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

  1. Elbonia is a fictional piss-poor country in "Dilbert" comic strip. Ian is doing this series of "elbonian firearms" by describing what really are badly bubbaed weapons that he did put his hands on.
    1
  2. Not really. All in all it was an unsatisfactory weapon, but with several good design choices in respect to other designs.
    1
  3. I understand economy, and the bolt is elegant in its simplicity, but the upper, in respect to the FN CAL, or other stamped ARs, seems really crudely made.
    1
  4. Winchester prototype Model 1911, ribbed for your pleasure.
    1
  5. "let's see how many functional springs we can put in a single handgun".
    1
  6. Weak magazine spring.
    1
  7. An MG34 bolt is composed of 28 finely machined parts. A BAR bolt is composed of 18 parts. A Breda 30 bolt is composed of... 4 parts, recoil spring included. In the receiver practically only the H block and the locking piece (so two separate parts) required precision machining. It actually was a pretty easy MG to manufacture.
    1
  8. Actually there was a very handy manual in English, printed by the Brits to instruct the machinegunners to reuse captured ones ( https://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/Breda%2030/Breda%20Model%2030%20manual.pdf ). None of the cited "problems" is indicated as an issue at all. The US intelligence even deemed the Breda to be "superior to the BREN in dusty conditions" ( Tactical and Technical Trends, the magazine of US intelligence, No. 7, Sept. 10, 1942. "use of captured Italian weapons").
    1
  9. Probably, due to the right-handed grips, he inadvertently hit the slide-stop lever during the recoil, infact the gun didn't fail to feed (like in the round hitting the ramp and being stuck there), but simply held open.
    1
  10. Actually this is a simple action even by modern standards. In WWI, only the Hotchkiss was simpler than this. For a water cooled MG, open or closed bolt is indifferent. The Browning 1917-1919 too fired from a closed bolt.
    1
  11.  @paulshayter1113  They shoot at 500m, but you can qualify as "expert" even missing ALL the shots at 500m.
    1
  12. 1) The MAB PA-15 is not a breechlock design like the Steyr, or the Beretta, but a delayed blowback design. The barrel is not locked to the slide, but it's only due to rotate during it's rearward motion, so adding a little mechanical disadvantage to the simple blowback operation. It's quite a clever design actually. 2) In every pistol design there is a twist imparted by the projectile to the weapon, when the projectile engages with the rifling and starts to rotate. In a rotating barrel design this effect is actually reduced exactly because the barrel rotates in respect to the frame, so it partially absorbs the projectile's torque.
    1
  13. It's actually a very simple weapon. IE an MG34 bolt is composed of 28 parts. That of a BAR is composed of 18 parts. This one is composed of ...four parts, recoil spring included.
    1
  14. The correct reloading procedure for a right handed person seems to be: hold the gun with your left hand by the safety / magazine holder and use your right hand to replace the magazine and operate the charging handle (that's almost exactly the same procedure of the Bergmann MP35 reviewed last week) and you'll not have loss in combat efficiency at all. Is not like you have much to do with your right hand (that's rupposed to be your most able one) until the reload procedure is completed, so it's better to use it to reload the gun.
    1
  15. Not really. It doesn't exist a real GPMG. The FN MAG, like this, is a fixed position MG. It has the volume of fire, but not the mobility. The PKM is a LMG. It has the mobility, but not the volume of fire.
    1
  16. TV cartridge needs a 20" barrel to reach the desired preformances, so a bullpup.
    1
  17.  @fraleo2192  Have you seen how much time it takes, even for trained professionals in the best conditions possible at the range, to replace belts on the other two bids, for puny 50 rounds? To use mags is not a defect, is an advantage.
    1
  18.  @Barabel22  Thanks to those few inches of barrel, the ammo reaches the desired performances with normal operating pressures, and so can be used on any existing 7.62 NATO firearm with just a barrel change.
