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

  1.  @ScottKenny1978  Unfortunately the round was not really suited to be used in semiauto handguns (too long to be comfortable. Its' considerably longer than 10mm, and 1.5mm longer than 5.7X28mm, that's already a long cartridge for a pistol). Had they chosen at the start to give it the same base diameter of 9mm or 10mm (so still perfectly fine for double stack magazines) in exchange of a shorter overall lenght, we would have seen a lot more .30 Carbine chambered pistols, and so a lot more .30 Carbine chambered carbines, around. It would have been the 10mm Auto many years in advance.
    1
  2. Many wildcat cartridges had been made by necking down .30 Carbine cases. That way you can easily obtain bi-sonic muzzle speed in a bullet that has better ballistic coefficient than that of the .30 Carbine, and so can really be considered an intermediate cartridge. The problem was that the only available rifles you could use those were converted surplus M1 Carbines.
    1
  3. It's a way to slow down the ROF. Increase the weight of the bolt and/or lenghten it's travel.
    1
  4. like all the pre-war cartridges, it was too big and heavy for what it could deliver. With new propellants you could have the same performances form a much smaller case.
    1
  5. You have less internal volume for the same base diameter, so unnecessary big magazines of a shape that makes them less easy to storage and carry.
    1
  6. One of the reason for the intermediate cartridges was weight reduction. A rifle made to shoot the "reduced 7.62 NATO" must be able to shoot the full blown cartridge too, so no reduction in weight. The ammos will weight about the same (the weight of the powder is almost nothing) AND that would not have saved the logistical nightmare, since the rifles made for the reduced cartridge couldn't have shot the full blown one accurately (different sights required).
    1
  7. Useless? You kill the enemy soldier with the first round, and shoot down the helicopter hovering over him with the rest.
    1
  8. Like all the pre-war cartridges, it was too big for what it developed.
    1
  9. All the viable 6.5 rifle cartridges (6.5X52 Carcano, 6.5X53R, 6.5X54 Manlicher Shonauer, 6.5 Arisaka, 6.5 Grendel, .264 USA...) tend to have more or less the same ballistic once the different weight of the projectiles is taken into account. Is a "sweet spot" that's known since the late 19th century.
    1
  10.  @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
  11.  @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
  12.  @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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. It's a shoulder's rest. It's useful when you shoot in prone position.
    1
  16. "cartridges of the world" credits the Webley .455 Auto of throwing a 224gr FMJ bullet at only 700 fps / 213ms, for mere 247 foot pounds / 335 Joules of energy. Barely above a .380 ACP.
    1
  17. Just because the Army uses those weapons more, they have to think more about logistic and economy. For the Navy, in respect to the cost of just one of their toys, the price of few thousands handguns is immaterial.
    1
  18. You are holstering your pistol, and obviously you don't have your index on the trigger. Something of your equipment (laces, strings...) enters into the trigger guard, you are depressing the grip safety pushing the pistol in the holster and...
    1
  19. Webbing in the trigger guard while holstering is not something unheard of.
    1
  20. Thanks.
    1
  21. It's not even close to be as bad as the L85. The first generation L85 has the only merit of being accurate. For the rest it seems to be made to be the least functional and reliable that's possible, with obvious design flaws (receiver made of too flimsy metal sheets, biodegradable plastic furnitures...), and with a backward ergonomy, so that all the things seem to work in the least predictable way (see for example the auto ejecting magazines when you squeeze the AR to the chest). This instead is a sound design with little care given to the ergonomy, so that it's not as user friendly as it could have been, but not disastrous either. Certanly, this seems to be a weapon of the same generation of the FAMAS, only made 20 years later.
    1
  22. It seems like the AR a toy designer would have come out with. It's cheap, it's kinda rattling and wobbly, it's functional, but it lacks the ergonomic bits that a weapon designer would have tried to implement (with the result that it's not really user friendly, but not terrible either, since sometimes those research came to unnecessary complex, or even detrimental, solutions).
    1
  23. Top tier design, terrible execution. Motivations vary. On one side, the Santa Barbara Arsenal had not mass produced anything for decades before the AMELI (the problem with state-owned arsenals, that made so they went out of fashion, except for maintenance. You can’t really stop and resume, at years distance, making firearms, and expect acceptable quality standards, or to iron-out all the industrialization problems). See similar problems for the British SA80 rifle (but there the design was flawed also). On the other, by some account, CETME deceived the government. To make the weapons up to spec with the (by any account) exceptional prototypes they would have costed much more than the government wanted to spend. They had to reduce the costs of the individual weapon in production by 40%, and so the disaster was served.
    1
  24. Free floating barrels ARE fixed. Free floating means they are in contact with the receiver only at the base. Where they are usually screwed to it.
    1
  25. It's an exceptionally well thought-out gun that ended up being exceptionally poorly built. The problem was that the Santa Barbara Arsenal had not mass produced anything for decades before the AMELI (the problem with state-owned arsenals, that made so they went out of fashion, except for maintenance. You can’t really stop and resume, at years distance, making firearms, and expect acceptable quality standards, or to iron-out all the industrialization problems). Something happened between the industrialization and the production phases, that made so the guns literally self-dismantled in the hands of the operators. It’s a shame a proper weapon manufacturer had not put its hands on the design.
