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

  1.  @flightlesschicken7769  Again, I didn't search for you, did I? For me this discussion could have very well not even started. 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) and that OPERATED AT A HIGHER PRESSURE (45.000 cup vs. 40.000cup). 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, two SMGs in .45 ACP that had been used in WWII (and the M3 for decades later). So what exactly prevents the .30 Carbine from being fired in a blowback firearm of reasonable weight? Are you sure you are looking at the right rifle? The 1907 had a merely 2" longer barrel than a M1 Carbine (actually longer barrels are worse for blowbacks, because it takes the bullet more time to exit from them) and THE ACTION IS REALLY SHORT. The magazine is right in front of the trigger and the action doesn't extend behind the trigger. Do you think the buttstock is part of the action? No, they are not nearly equal. 53.000 psi (max C.I.P pressure for .351 SL) is not "nearly equal" to 62.000 psi (max C.I.P. pressure for .223 Rem). Even not counting that blowback actions don't cope well with bottleneck cartridges and, again "the N***s didn't do that" IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. N***s didn't do a lot of things. The argument is: 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) and that OPERATED AT A HIGHER PRESSURE (45.000 cup vs. 40.000cup). 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, two SMGs in .45 ACP that had been used in WWII (and the M3 for decades later).SO WHAT EXACTLY PREVENTS THE .30 CARBINE FROM BEING FIRED IN A BLOWBACK FIREARM OF REASONABLE WEIGHT? Please, you didn't state facts, but guessings at best. You asked why blowback is not used on modern cartridges of moderate power, and I answered you. If you don't understand pretty simple explanations is not my fault. Modern cartridges are mainly high pressure cartridges. In a blowback firearm, energy mainly affects the required minimum weight of the bolt. Pressure narrows the window of usability of blowback actions (the higer the pressure, the narrower the window from when the bolt is too heavy to reliably cycle the action to when it's too light to safely do it) until other factors (material of the cartridge, presence of dirt, moisture, lube, ecc...) become too relevant. Even not counting that blowback actions don't cope well with bottleneck cartridges (I can explain you why if you want). 7.62x39 is not only a bottleneck but a heavily tapered cartridge. I can explain you why that doesn't cope well with blowback actions if you want.
    1
  2. Yes, if least powerful means lighter (more ammos can be carried) and lower recoil (faster follow up shots). Post war studies shown that there were no significative differences in terminal ballistic due to the power of the rifle cartridge. Not by chance, during the war, more M1 Carbines (that fired a dignified pistol round) than M1 rifles had been manufactured.
    1
  3.  @justnotg00d  Those are miths. If someone think the lighter ammos don't work, he'll find only confirmation to his bias. Anectodes are not statistic Studies are for that.
    1
  4. The Beretta MG42/59 reduces the fire-rate by reducing the pressure in the muzzle booster (infact its muzzle booster has small holes perforating its "dome"), however is a delicate balance since, by reducing the speed of the bolt without enhancing its weight, you reduce it's energy, that's required to pull the belt also.
    1
  5. The three locking lugs all around the barrel are kind of an overkill actually. They are not really needed. The Beretta Cougar / PX4 only have one locking surface of this kind, and it's enough.
    1
  6. Every MG had at least a spare magazine, like it had two (and then four) spare barrels.
    1
  7. Since they had them, they could decide what method was better.
    1
  8.  @zoiders  and that's the end of your attempt to provide some real argument.
    1
  9.  @firepower7017  Carcano rifles had been used in recent conflicts. You use everything if you have nothing better available.