    1
  19.  @fraleo2192  Mind that those weapons are meant for infantry support on the field, so there are weight constraints. They don't want the MG gunner to have a significative mobility disadvantage this time. The other two bids had always been shown with very small belt pouches. But even with a 100 round belt the total time lost in reloading is practically even. Obviously, on a vehicular weapon, you can attach a 250 round belt, but, in the GD bid, the vehicular role is covered by the existing MGs with just a barrel change.
    1
  20. It's far cheaper to cast lead bullets of the correct size and weight. Privates doesn't need to comply with the hague convention.
    1
  21. The disassembly procedure is not reliant on gravity.
    1
  22. Maybe a decocker would have helped.
    1
  23. @Joel McBain Instead there was not US military equipment in Germany... Oh, wait!
    1
  24.  @americanmade6996  Screws are not bad and their price is hardly beatable, but a ball-lock pin costs few cents, and a pair of them could have made the disassembly process entirely tool-less.
    1
  25.  @americanmade6996  The "tail" of the barrel can't really pass through the frame when the halves are screwd togheter. Other screws do the work of tightening the frame, and others can be added without interfering with the barrel (IE in front of the "tail" of the barrel). All the barrel need is one or two pins to secure it to the frame. That can rise the manufacturing price of the gun of few cents, but mind that the competitor was a Makarov clone, that didn't need tools to be disassembled.
    1
  26.  @jic1  It seems he had at least an handle and a trigger group.
    1
  27. Studies performed after WWI concluded that the infantry bolt action rifle had been the least useful among all the weapon issued to infantrymen. Pistols, hand grenades, even knives and showels had been more effective. The recomendation for the Italian Army was to switch to "automatic muskeets" for all the infantrymen bar designated marksmen. So the Terni arsenal developed the Terni M1921 along with an intermefiate power round for it https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/raigap/40496274/928974/928974_original.jpg The rise od fascism, economic considerations, and the conservatism of the Army prevented its adoption, but the Army still wanted a semiauto rifle in a full blown cartridge, since that was anyway a big improvement over the bolt action rifle (enemies rarely show up one at a time at 1.5 sec. distance, to give you the time to operate the bolt and realign). The bolt and trigger assemblies of the Scotti rifle are actually simpler than those of a Carcano rifle (that's a very simple bolt action). Yeah, there is the gas piston, but the increase of complexity is negligible. Already in 1915, Maj. luigi gucci noted that, in adopting a semiauto rifle for the army, the price of the rifle was, in the end, marginal if compared to the price of the ammos for it (then, the price of a brand new semiauto rifle, not a conversion was estimated in 60L, that of a single Carcano cartridge was 0.1L, so a semiauto rifle costed like 600 cartridges). Belt fed LMGs in the '30s were not a thing (the first one was adopted in 1938). Even the MG34 and MG42, when used in the LMG role, had many limitations (IE to change a 50 rounds belt requires more time than to change a pair of box magazines, so limiting the practical ROF). It required several decades after WWII for the concept of "general purpose machine gun" to impose itself, and it's not a definitive victory (see the Marines replacing the M249 with the M27).
    1
  28. The MG08/18 was not a LMG, but a HMG reworked to resemble one. It was heavy, easily overheating without quik exchange barrel, and barely produced. The Garand didn't work properly until the '40s, but the Garand was one design. Several semiauto models had been tested by various armies before, and found to be serviceable. Simply there wasn't really a demand for them, due to logistic considerations.
