrainians refused them? No? Then they needed them.
    3
  14. No. They are adding an aluminium framed rifle to the existing polymer framed rifle.
    3
  15. It's made to be pulled with a lanyard, but, as always, when gunners become comfortable, they start pulling it bare-hand.
    3
  16. You probably refer to the MG42. Reihnmetall MG3 and Beretta MG42/59, that's what the Ukrainians got, surely are weapons of the free world, because they had been manufactured in the free world, and the Ukrainians are making good use of them.
    2
  17. This program begun before the NGSW, and there are many that think the NGSW is not going anywere anyway. Like the AR15 was the CONARC side-prject to the M14, this is the USAMU-IWTSD side-project to the NGSW.
    2
  18. That's the XM7 with the .277 Fury. This is the .280 British we should have adopted instead.
    2
  19. Firearm manufacturers don't design rifles to satisfy their intellectual curiosity. They want to make money with them. There are reasons much of those systems are not used any more. IE tilting bolt (SVT40, STG44, FAL...) are no more used because they require a robust link, in the receiver, between the front of the bolt and the rear of it (where the locking surface is), and that makes the rifle heavier. That's why a modern AR MUST have front locking lugs (so that the rest of the receiver can be made of light alloy, or plastic). It's necessary to make them multi-lug rotating bolt? No. The Breda rising bolt (the one used on the Breda PG, IE), to say one, would work perfectly. BUT, to design a modern AR with a rising bolt system, you should start from a white sheet. An AR18-style multi-lug rotating bolt, instead, you KNOW that it works, as long as you respect some dimensions. It spares design time, and so design costs.
    2
  20. M4 had not a short stroke gas piston last time I checked.
    2
  21.  @shanequeen5003  If you think it's not, it's quite evident you mistake "democracies" with "fairy kingdoms", and don't know how real dictatorship are.
    2
  22. .223 is a pain in the ass to be blowback delay operated in a AR weight limit. It works as long as the bolt is quite heavy, and so the required delay is not that much but, as soon as the weight of the bolt is taken down to match that of the gas operated ARs, it dangerously oscillates between "not enough delay" and "too much delay" and becomes very ammo specific. See the HK33, that requires different mass of the bolt and shoulder angles for different ammo.
    2
  23.  @goaski474  "assault rifle" is a translation of "Sturmgewer", the name given to the first of them to be adopted. it's charateristics are: intermediate caliber, select fire, detachable magazine fed.
    2
  24. Ukraine is a democracy. Russia is a dictatorship.
    2
  25.  @Stein871  ​ @Stein871 "jewcraine"? You think you can talk about "democracy", Nazi scum? You should volunteer for democratic Russia. They'll appreciate your ideas.
    2
  26. The original specs. of the .264 USA called for 55.000 psi pressure, that's pretty mild. the requirements were: 107 gr, 2875 fps, 2662J 123 gr, 2657 fps, 2614J 135 gr, 2527 fps, 2595J .264 LICC added, from a 11.5" barrel: 108 gr, 2650 fps, 2284J This is not "slightlt less spicy" than the .277 Fury. This fully is in 6.5 territory. Pretty much the ballistics they always had. Just a little more spicy than a 6.5 Carcano or a 6.5 Grendel.
    1
  27.  @baneofbanes  BM59 > All other battle rifles. ;)
    1
  28.  @baneofbanes  The AR10, intending the original AR10, the one that had been adopted by someone in the '50s and '60s, is a better semiauto rifle. No doubts about that. But that's all. The BM59 is also an effective occasional LMG (bipod, muzzle brake/compensator) and grenade launcher (grenade sights, winter trigger). It's a more complete "system".
    1
  29.  @baneofbanes  Battle rifles suck at firing bursts form the shoulder. The BM59, thanks to the effective muzzle brake/compensator and the bipod, can fire controlled bursts from prone position. It's not ideal for that, but it's better than not being able to do it AT ALL.
    1
  30. If you are going to shoot 12 gauge cartridges, even birdshots, from something that lightweight and with a one-hand straight handle, five barrels are not needed. You are not going to shoot the second round.
