Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Forgotten Weapons" channel.

  1. In 1917 was developed the "Pavesi Device", that allowed the weapon to fire selectively at 1500, 500 or 300 rpm (750, 250 or 150rpm per barrel), however it was a pneumatic device applied to the receiver (it took the place of the trigger lever), the spring remained the same.
    1
  2. "The 1923 has a very vertical grip angle; the 1934 has a more angled/swept back one." Looking to the pictures, they appear to have the same angle. At least for the front side of the grip. The one of the 1934 seems to be more angled cause the rear side is. Infact, in the 1934 model, is not parallel to the front one any more.
    1
  3.  @robosoldier11  I would rather see those ideas used in new firearms. Like a Scotti action GPMG, or a Breda action AR. We've already seen good ideas given justice after decades of oblivion. The Steyr rotating barrel in the Beretta Series 8000 and PX4, the Bergmann floating lock in the Archon, the Revelli rotating lock (that of the Glisenti 1910 pistol and FIAT-Revelli 1914 MG) in all the 5.7x28 pistols bar the new S&W...
    1
  4. +Seth Ritch Italy adopted a knife bayonet (even tough they still called it "sciabola-baionetta", "saber-bayonet") with a 30 cm (11.8") blade, along with the mod 1891 Carcano rifle.
    1
  5. The gun is neat, but, from a 1.13 kg gun that fires a round whose energy is barely above that of a .380 ACP (According to Cartridges of the World, the pistol fires a 224 grains FMJ bullet at 700 fps / 213ms, for mere 247 foot pounds / 335 Joules of energy) the least one can expect is that it is a soft shoooter. It weights at least 300g too much.
    1
  6. No military rifle would have been approved for use without the possibility to field strip it. You only have to know the passages. As for the charging handle, the same spring that closes the bolt has to be compressed in opening it. Seeing how powerful it is, the designer probably concluded that some form of lever action was needed to do it.
    1
  7. The level of machining involved in doing those receiver and bolt is huge. For that alone it doesn't seem a design very apt to equip a mass army.
    1
  8. Although they had been designed to be used in defensive positions, with the shield (when used with the shield, the plate was integral part of the protection, and the hole sight was the only opening in it), they had been used as offensive wepons, without the shield, starting from 1916.
    1
  9. The weird thing is that this MG had been adopted in 1957. For how much sound the basic mechanism is, for it's execution it's like the designers konwingly decided to ignore several decades of experience in small arms designs, or simple common sense, like they were things of the past, that didn't apply to them. Retaining nuts had been commonly used in infantry rifles (relatively inexpensive pieces of equipment) since the late 19th century, how it's possible that a post WWII GPMG (a valuable piece of equipment) has a screw that can get loose during use? The problem of changing a hot barrel without using pads and without the gunner having to move from prone position had been adressed since the end of WWI. The ZB vz.26 can do it, the Breda 30 can do it, the Bren can do it, The MG34 and MG42 can do it, the M60 can't! And so on...
    1
  10. And the will to adopt an indigenous design anyway, even if, in the mid '80s, there were better options around, even among the bullpups.
    1
  11. No. Officine Villar Perosa, was a renowed manufacturer of ball bearings. In 1914 it started the production of shell casings and bycicles for the army, and then that of this MG.
    1
  12. There is a conventional stock version, and a telescopic stock version available
    1
  13. +Antwon Jenkins "notoriously under-powered" according to who?
    1
  14. As quality of the single weapon, the Hotchkiss Portative, as usefulness for an army, the Chauchat (with the material, tooling, manhour required to assemble an Hotchkiss Portative you can likely produce at least three Chauchat).
    1
  15. The Breda 30 uses exactly the same cartridges of the rifle. The 6.5x52mm Carcano cartridge is not "quite weak" compared to other 6mm rifle cartridges. It's as powerful as the 6.5×54mm Mannlicher–Schönauer and the 6.5X53R Dutch-Romanian (that were 6.5 Carcano copies) and slightly more powerful than the 6.5x50 Arisaka.
    1
  16. I'll try to be more clear. THERE HAD NEVER BEEN A SPECIAL 6.5 CARCANO LOAD MEANT TO BE USED IN MACHINEGUNS. NEVER. Then, I'm not talking about "modern loading" but about the loading used at that time. AT THAT TIME the 6.5X52 Carcano was as powerful as the 6.5×54mm Mannlicher–Schönauer (Greek service cartridge) and the 6.5X53R (Dutch and Romanian service cartridge), that were direct 6.5 Carcano copies, and slightly more powerful than the 6.5x50 Arisaka. (Japanese service cartridge). All those cartridges, like the 6.5X52 Carcano can cycle machineguns without problems. Finally, it's not "i.e. than the 6,5 swedish" but "ONLY the 6.5 swedish". The 6.5 Swedish was THE ONLY 6.5 service round that was more powerful than the 6.5 Carcano at that time.
    1
  17. You are talking about the 91/38 Carbine. 451mm (17.75 inches) barrel lenght.
    1
  18. There is another reason. To detect hairline cracks and casting defects. They are much more visible on the mirror-like Surface than on the rough cast Surface.