    1
  10. The front sight on the barrel shroud, or the rattling barrel, are those problems that exist only in tabletop reviews, when the reviewer knows that the weapon is "bad" and has to find some reason for it to be bad. None noticed them being problems in 60 years of use of the MG42/MG3. ALL Modern general-purpose machineguns have a single optic, mounted on the receiver, how do they cope with barrel change? https://blog.1800gunsandammo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/fn-762-minimi-4.jpg The oiler was a minus. but it wasn't strictly needed, and many gunnenrs didnt' use it. Simply, already during WWI, it was noticed that, whit automatic weapons, it was all peaches and dandelions until you could use brass cased ammos but when, due to war shortages, you had to use steel cased ammos, extraction was a lot less granted. However, despite the oiler, allied reports praised the behaviour of the weapon, compared to the BREN, in dusty conditions. The heavy bolt, so with a greater inertia, star-shaped to give the dirt somewere to go instead of locking the mechanism, were plusses. To use more than 20-25 rounds for magazine in WWII meant to be in search of problems, and it was a REAL problem to manufacture magazines that were, at one time, so cheap to be discarded on the field and so consistently manufactured to not have feeding issues (it was a problem still for the US in the '50s, that's why the M14 has the stripper-clip rail, and that was the US Army). Even the Brits tried a fixed tilting magazine for the BREN (it had not been adopted in the end, but it was much more awkward than the Breda one). The reduced volume of fire was not really a problem. A BREN gun was supposed to fire a magazine a minute in normal battle conditions. At the start of the war it was allowed an "emergency" rof of seven magazines/minute. during the war, due to battel experiences, that was reduced to four magazines/minute, and advertising the gunners that, in those conditions, the barrel had to be changed after ten magazines, and the entire provision of the squad was of just 20 magazines.
    1
  11.  @ImmortalSugimoto792  The 240 is issued with an optic fixed to the receiver and the gunner aims with that. The iron sights are there only in case the optic is damaged. It's not like, when the barrel is changed, the optic is removed.
    1
  12.  @ImmortalSugimoto792  And the gunner is supposed to ditch it in case of barrel change? Recently added or not, the 240 iso only an example. Practically any modern GPMG has an optic made that way, and the gunner aims with that. The iron sights are there only in case the optic is damaged. It's not like, when the barrel is changed, the optic is removed.
    1
  13. LIke for any WWII Army, the Italian one had some exceptional equipment, some good one, some average, some subpar and some abysmal. Their problem had always been of quantity (Italian industrial production in 1939 was 1/4 of that of UK, and you can't expand your industrial base by snapping your fingers), not of quality. You can check the first battle of Bir el Gubi to see how POS those tanks were, the few times they could fight in near numerical parity.
    1
  14. It had been disassembled on the table. The parts number is very low.
    1
  15.  @TheArklyte  It's not like canvas belt have less problems. They carry dirt into the mechamism, they can present the cartridge in wrong position, they get wet and wet the cartridges, they stretch and shrink due to the weather, they easily get damaged, they requires more time to be changed... and if one damaged belt causes feeding issues, you have to discard an entire belt instead of a single magazine. How many more "ifs" were there? You are only more used to see belts, but canvas belts became obsolete, magazines didn't. Actually the mechanism is composed of few parts even for current standards. In WWI only the Hotchkiss (not by chance, another not-belt-fed mechanism) was simpler.
    1
  16. As any pre-war cartridges, it's simply too big and heavy for what it delivers. It's too powerful to be fully controlled in full auto too. It's not an intermediate cartridge.
    1
  17.  @ThePerfectRed  The .280/30, the last iteration of the .280 Brit. was already scarcely controllable. The 6.5X55 is further more powerful, and it's still too big and heavy. It's bigger than the .308 Win.
    1
  18.  @ThePerfectRed  I wrote bigger, not more powerful. The 6.5X55 is dimensionally BIGGER than the .308 Win despite being LESS powerful. It's bigger, because it had been designed for older powders, that required more volume to develop the same energy. "As any pre-war cartridges, it's simply too big and heavy for what it delivers". Space and weight are important factors in logistic. That's why new cartridges had been developed post WWII, to replace those that had been designed when smokeless powders had just been invented.
    1
  19.  @ThePerfectRed  I'm a fan of 6.5mm rounds, but the 6.5X55 in particular, in postwar years had those problems. Too big (and that means it needs also too much material too to be built. Brass is a strategic material in war) and too powerful to be controllable in full auto. Not taking the recoil into account, a round with a similar ballistic than the 6.5X55 could be obtained (like it had been obtained, see the 6.5 Creedmore) by shortening the .308 Win, that's already smaller than the 6.5X55.
    1
  20. It trades mass for speed. To accelerate a mass to double the speed in the same time, you need four times the energy, so introducing a lever that accelerates the carrier in respect to the bolt face, you need less weight than in a pure blowback system. .