    1
  31. The .264 LICC, to the original requirements of the .264 USA that's 55.000 psi and, from a 16.7" barrel: 107 gr, 2875 fps, 2662J 123 gr, 2657 fps, 2614J 135 gr, 2527 fps, 2595J added, from a 11.5" barrel: 108 gr, 2650 fps, 2284J Those are about 200 Joule more than a 6.8 SPC and 600 Joule more than .300 blackout from the same barrel.
    1
  32.  @shanequeen5003  I don't visit shitholes.
    1
  33.  @shanequeen5003  I don't need to visit Jupiter to know the composition of its atmosphere. Same guy in power for 20 years? Check. Kills or imprison oppositors? Check. Invade neighbours? Check. War crimes? Check. Controls all the media and fill them with ridicolous nationalistic propaganda? Check. ...
    1
  34. Stoner was in charge of the design of the AR10, and had something vaguely to do with the initial designs of the AR16. It had already left the company when the AR15 had been derived from the AR10 (not exactly a simple job) and the AR18 had been much more loosely derived from the AR16. The only part of the AR10 he could patent was the direct impingement / internal piston (they are the same thing, every DI system is an internal piston system) whit the gasses directly in contact with the bolt. All the rest was taken by previous designs. Stoner personally considered the .223 Rem. 5.56 NATO a mistake, and designed his first .223 Rem platform only in the '70s (Ever the Stoner 63 was the redesign, by Fremont and Sullivan, of the Stoner 62, that Stoner designed in .308). As Sullivan recalled later, Stoner was great, but he was not a one-man-show.
    1
  35. Dream... dream... Reality is practically the entire Russian Ground Forces are in Ukraine. There's nothing left. They fucked up big time, and the was is going on because they can't admit it.
    1
  36.  @dragospeta3812  You are so cute, believing in your fairy tale world... Sorry, but IRL Russia is a shithole. Russian military sat on a huge stockpile of old Soviet junk covered by a coat of paint of modern equipment (that was all they could afford), and can't even arm decently the soldiers it already has on the field, and let's not talk about "veterans". We've all seen the kind of training the mobiks had been given. 😂 Russian "economy" has the GDP of Spain thus Russia having three times the population and a far worse distribution of income. "Russian armement factories" lack technology to build anything modern by themself, they depend on influx of western components for anything remotely resembling electronics. They are so "make tanks like sausages" that we are seeing crap like the T62 on the frontline. Not even modernized T62. Just the old crap. But you can keep on dreaming about Russian greatness, pour soul...
    1
  37.  @joemama.556  Then why the final product is long and weights like an M14, and so do the ammo? BTW "13 inch barrel" is not an objective and MANY commercial rounds (IE the 6.5 Creedmor) have a "flatter trajectory that is less affected by wind" without superpressure an bi-metallic cartridges.
    1
  38.  @joemama.556  Uhhh... No. It's quite evident you know nothing of what you are talking about. Otherwise you should know that US infantrymen are trained to shoot at 300m max, even if the ammo they already use are effective at double that distance and more, and that's not going to change. Because, in 99% of possible combat fields, YOU ARE NOT EVEN GOING TO SEE AN ENEMY STANDING IN BROAD DAYLIGHT AT 300M, because there is something blocking the line of sight. What's farther than 300m is a target for the MG. But a MG, that's effective up to 2km if fired from a tripod, when fired from a bipod is effective only to 800m, then the dispersion is too high, not because of the ballistic, but because of the mechanic of the recoil. The XM250 doesn't even have a tripod mount. So no "waaaaay more effective range", sorry.
    1
  39.  @ostiariusalpha  What super-duper-ammo Gen. Milley or anyone else is preparing does not have any importance, until it needs a tungsten penetrator. There's not enough tungsten available from China, as Army knows, to make the goal of making every round armor piercing even remotely feasible, even assuming that the world’s by far largest supplier will have zero problems selling tungsten to America only for it to be shot back at its troops during World War III. To change the service rifle so to make it able to use a round that can't make more than 1/1000 of the supply is idiocy at it's finest.