    1
  19. +Sjon Kosse Then US used lubed ammunitions on the HS 404s. Sometimes, where there isn't an available substitute, or at least not one good enough, you have to accept some quirky feature of the weapon.
    1
  20. A little late reply, however Savage sold many 1907 models in .32 ACP to the French during WWI (one of the many civilian .32 ACP pistols adopted during the war due to time constraint). It worked so well that the French used the same delayed blowback system for the MAB PA-15 in 9mm Luger, that so coupled the Savage system with a more modern slide design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAB_PA-15_pistol
    1
  21. +D8W2P4 The crappy trigger of the bullpups is due to the fact that the trigger is distant from the hammer/striker. It's the same reason why the trigger of the DA semiauto handguns tend to be crappier than that of the DA revolvers, but multiplied by 10. The problem can be reduced using better materials, more accurate fittings... but using the same materials and accuracy a conventional rifle's trigger will always be better. Bulpups are a problem for lefties cause their ejection port is exactly at the level of the cheek, so, if there is no way to change the ejection side, or the bullpup doesn't eject downward, the rifle must be shouldered on the right shoulder regardless how the shooter is used to. Once the rifle is in action, lenght is not really that important. Bullpups have been conceived mainly to facilitate transport. But, during transport, the advantage in lenght over a conventional rifle with a folding stock is almost non existing.
    1
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. "By 2 lbs with the wooden stock" what? Your sentence lacks the subject (and 2 lbs are actually a substantial difference). It's not a question of poorly designed trigger groups. It didn't simply happen that, by chance, 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. That bullpups (unless they eject downward) are poor designs for lefties is a reality. That bullpups in full power rifle cartridges are almost non existent, is a reality.
    1
  25. D8W2P4 So it's not that your sentence lacked the subject. Is that you are not capable to bring any actual example. Really from wooden stock M14 and a synthetic one, there are only few ounces of difference. 9lbs 3.75oz for the USGI fiberglass stock, 9lb 12.25oz for the birch stock. A modern day AR is below 7 lbs. It's better if you don't guide anyone, really. You know almost nothing of the subject you are talking of. It's still not a question of poorly designed trigger groups. It's an unavoidable defect of the design. I alredy explained you why. The fact that you don't like to ear that bullpups are a problem for lefties doesn't make it not relevant. Bullpups in full power rifle cartridges are still almost non existent. So your advice to "think of something beyond glorified .22LR" is still pretty laughable.
    1
  26. D8W2P4 So now, other than being incapable to bring actual examples, you don't like synthetic too. Moreover, as already said, 2 lbs are relevant. Bullpups continue to have crappy triggers due to an unavoidable defect of the design, and you are incabable to disprove the fact with actual arguments. Bulppups that don't eject downward continue to be poor designs for lefties, and you are not capable to disprove the fact with actual arguments. You brought the argument of " beyond glorified .22LR". Unfortunately bullpups in full power rifle cartridges are almost non existent, for the reasons already explained, that you are incapable to disprove with actual arguments.
    1
  27. D8W2P4 Aaand the troll had never seen a trigger group in his life. In a traditional style (AR15,AK47...) trigger group, the trigger directly operates the sear. In a bullpup the trigger is connected to he sear (IE steyr AUG, FAMAS, SA80...), or the sear to the hammer (IE Tavor) via a long rod. that add at least two (three in the case of the Tavor) mechanical lashes to the action.
    1
  28. D8W2P4 A rod means two links. One from the trigger to the rod, one from the rod to the sear. A single rod add at least two mechanical lashes to the action.Is not a question of poorly designed triggers. Is an unavoidable defect of the design.
    1
  29. D8W2P4 Did you realize that in none of the images you provided the trigger directly moves the sear (and they are pretty shitty too)? In a AR15 it does. But let's speculate about an hypotetical "push" (1911 style) trigger, with a rod welded to it and to the sear. That way the trigger will operate the sear directly. The rod had to be thick enough to not flex at all, and welded with absolute precision to have an assembly of exactly the right dimensions, and has to move into a guide machined with absolute precision, to allow the rod to move only back-forth, since every other movement will make the trigger inconsistent, and the guide has to be always perfectly clean. In the end we will have a trigger group three or four times heavier than a standard one, that has to be made with clockmaking accuracy and obsessively cleaned and lubed, only to have a decent trigger. Obviously a service rifle can't be made like this.It can't cost like a fine tuned sniper rifle, and it can't require special attentions.
    1
  30. D8W2P4 It's a known fact that the trigger of the semiautos tend to be crappier than that of the revolvers, and that's exactly why. The more the distance, the more the problem.
    1
  31. D8W2P4 Infact you know nothing of what you are talking about. But the words were "the trigger of the semiautos tend to be crappier than that of the revolvers", not "semi are shit because of horrendous triggers". The problem is simply amplified in bullpups because of the distance, like I said in my first post.
