Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Forgotten Weapons"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
D8W2P4 "Wrong, it's poorly designed trigger groups"
So, for you, it only happened that all the bullpups have poorly designed trigger groups?
The crappy trigger of the bullpups is due to the fact that the trigger is distant from the hammer/striker, so the movement of the finger has to be transferred for a greater distance. That means that the levers of the trigger group are heavier, and the leverage has more total lash. It's an unavoidable defect of the design.
"Conventional rifles are a problem for lefties"
Some of them are, but not at the level of having to be shouldered on their wrong shoulder to avoid eating brass. Even with bolt action rifles it had been noted how, operating the trigger with the left hand and the bolt with the right one, lefties are often faster than right handed people.
"try using a conventional rifle with say a 24" barrel in a tight space."
And why on the earth should i do it? No service 5.56 NATO bullpup I'm aware of is issued with a 24" barrel. Even cause the ballistic gain over a 20", for the .223 Rem, is practically nihil even for long range shooting, and, if you are not doing competition shooting, everything over 17" is an overkill. It's true that, in action, a bullpup will always be shorter than a conventional design, but the relative advantage is lower as the barrel is shorter and, in tight spaces, long barrels are pretty useless anyway.
1
-
D8W2P4 There is some other difference actually, and, if bullpups in intermediate cartridges are pretty rare, bullpups in full power rifle cartridges are almost non existent. Why? Cause those rifles are not made for close quarter fight (so the only advantage of bullpups is moot) and, first of all, being them necessarily heavier than a AR, the balance disadvantages of bullpups become evident, then, being them usually marksman rifles, crappy triggers are a big disadvantage.
Again, some conventional rifles can be problematic for lefties, but not at the level of having to be shouldered on their wrong shoulder to avoid eating brass. That's a specialty of bullpups.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sam Moon "I cannot prove"
So it's not a "fact". What's a "fact" is that the Germans came up with an official accuracy test required (after having zeroed the rifles, so the Germans were expecting to not find the captured rifle to be even properly zeroed) on captured rifles (so on rifles that have been already iussued) to accept the rifles to be used by their soldiers. That shows that they didn't trust the Soviet quality control.
An official acceptance test would not have been required, if only seldom samples wuld have been out of tolerance.
"it is fact that the Germans tested EVERY piece of captured equipment they intended to use".
So what's the official acceptance test, to say one, of the Scotti 20/77 (renamed 2cm Scotti by the Germans)? To test a weapon, to simply see if it works, and to have an official acceptance test to pass are two different things.
"It is not my invection"
"the majority were out of tolerance and 'discarded'" Your invenction.
"you said the percentage was 'good'"
An official acceptance test would not have been required, if only seldom samples wuld have been out of tolerance.
Instead you said it's a "fact" that those that needed reconditioning, "wasn't a significant number"
Where are your sources?
"This line confirms to me you're just making stuff up; "Germans had not th(sic) tooling to make that rifle"
You're kidding, right? The Germans absolutely had the tooling to produce whatever small arms they wanted"
So you are stating Germans produced SVT 40? Good to hear. You have a source stating it, right? Otherwise it's another invenction of your.
1
-
Sam Moon "Did I say the Germans produced SVT-40s, or did I say they had the ability..."
Do you really read the comments first to answer to them? The "ability" and the "tooling" ARE DIFFERENT THINGS. The tooling are the machinery and facilities required to specifically produce something, not the ability to make them. It's obvious that the Germans had the techical knowlege to manifacture SVT40, or M1 Garand for that matter, but they didn't made the tools to do so, so they had not the tooling.
"Also, I said I cannot prove a negative"
You clearly stated it was a "fact" that the rifles that needed reconditioning, "wasn't a significant number". It's a positive statement, that, if true, can be proved. Were are the sources of that "fact"? What's that "not significant" number?
It's not that you "cannot prove a negative", is that you stated to be a "fact" something that you don't know. And are now stating that the fact that you don't know the number is a proof that it was small.
Sorry, but ignorance is not proof.
What's a "fact" is that the Germans came up with an official accuracy test required (after having zeroed the rifles, so the Germans were expecting to not find the captured rifle to be even properly zeroed) on captured rifles (so on rifles that have been already iussued) to accept the rifles to be used by their soldiers. That shows that they didn't trust the Soviet quality control.
An official acceptance test would not have been required, if only seldom samples would have been out of tolerance.
"Here, I'll even show you..."
...that you are good at googling "1384/42-AHA/In(VII)". Learned something?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1