    1
  29. IE Col. Edoardo Versè "Impiego tattico delle unità di fanteria dotate del nuovo armamento". Already in the “T batallion” model of 1918 the infantry rifle was relegated to a secondary role, while the MGs and SMGs had the main one (the end of the war stopped the implementation). Simply the infantry rifle was not used by shock troops, IE the Arditi, during the attacks, used SMGs, hand grenades, knives, pistols, but not rifles. While in defense it had a marginal effectiveness in respect to machineguns. “Semantic” is to point to an HMG and say “that’s an LMG”. It’s not, it remains an HMG. “Semantic” is to say that the “MG34 was a 100% mature design in 1934” (probably because it has a “34” in the name). It was not until 1938. The Madsen LMG weighted 9.07 kg, the Chauchat weighted 9.07 kg. The SIA 1918, adopted the same year of the MG08/18, weighted 10.7kg, and had a quick exchange barrel already. Those were not “unreasonably modern standards”. Garand started to develop his rifle pretty late, took a wrong turn, had to change caliber, took another (minor) wrong turn and so had a pretty long development. But already the Carcano semiauto conversion of 1912 was deemed to be serviceable. Other projects had been hampered not by the technology, but by unreasonable requests of the military (muzzle blast actuated instead of gas actuated, possibility to be used as bolt actions…). I never bashed machineguns. You are again talking like the Garand was the only semiauto rifle ever made, and yes, “logistic considerations” includes the fact that, after WWI, there were shitloads of bolt actions available. To say that the Scotti is not an example of something the way it was, but it would have been having the gas piston in another position is utter nonsense. Scotti produced a perfectly serviceable LMG in 6.5 Carcano, using the same gas system (it was used as tank gun until it was replaced by the Breda 38 in 8mm Breda) The short stroke gas piston was perfectly feasible even with WWI metallurgy, it was only a question of thinking of it.
    1
  30. 6.5-7mm cartirdges have about the same ballistic since the late 19th century. The wheel had been reinvented multiple times, with the volume of the case being reduced as long as new propellants became available, and the lenght-diameter ratio of the case changed due to dimensional constraints. They could have adopted a shortened 6.5X52 Carcano case (the 7.62X39 Russian and the .264 USA are both shortened Carcano cases), or a necked down rimless 30-30 for that matter, and call it a day.
    1
  31. The Liberator was simply made for a use that didn't exist in real life. A French Partisan should have found a lone German soldier (already a mythological figure) so confident to let him approach at arm length to effectively use a single shot, smoothbore, handgun, then he should have stolen his weapon, to have a real gun. How many times that situation was supposed to happen IRL? An hatchet would have been better, at least it was quieter.
    1
  32. This rifle is actually very simple, with a very low parts count. The filed strip can be made in seconds without tools (that's not a given at that time). Simply Ian decided to do a complete disassembly.
    1
  33. The "weird wrapping" was standard from the factory. It had a better aspect when new, but not even that much. It was not made to be nice to see.
    1
  34. They did plenty. An harness had been developed especially for that work.
    1
  35. Really? It seems to me way easier to field strip than a M1 Garand, or a BAR (that would be a closer comparison) and with a lot less parts to take account for.
    1
  36. Both the MG34 and MG42 are mainly delayed blowback actions, with a secondary help by the short recoiling barrel, and the Vickers unlocks the barrel from the bolt way before the barrels stops, allowing the bolt and the barrel to start to separate slowly. None of them is a pure short recoil design. Like that of an handgun, or that of the Breda M30. They have a short recoiling barrel, a bolt, AND some other system (two piece bolt with the parts recoiling at different speed, toggle, ecc...) That's revealing in itself. A pure short recoil action is simpler than the systems used in MG34, MG42, Vickers and so on. Why had they to complicate the designs, if a pure short recoil action can work flawlessly? Cause it doesn't work so flawlessly, so you have to invent something to make it work. Obviously gas operated MGs can have extraction issues, and lever delayed blowback can have them, and simple blowbacks can have too. The fact that pure short recoil actions and long bottleneck cartridges doesn't match well doesn't mean that only short recoil actions can have extraction issues. But in those cases is really question of bad tuning. The HS 404 is a "gas unlocked recoil operated" design. The gas doesn't cycle the action, but simply unlocks the bolt, and then the residual pressure of the gasses in the barrel cycle the action. It's not impossible to make a similar design work without oiling the cartridges (The Scotti action worked the same way, only with the bolt rotating instead of tilting, and only the Mod. X rifle required oiling, while all the MGs didn't), but to find the perfect timing to open the action (when there is enough pressure in the barrel to cycle the action and not enough to damage the cases) is more difficult than in a straight gas-operated weapon.