    1
  32. It's a disconnector. It prevents the weapon to fire if the slide is not on battery.
    1
  33. Today it's easy to say that a detachable magazine would have been better, but, back then, it was a real problem to manufacture a magazine that was, at the same time, so cheap to be discarded on the field and so well and consistently built to not have feeding problems. LMGs like the BAR or the BREN were plagued by feeding problems caused by badly manufactured magazines, and those were valuable pieces of equipment, not relatively cheap infantry rifles. Infact both the SVT 40 and the Gew 43 had detachable magazines, but they were really intended to be loaded with stripper clips. Even the M1A and the M14 had stripper clip guides. At least en-bloc clips were faster than stripper clips.
    1
  34. The problem of the Breda 38 was that it only came out in 1938. The Italian Army didn't wan't to change its main LMG after only 8 years since the adoption.
    1
  35. As other said, it had been Remington and Springfield efforts in the same direction that ultimately evolved into the M14. After the war Winchester simply dropped all things M1 related, and their tooling were handed over to Beretta, that used them first to produce a short run of M1 in 7.62 NATO for the Italian Army, and then to produce BM59s.
    1
  36. Sam Moon What "isn't true at all? "Germans not only reused the gas system for the G43, but reused every captured SVT40 as long as it showed to be accurate enough" That was the statement, and that remains. I have no need to post sources to confirm your invenctions.
    1
  37. Sam Moon I know perfectly that the Germans liked it, gave it a German designation (that was absolutely common German practice for every captured weapon reiussed to their troops), and stamped a manual for it. Like i know that they were reiussued after having passed an accuracy test, three shots into 10cm at 100m. Order 1384/42-AHA/In(VII).
    1
  38. Sam Moon I never stated that "the majority were out of tolerance and 'discarded'". That's your invenction. And the fct that you continue to repeat it sems to show that you are only a troll. The same fact that there were an 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) 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.
    1
  39. Sam Moon "fact" Ahem, not. The same fact that there were an 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) 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. What you are stating would be a "fact" if you have a source stating that those that needed reconditioning, "wasn't a significant number". A source that you obviously don't have. And the fact that those not readily accepted to be uesd, cause found to be out of tolerances, would have been sent to the armourer, does not mean that all of those would have been effectively reconditioned. "sent to the armourer" does not mean "repaired and then reiussued to the troops". Germans had not the tooling to make parts for that rifle. Those that would have required excessive work to adjust them, would have not ben repaired. I'm not suggexting you are a troll for trying to correct someone. I'm suggesting that you are cause you are fabricating my statements. I never stated that "the majority were out of tolerance and 'discarded'". That's your invenction. And the fact that you continue to repeat it from your first post ("The Germans were not throwing away a larger number of the SVT-40 than they were using") sems to show that you are only a troll.
    1
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. Infact the MG was supposed to be used with a shield. The disk was integral part of the protection, and the "hole sight" was the only opening in it. The few that have been used on aerial mountings (350 of over 14.000 produced) did not have the disk.
    1
  43. Several, but not all, of the Beretta handguns of those years have the slide (and sometimes the hammer) that turned like that. So we can say that it depends both on the material (otherwise the body and the barrel would have turned the same way) and the composition of the bluing salts (infact it doesn't always happen).
    1
  44. The SR2 bomb was filled with 32gr of TNT, into an iron case, and with an iron spiral around it to ensure fragmentation. The explosive filling was inferior to the later (from 1944) US MKII hand grenades, but superior to the earlier ones, so I wouldn't deem them as "ineffective". simply it was not the quality of the bomb. They discarded the whole idea.
    1
  45. For that, or for other reasons, the weapon was very sensible to dirt, and that's the reason why, in the '30s, it was considered obsolete and phased out from first line service by almost all it's previous users. A notable exception was the Dutch army, that originally adopted the weapon as standard LMG in 1920, and it's last version still in 1940.
    1
  46. At the beginning of the '30s the Beretta M1931 was tested vs the Scotti Mod. X and the MBT 1929, and the Scotti was the winner. Then, the Italian Army decided to switch to the 7.35 round, and so they did another competition, this time the Beretta M1937 competed against the Breda PG, the Scotti Mod. X in 7.35 and the Armaguerra 39, and the Armaguerra was the winner, but the start of the war prevented it's adoption.
    1
  47. Apart for the problems, compared to the FAMAS and the AUG, despite those had been adopted earlier, the L85 seems to be a weapon of a previous generation. Stilistically, constructively and ergonomically, it seems more a close relative of the AK47 and the Sturmgewer 44 than a weapon of the ’80s. Remove the plastic parts, and it could easily pass for a last ditch weapon of the Third Reich.
    1
  48. And so? Several WWII LMGs didn't have one. Recently Ian made a video on DP-28 vs LS-26. Neither of those had a carrying handle.
    1
  49. "...and then they realized the rifle they were about to deliver to the troops was garbage, and decided to buy FAMAS instead", or "and decided to buy the Steyr AUG instead, and they lived happily ever after"
    1
  50. Actually the Brits used intensively the captured samples, and printed an English manual for it.
    1