    1
  40.  @ostiariusalpha  Oh, so the XM1184 would be a "special case", not the round used 99,9% of the times. So the entire adoption of a new rifle is pointless, since it's not needed 99.9% of the times, and it's not said that the right ammo would be available the residual 0.01% of the times when the new rifle would be of some use. In exchange the grunts are going to carry an heavier and more cumbersome rifle and less ammos 100% of the times. What a deal! The 6.8x51mm is not a "universal round" more than the 7.62X51 was. Already tried, already failed.
    1
  41.  @joemama.556  Contrary to you I know that the DMR is not the service rifle of any grunt and that the XM7 had not been selected as DMR. The Next Generation Squad Weapon Program had the goal to find replacements for the M4 carbine and M249 light machine gun. But keep on making yourself ridiculous. You are quite amusing.
    1
  42.  @ostiariusalpha  Unfortunately there's not enough tungsten available from China, as Army knows, to make the goal of making every round armor piercing even remotely feasible, even assuming that the world’s by far largest supplier will have zero problems selling tungsten to America only for it to be shot back at its troops during World War III. So we are back at square one. And it's useless to say "but they'll be used only when they are needed"! How the grunts should select the occasion when they are needed? "Do you know those 99.9% of shots you miss in any battle? For those ones, shoot your lead bullets. Only for the 0.01% times when what you shoot actually hits the target, only for THOSE, take out your super-duper-special XM1186 GP!"
    1
  43.  @ostiariusalpha  Have you ever actually tried to get out of your house and look around? In 99% of the environments there's something CLOSER than 300m that blocks your vision. I repeat. GIs are trained to shoot at 300m (they are actually trained to shoot at 25m at silhouettes that simulates 300m distance just being smaller, so the wind drift is already out of the equation) despite already using ammos effective at more than double that range. That's not going to change with the XM7. The Vortex XM-157 is actually one of the many problems of that weapon. First of all, it has critical components made in China. Then is most definitely not an ‘auto-aiming’ sight. For guaranteed hits, the shooter still must manually ‘ping’ the target. This takes back usable seconds and makes "shooting 100% accurately on the fly", as envisioned under the program to justify the reduced available round count, an utter pipe dream. The scope is otherwise a normal scope.
    1
  44.  @ostiariusalpha  The point is that GIs are trained to shoot at 300m max for a reason, and they'll keep on being trained to shoot at 300m max for the same reason. To have a magic bullet capable to hit at 2km better than another is as useful for them as to have a second belly button. You being a complete idiot that pretend to live in a statistic anomaly doesn't change reality.
    1
  45.  @joemama.556  Anyone that had any idea of how the us military works and how combat works knew the xm5 is a dead end that will MAYBE purchased in some thousand samples and then forgotten, because it's not apt to do what the goal of the NGSW program was. Unfortunately people like you are just to idiot to see what's written on the walls.
    1
  46.  @ostiariusalpha  The point is that GIs are trained to shoot at 300m max for a reason, and they'll keep on being trained to shoot at 300m max for the same reason. To have a magic bullet capable to hit at 2km better than another is as useful for them as to have a second belly button. You pretending, like an idiot, reality to be different than it is because it doesn't fit your desires is not going to change it. Yeah. enemies are going to stand visible for several seconds just for the grunt to calibrate its precious sight. That's why the program specified the sight should have been able to shoot accurately "on the flight", because they didn't want it to really be able to do it. So, if the XM-157 can't do it, it's good anyway. Another attempt to change reality to your needs. Don't you really feel stupid reasoning like that?
    1
  47.  @ostiariusalpha  They are going to train differently because you say so? Because the new round change the environment? I know it's difficult to you to understand simple texts, but let me say it again. the rounds they ALREADY use are effective beyond 300m. They are trained to shoot at 300m (25 really) because IRL THERE IS NO POINT in training for longer distances. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO SEE an enemy at longer distances. I know you didn't understand this time too, but please, keep on. You are so stupid it's really funny to read.
    1
  48.  @ostiariusalpha  Yeah. They say it especially to you in your dreams.
    1
  49.  @ostiariusalpha  An "Army Technology article" in your dreams.
    1
  50.  @ostiariusalpha  Don't worry. Your dream world is always there for you.
    1