    1
  37. The Finnish government requested the rifle to be zeroed for 100m instead of 200, so fucking the entire logic of the system (being good to hit a human sized target from 0 to 300m simply aiming at the center of the torso). Zeroed for 100m, the bullet's drop was excessive before reaching 200m, so at normal combat range.
    1
  38. Well, no. There are a lot of outstanding Italian firearm design not made by Beretta. Scotti action, Breda gas action, Bernardelli Semiautomatico shotgun action, Breda-Benelli inertia anction...
    1
  39. Actually the Villar Perosa had NEVER been designed for aircraft use. Unfortunately Ian's previous video contributed to spread this old tale, but it's evident from all the paperwork, relations, manual, ecc... that it was originally meant to be a field light machinegun and it had been used in this role right from 1915 (Italy's first year of war). It and had been adapted to aerial use in very limited numbers, simply because the Army destined the first 350 samples manufactured to the Aviation (that was a branch of the Army at that time) because they wanted it to be in full production first to start to distribute it to the troops. It was a point weapon. You see thre enemy, you fill the area with a dozen projectiles. Like a long range shotgun.
    1
  40.  @GeorgiaBoy1961  The 7.62X51 CETME was a ballistic marvel, unfortunately developed in the wrong country. At the time none would have considered for widespread adoption something out of Spain (since it took no part in WWII). The problem for a scaled down FAL, after the return to intermediate cartridges in the '60s, was the AR18. The AR18 (and all the derivatives, copies and clones) was functional and much cheaper than what a scaled down FAL would have ever been, so it would have put a scaled-down FAL out of the market that the original FAL had. Infact FN simplified the action the most that was possible to create first the FN CAL and then the FN FNC.
    1
  41.  @Horseshoecrabwarrior  Yet is above, and infact, when they had to design a light semiauto/auto rifle, the Terni 1921, the italians designed a true intermediate cartridge for it, the 7.35X32, that developed around 1200 foot pounds. Also the 7.62 NATO is capable to operate in full auto. to keep it on target firing from the shoulder is another thing. "the other category" can be called as that of the "light" full blown cartridges, as the .30 Remington, the 30-30, or all the first gen 6.5 cartridges.
    1
  42. This is one of the prototypes covered in the book, the Terni Light Machine Gun http://www.archeologiaindustriale.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Il-fucile-mitragliatore-modello-Terni-scontornata-900px.jpg Developed since 1929, tested in 1932 and omologated in 1933. It retained the tilting magazine of the Breda 30, but didn't need an olier and had 30% less components. It was specifically designed to be cheaper, faster to produce and more reliable than the Breda 30, but in the end the improvements were not considered enough to revert the decision to adopt the Breda.
    1
  43. Had it really be a .30 carbine (yeah, .30 carbine can be fired in a pure blowback gun of acceptable weight. Trials made during the war with a modified Thompson demonstrated that a merely 570g bolt was heavy enough even for proofloads, that's less than the bolt weight of most WWII SMGs) sturdy enough, and shortening the silly ejection tube, it would have been a really interesting design.
    1
  44.  @flightlesschicken7769  What part of ".30 carbine can be fired in a pure blowback gun of acceptable weight" was so difficult to understand? I repeat: .30 CARBINE CAN BE FIRED IN A PURE BLOWBACK GUN OF ACCEPTABLE WEIGHT. 30-06 obviously can't. A Hi-Point JHP .45 is "a simple blowback .45" that weight 907g, full 160g more than a breechlock Glock 21. As said "TRIALS MADE DURING THE WAR WITH A MODIFIED THOMPSON DEMOSNTRATED THAT A MERELY 570G BOLT WAS HEAVY ENOUGH EVEN FOR PROOFLOADS. THAT'S LESS THAN THE BOLT WEIGHT OF MOST WWII SMGS". Infact the weight of the bolt of WWII 9mm and .45 ACP SMGs (usually around 600-650g) was used to slow down the fire rate.