    1
  21. In reality is complex and useless. ;) It was the Blish lock of its days. IRL, for when the piston had moved those about 3mm necessary to close the ports, the bullet had long left the barrel and the pressure in it dropped to safe level, so it hasn't any auto-regulatory effect. The system didn't offer any advantage over conventional ones, and had several disadvantages in return, like the fact that it could be assembled in reverse. Really simple systems have one-piece piston/op-rod.
    1
  22. Yeah but, on the other hand, when they copied the MG42 belt feed, they did it wrong. It wasn't able to pull the belt vs. the slightest resistance, so the standard manuver to stop firing was just flipping the belt over the receiver.
    1
  23. It holds 20 rounds
    1
  24.  @johncarl5505  The AR10 is another rifle already. it's normally used for hunting in Europe, but never became prevalent. Also because there's no price advantage over an high quality semiauto, like a Benelli Argo for example.
    1
  25.  @antonw-uw4ov  You know nothing about gun laws, like you know nothing about guns. You are not even capable of researching. That's why you need to invent inexistent laws. Things that require a brain developed beyond 6 years old are simply out of your reach.
    1
  26.  @antonw-uw4ov  I'm not upset and I've already schooled you on how gun laws work outside of your mom's basement, since you are clueless about that like about everything else in the real world (you even invented that "in most countries in Europe you do have to belong to a sport shooting club to own a military style semi auto, and the clubs generally require you to compete regularly to get a membership and to keep it", LOL!). Unfortunately you have not enough brain even to understand that.
    1
  27.  @antonw-uw4ov  Have you grown any brain yet?
    1
  28. "OK, lets send this nice to rifle to Italy, we don't need it." "we are fine with our Gew.41" ...
    1
  29. The bottom placement prevented to use a bigger magazine (it would have been an hindrance in firing from prone position) and drums are complicate, heavy and expensive for what they do.
    1
  30. Here the experimental Scotti LMG using the same action (here the aerial version, there were versions with buttstock too). https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/6f/8e/716f8e33be4f124274a6de9457462b65.png
    1
  31. Without knowing about the timeline, I would have said it was promising but, knowing it was the result of 10 years of development, it was still really rough. A rather small firm like Franchi delivered the perfectly serviceable LF59 in much less time.
    1
  32.  @drenek1  Both 7.62 NATO Battle rifles. Apples to apples.
    1
  33.  @drenek1  The small private business was competing for the contract to equip the whole Italian Army. Apples to apples. It lost simply because the BM59 (another product of a private firm) was not beatable price-wise, not because the product wasn't ready. After 10 years of R&D this rifle was evidently not ready for production (and two of the other three designs seemed like made in a carpentry in the spare time). Being a state arsenal is not an excuse for being inefficient.
    1
  34.  @drenek1  I suggest you to read my initial reply, when I pointed out that, knowing it was the result of 10 years of development, the prototype it was still really rough and nowhere near to be mass produced while, IE, a rather small firm like Franchi delivered the perfectly serviceable LF59 in much less time. All the crap about the French and the state arsenals is YOUR, not mine.
    1
  35. A short recoil action (Browning, Beretta/Walther, or that CZ...) opens that way. Simply the barrel recoils with the slide for the first few mm.
    1
  36.  @tommasomorandini1982  Nor you can make the rule "it's a delayed blowback if the bolt moves, but the barrel stays still", because in a Revelli action (today used by the FN Five-Seven and the Ruger 57) that's considered a delayed blowback, the barrel recoils, but at a slower pace than the bolt.
    1
  37.  @Getpojke  If you mind that still in the '50s with the M14 and the FAL, the soldiers were supposed to carry part of the ammo in stripper clips, and load the 20 round magazine with two 10 round ones, even the 30 rounds stripper clip of the Cei Rigotti was VERY modern for 1900 (the year that picture was taken), not to say of the detachable magazines in 1896 (the year of the other picture).