    1
  26. I've seen reactivated LMGs (so way simpler actions) of models known for their reliability jam a round out of three. It requires a lot of work to put the parts together correctly.
    1
  27. In 1977 the original Beretta 92 had been already upgraded to 92S (slide mounted safety-decocker) and that made it a superior service gun to the CZ75 to me. Many Police departments had to learn the hard way that a service DA/SA pistol without a decocker is plainly dangerous for the shooter and who is around him.
    1
  28. I've always found that non-captive guide rods make the replacement of the recoil spring easier without downsides. Many high quality firearms, especially race guns that are more likely destined to be customised, have non-captive recoil springs.
    1
  29. With the benefit of hindsight, since the galling problem prevented any sales, we can say "no". But probably that bunch of guy in the bar only knew there was stainless steel and were fascinated by doing a pistol out of it. They didn't know anything about the related problems.
    1
  30. The problem was the choice of making it SS, not the carburizing method, that was only an attempt to make the design work. Low temperature carburization of stainless steel, up until the '90s, was an empirical process. You didn't know in advance what alloys were carburizable and what was the appropriate process for any of them. It could only be learned trough trials and errors. It's not by chance that the first stainless steel pistol was released only in 1965, and it was a revolver (S&W 60) so it didn't need many hardened parts. When stainless semiautos began to be introduced, in the mid '70s, all of them had galling problems. In 1983, Randall introduced a line of stainless-steel pistols. The guns were advertised with the slogan “Randall, The Only Stainless Steel Fit For Duty.” because all the previous ones weren't. The trick was to use different alloys for frame and slide and use different hardening treatments, that reduces the galling problem,however it not completely eliminates it. Today is less felt largely thanks to better lubricants.
    1
  31. Because, for a limited production in not specialised workshops, casting is easier and cheaper than stamping. Stamping becomes convenient only with higher production levels.
    1
  32. Among the desiderabile features of a firearm "no stamped parts" is probably at the bottom of the list. IE, in the same timeframe, the Benelli B76, that was a high quality firearm, with a competition-level trigger out of the box, and one of the first 9mm pistols officially allowed to fire +P ammunitions, had completely stamped frame and slide.
    1
  33. Any SS semiauto released in the '70s had galling problems. It's difficult to think a bunch of guys that used cast alloys could solve a problem much bigger gun manufacturers were unable to. They simply were fascinated by making a stainless steel gun and overlooked the problem. The carburizing treatment was only a late attempt to fix a project that chose the wrong material from the start.
    1
  34. And are probably rifled. I don't know if they do the things backward at S&W, but usually, in handgun manufacturing, first a long bar is drilled and rifled, and then several single barrels are milled out of it.
    1
  35. Stainless steel in general is terrible for contact or sliding parts, and stainless on stainless friction is the worst. Some stainless alloy can be heat treated, but any alloy requires its specific treatment.
    1
  36. Among the desiderabile features of a firearm "no stamped parts" is probably at the bottom of the list. IE, in the same timeframe, the Benelli B76, that was a high quality firearm, with a competition-level trigger out of the box, and one of the first 9mm officially advertised to be capable to fire +P ammunition, had completely stamped frame and slide. As a thumb rule forged>stamped>cast (not that cast=bad. IE the CZ75 had cast frame).
    1
  37. Actually the bolt head and the bolt carrier moves at the same time, but at different speed. The 45% inclined surfaces force the carrier to accelerate at double the speed of the bolt head and, to accelerate a mass at double the speed in the same time, you need four time the energy. Like lever delayed and roller delayed, radial delayed replaces the mass of the bolt with the speed of a part of it.
    1
  38. What's the problem?
    1
  39. SIA 1918 https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIA_Mod._1918#/media/File:Mitragliatrice_SIA.jpg
    1
  40. The Italian Army didn't like you need to drill the rivets to disassemble the trigger group.
    1
  41. Semplicemente all'Esercito non piaceva che il gruppo di scatto non si potesse smontare.
    1
  42.  cody sonnet  So?
    1
  43.  cody sonnet  So you think Franchi drafted the LF-57 at the same time it hit the market?
    1
  44. Yeah. They were issued as emergency weapons to vehicles. Where full size rifles were too bulky. IE to A129 heli crews.
    1
  45. All the pins holding the components of the trigger assembly are simple rivets. If you want to dismantle it, you have to de-rivet and then re-rivet it.
    1
  46. It's the MPL that looks like this.
    1
  47. A Walther looks like it.
    1
  48. The rear sight is dovetailed for windage. For the front one, once the two parts are welded, it only needs a template to file it to the correct height (few seconds of work for a skilled worker). Due to the longer sight radius, the SMG will always be more accurate than a pistol anyway, and at 50m it doesn't need a higher accuracy.
    1
  49. It's a simple and effective design, that had been higly appreciated by the users.
    1
  50.  @J.DeLaPoer  Maybe they had been inspired y the look, but the two weapons are different enough to not infringe any patent.
    1