    1
  45. ​ @flightlesschicken7769  The .30 carbine had been developed starting form the .32 Winchester Self Loading cartridge used in the Winchester 1905 rifle that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle. The subsequent Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle, used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle). The Winchester 1907 rifle was slightly lighter than a M3 Grease Gun (despite being a fully stocked rifle) and substantially lighter (900g less) than the Thompson M1A1. That a merely 570g bolt was enough to safely cycle even .30 Carbine proofloads (while a typical WWII SMG bolt for 9mm and .45 ACP weighted around 600-650g) is written in a PRIMARY SOURCE (George Dmitrieff "Submachine Gun Designer’s Handbook" 1981) so sorry, primary source beats random guy on a youtube channel. It's almost as if you don't know what you are talking about.
    1
  46.  @flightlesschicken7769  Infact I provided sources that you can check if you want to learn more about the subject instead of childlishly trying to correct who knows better. You provided nothing. I said: ".30 carbine can be fired in a pure blowback gun of acceptable weight." not "lighter than a M1 carbine" so you can explain your supposed argument to someone else. A blowback rifle that was not really made to be the lightest possible and fired a substantially more powerful cartridge than the .30 Carbine, other than having been sold commercially, weighted less than the M1A1 thompson and and M3 Grease Gun, whose weights were considered acceptable in WWII, so, again, ".30 carbine can be fired in a pure blowback gun of acceptable weight." The fire rate doesn't count in a semiauto firearm. Any 9mm browning system pistol would fire at over 1000 RPM in full auto, someone cares? Besides, there are other systems than the weight of the bolt to slow down the fire rate of a gun if needed. What part of "The subsequent Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle, used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle)." was that hard to understand?
    1
  47.  @flightlesschicken7769  So you think to know better, what's your source? Maybe you should know that a rifle is not made just of the bolt, I also already explained to you that the weight of the bolt in a blowback weapon does not depend only to what's the lightest possible for safe cycling. 570 was enough for proofloads. Proofloads are the rounds with which firearms are tested to determine if there is safe margin for operating with normal loads. "it wasn't a very good design because we don't see it anymore", LOL! That's really your argument? Because see plenty of new designs in .30 Carbine too, doesn't you? To be a good design it only needs to safely going bang and reliably cycling, and it did both. Many samples are still existing and working. I got some news for you. It's not exactly amazing that you don't see many over 100 years old actions around. That doesn't mean that, like dozens of other actions used in over 100 years of smokeless automatic and semiautomatic firearms, it wasn't good. I notice tat you are not interested in learning how physics works. Not really surprising. However, first to talk about blowback .223 Rem or 7.62X39 in comparison with the .30 Carbine and .351 Winchester, you should learn something about the magical world of chamber pressure.
    1
  48.  @flightlesschicken7769  Your is a faith not a source.Your faith had been already disproved by the fact that the Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle and used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle) was slightly lighter than a M3 Grease Gun (despite being a fully stocked rifle) and substantially lighter (900g less) than the Thompson M1A1, two SMGs in .45 ACP. Have you other means to prove your faith is right? The Winchester 1907 had been a Police departments' favourite well into the '30s, many samples are still around and in working order despite being over 100 years old. Your theoretical considerations, based on a very superficial knowledge of physics, that mistake guessing for necessities, do not match reality. Because you see plenty of new designs in .30 Carbine too, doesn't you? To know why blowback is less suited to fire .223 Rem or 7.62X39 in comparison with the .30 Carbine and .351 Winchester, you should learn something about the magical world of chamber pressure. I can teach you if you want to understand a little real physics for a change. Besides, many good, very good and even exceptional actions are no more used for a reason or another (I can provide examples if you are interested in learning something). To be a good design it only needs to safely going bang and reliably cycling, and it did both. Many samples are still existing and working. To decide if a firearm can safely operate with normal loads, it doesn't fire thousands, and not even hundreds, of proofloads. You understood that this video was about a 4 pounds carbine in 9mm didn't you? Tons of perfectly safe and lighter 9mm carbines had been made. How can you pretend to be taken seriously if you try to extend the problems of a faulty design to another one that you don't know?