    1
  38. Complexity? The bolt of this gun is made of four pieces. The one of the MG34 is made of 28 pieces.
    1
  39. The reloading is a false problem, and infact wartime Allied reports didn't indicate it to be a problem at all. It's only different to what youi are use to. BREN instructions indicated an ideal ROF during battles of a magazine (of 30 theoric rounds, and 27 practical ones) a minute, and an emergency ROF of 4 magazines a minute (alerting that, at that rate, the barrel had to be changed every 10 magazines, and the entire provision of the squad was of 20 magazines, so 5 minutes of fire). You can easily keep that pace with the Breda 30 as well.
    1
  40. IE cause the MG34 had been adopted four years later, and usually armies don't replace their weapons after only four years since the adoption.
    1
  41. If you copy something four years in advance, is not copying.
    1
  42. And what I'm saying is that the Breda 30 had been adopted in 1930. The MG 34 did non exist then. In 1930, the only LMG design that was demonstrabily better than the Breda 30 was the ZB vz. 26. In the subsequent years, some other better design was introduced, but the armies usually don't replace the weapons they adopted after only few years, only cause something that could be better had been introduced somewere. Think, for example, that the US soldiers fought in Korea with a semiauto rifle, six years after the adoption of the AK47 and ten years after the adoption of the STG44. Shouldn't the US have copied and produced a weapon such as the STG44 or the AK47, instead of providing his army with an obsolete weapon? And, in 1959, ten years after the adoption of the AK47, and 15 after the adoption of the STG44, the M1 rifle had been replaced with a battle rifle that was already obsolete the moment it had been adopted. Cause sometimes armies keep on designing weapons based on obsolete ideas until those proved to be obsolete on the field.
    1
  43. But the Beretta doesn't need to be disassembled to be field-stripped.
    1
  44. It's simply a weak magazine spring. You need spring tension to keep the rounds in place in a downward looking double feed magazine, and no magazine is designed to last 100 years.
    1
  45. In a pure inertia system, like that of the Benelli inertia shotguns, yes. If the gun doesn't move, the bolt doesn't unlock. This is more a mix of inertia, lever-delayed blowback, and mechanical disadvantage (already the Bernardelli Victor, a very interesting shotgun, used a mix of inertia and mechanical disadvantage), so it's possible it works even with the gun solidly locked.
    1
  46. It's a foldable shoulder support. It's useful when you fire from prone position (that way the weapon is suspended between the bipod and your shoulder, and you don't have to keep it high with your arms.
    1
  47. Original Italian 7.35 Carcano were zeroed at 200m. The Finns required them to be set at 150m first to be delivered.
    1
  48. They used it in 8mm Lebel, like thy used the Chauchat in 8mm Lebel.
    1
  49.  @LunaDevaKitty  It's actually historical. Only few samples of Chauchat in 30-06 had been made, and they had been used for training only (they were found to be quite unrelaible due to incorrect measures of the cartridge had been provided). In combat the US troops used the Chauchat only in 8mm Lebel.
    1
  50. the MG42 is a recoil operated weapon, but is not a purely recoil operated weapon, like a semiauto pistol, where there is a single piece bolt that recoils at the same speed of the barrel until the barrel stops and the bolt continues snatching the case out of the chamber. The wedge that pushes out the roller is both part of the striker and of the bolt carrier, as the bolt carrier is in direct contact with it during recoil and, when the wedge shaped part recoils in respect to the bolt head , pushed by the rollers it pushes back the bolt carrier too. The iternal spring around the striker (bolt catch) wasn't generally present in wartime MG42s, it had been introduced very late in the war only to adress cases of out of battery shots caused by the rebound of the bolt carrier. It only serves to provide to the bolt carrier a "soft landing" when the action closes. There are several models of it, some of them doesn't load the locking wedge at all (so working purely by inertia). As for the Breda 30, I would not have adopted it. It was not that poor of a design, but it was not easily improvable, and there were better designs to start from, transfering in them the good features of the M30 (essentially, the quick exchange barrel). IE the Brixia 1920 (a rather unfortunate HMG, but a good base for a LMG), or the SIA 1918 (a scaled up Villar Perosa, but a good base for a lever delayed LMG, it already had a two piece bolt with the rear one recoiling faster due to inclined surfaces, but the rear bolt-striker was really too light compared to the front part). Waiting a couple of years, they could have adopted a gas operated LMG based on the Breda PG instead.
    1