    1
  49. I didn't search for you, did I? For me this discussion could have very well not even started.
    1
  50.  @flightlesschicken7769  Aaaand you are still here. Not that there had never been any doubt. It was not really that difficult to guess that all that you wanted to have is the last word. You are (conveniently) mistaking PSI with CUP and mixing them. Saami max pressures for .30 Carbine and .351 SL are 40.000 cup and 45.000 cup respectively so, surprise surprise, .351 SL, other than being a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND worked at a HIGHER PRESSURE. I'm glad you finally decided to learn something. Let me introduce you to the magical world of chamber pressures and how it relates to blowbacks. In a blowback system, the base of the cartridge starts moving backward the same moment the bullet starts moving forward. Is largely that initial movement that allows the entire action to work. But, since the walls of the cartridge are stuck to the chamber by the same pressure, the integrity of the cartridge, until the pressure into the barrel drops to safe level and the cartridge can be entirely extracted, depends, other than the weight of the bolt: 1) on the capacity of the brass at the base of the cartridge to stretch without rupturing until the pressure drops to safe level, 2) on the pressure that, if low enough, can allow some backward movement of the brass (the lower, the better), 3) on the same pressure that tend to cause the rupture the cartridge (the lower,the better). So, the higher the pressure, the more difficult is to use a blowback action, because an higher pressure narrows the margin in which the base of the cartridge initially moves enough to cycle the action, but not enough to have a case rupture. That happens largely INDIPENDENTLY FROM THE POWER OF THE CARTRIDGE. Low pressure rouds can have high power, but generally pay for this by being bigger. Modern propellants and metallurgy allowed to have very high pressure cartridges in respect to those of the late 19th early 20th century. .223 rem and other modern cartridges are generally high pressure cartridges, even the ones that produces moderate energy, and that leaves a more little margin for safely operate a blowback action. That's not the case of the .30 carbine, that worked at lower presures than the .351SL that was safely used in a blowback rifle that weighted less than a .45 ACP SMG. Please. Really you want to be taken seriously with arguments like "N***s would have done it"? With a completely different, bottleneck, cartridge? That's not even close to be a demonstration of anything. N***s didn't make a simple blowback handgun for the 9X18mm Ultra. It had been done after the war. They didn't make a simple blowback handgun for the 9X19, but used, ordered and paid the Astra 600. The Winchester 1907 had been a Police departments' favourite well into the '30s, many samples are still around and in working order despite being over 100 years old. We were talking about .30 Carbine not other cartridges used in WWII in other rifles. How many powers used a similar cartridge DIRECTLY DERIVED FROM A CARTRIDGE SPECIFICALLY CREATED FOR A BLOWBACK ACTION during WWII? My source is backed by reality, your faith is disproved by that. The Winchester 1907 rifle (amply used in WWI) that was, hear hear, a pure blowback rifle and used the .351 Winchester Self Loading cartridge that is, hear hear, a SUBSTANTIALLY MORE POWERFUL ROUND than the .30 carbine (1900joule vs. 1300joule of energy at the muzzle) and that OPERATED AT A HIGHER PRESSURE (45.000 cup vs. 40.000cup) was slightly lighter than a M3 Grease Gun (despite being a fully stocked rifle) and substantially lighter (900g less) than the Thompson M1A1, two SMGs in .45 ACP. Have you other means to prove your faith is right? I appreciate Ian, but don't believe something just because Ian says it. He's mostly right, but i've noticed many mistakes over the years, and others did as well.
    1