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

  1.  @tedhodge4830  The Beretta AR70/90 instead (that is the one that had been adopted. The AR70 had never been adopted by the italian Army) has sights for 250 and 400m. https://www.collezionareexordinanza.it/uploads/products/101_2019-01-20_img_3585.jpg Pretty simple.
    1
  2.  @richardlahan7068  He was the chief designer for Armalite, but he didn't design the AR15. He designed the AR10, and the AR15 is largely (but not exclusively) a scaled down AR10, but, other than the ideas the two have in common, he had nothing to do with the AR15. Stoner disliked the .223 Rem. He didn't consider it a viable military cartride, and didn't design ANY rifle in .223 Remington at Armalite, at Colt and at Cadillac Gage. The first weapon in .223 Rem Stoner designed had been the LAMG, in the '80s.
    1
  3.  @michaelfeenin551  The 91/24 were made by cutting the barrel at the centre, boring the treaded part (the part that goes into the reciver) and then inserting the final part of the barrel (the part with the faster twist rate) into the bored hole. That way they had the correct twist rate.
    1
  4. The weapon was developed for the ground role. IT HAD NEVER BEEN INTENDED TO BE AN AIRCRAFT GUN. Less than four-hundred samples of more than 14.000 built saw limited use on aircrafts (at that time the Air Corp was a branch of the Army) waiting for the model to be in full scale production first than distributing it to the troops. It was supposed to be used with a shield, and with it it was plenty stable. https://modernfirearms.net/userfiles/images/smg/smg127/villar-perosa_1915_3.jpg That hole sight was literally the only hole in the shield. The weapon was designed to be a point weapon. Like a long range shotgun. Put it to surveil obligatory passages (alpine trails, openings in the barbed wire) and, when an enemy shows up, throw a short burst in his direction. With half a dozen 9mm Glisenti bullets in his body, he’ll think better. The MG-42 for example, with its 1200rpm ROF was designed with this job in mind. Not fire continuosly, but fire when you actually see the enemy. Given the charateristics of the two warfares, it was more suited the Villar Perosa to WWI (when you almost always had some obligatory passage to surveil) than the MG-42 to WWII. The weapon had been higly successful in the attack role too. So much that the Austrians copied it, double barrel, bipod and all. At the end of the conflict a total of 14.564 MGs had been produced (so, more than 29000 barrels, VS only about 5000 MP18), and 836 millions of 9mm Glisenti rounds for them. Mind this. THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND. When the guy with the Villar Perosa, after having thrown a couple of offensive grenades into the enemy trench to stun the enemies, came over the edge with the SMG in his hands to clear it, he didn’t find the guy with the MP18 waiting for him. Because there was not any MP18, or anything similar, there were only bolt action rifles and showels. What he had in his hands was incredibly better for that role than anything the enemy had. After having adopted the Villar Perosa, the Italians took almos three years to field the MAB18 (that were nothing more than a single Villar Perosa barrel mounted on a Moschetto TS stock) not because the Villar Perosa was unsatisfactory, but because it was so satisfactory that none felt the urge to modify it.
    1
  5. No serious study on the matter found any difference in "manstopping" capability between .45 and 9x19mm.
    1
  6. No. Let's put like that. In a 9mm firearm, the pressure in the chamber propels the slide backward for the first 1mm of it's run. Then the bullet leaves the barrel, the pressure drops, and only inertia keeps on pushing the slide, while the recoil spring slow it dow, for the residual 40mm or run. And yet the slide slams into the receiver. That means that a standard recoil spring resistance is less (much less) than 1/40 of the initial recoil impulse. That's why, in calculating the necessary mass of the bolt in blowback firearms, the resistance of the spring is not even taken into account. A human wouldn't be able to rack a slide/bolt with a recoil spring so rigid to really delay the opening of the bolt.
    1
  7. It's a grenade launcher, AND a muzzle-brake/compensator AND a flash hider, hence the name "tri-compensator".
    1
  8. The BAR MKIII action has nothing in common with the original BAR. In particular, it has a rotating bolt, and not a tilting bolt like the original. The tilting bolt was a good part of the reason why the original BAR couldn't be lightened further than the Monitor model.
    1
  9. For the Mamba, the main problem was it's main feature. "all stainless steel". Stainless steel being subject to galling is the reason the Randall 1911 (1983) was marketed as the first reliable all-stainless-steel semiauto (not the first to be made, but the earlier attempts were special series and "Gucci pistols", not really destined to hard use). The designers of the Mamba (1976) passed to production without having solved the problem they should have first.
    1
  10. It got people killed. A lot of enemies. It wasn't the best design out there, but it usually got the job done.
    1
  11.  @1BigBen  The Glisenti 1910 was not "crap". It was simply designed to fire a different cartridge than the 9mm Luger. Power-wise the 9mm Glisenti round was similar to several other service cartridges of the period. IE the 9mm Steyr that the Austrians adopted two years later. Like many SMGs the Villar Perosa could use an hotter version of the original cartridge. That was the M915 round, whose power was comparable to that of a mild 9mm Luger.
    1
  12.  @1BigBen  They are different cartridges from the start. They have the same dimensions because they had been obtained the same way. Both the Luger and the Glisenti were originally chambered in 7.65 Parabellum (the 7.65 Glisenti only had a shorter neck), but both the German and the Italian Army considered the 7.65 round too small for service use and requested a 9mm round. The 9mm Luger and the 9mm Glisenti were simply obtained enlarging the neck of the original bottleneck cartridge to accomodate a 9mm round (that's why the 9mm Parabellum case is not cylindrical). At that point DWM strenghtened the gun and took advantage of the bigger case to use more powder. MBT (that acquired the design from Glisenti) didn't want to change the gun, so mantained the original load. Glisenti and Luger are not the only cases where two cartridges can be chambered by the same gun.
    1
  13. That's what happens when an inventor gets enamored of an idea. At a certain point, he realizes it's impractical in respect to other, established, solutions, but he wants to make it work.
    1
  14. After WWI the old 6.5mm cartridge had always been on the verge of being replaced. First with the 7.35×32mm of the Terni 1921 (a true intermediate cartridge) and then the 7.35X51mm, so there was no point in doing a modification that would have forced to modify all the sights of the existing rifles.
    1
  15.  @hendriktonisson2915  As already said, The Swedes and the japanese didn't want to change service ammunitions. They wanted to use the same ammo with a spitzer bullet. Instead, after WWI the old 6.5mm Carcano cartridge had always been on the verge of being replaced. First with the 7.35×32mm of the Terni 1921 (a true intermediate cartridge) and then the 7.35X51mm, so there was no point in doing a modification that would have forced to modify all the sights of the existing rifles, when new cartridges in new rifles were about to be adopted. Also the Rumenians, didn't adopt a spitzer 6.5X53R, they changed ammo. The Dutch instead remained with the round nose, and so did the Greeks.
    1
  16.  @hendriktonisson2915  No. As said, first the Italians wanted to adopt the 7.35X32 (not the 7.35X51, that came later) because they wanted to adopt a semiauto rifle (the Terni 1921) and correctly recognised that, for semiauto fire, an intermediate cartridge was better, hence the 7.35X32. The conservatorism of the high brass prevented the adoption of the Terni semiauto, bu they still wanted a semiauto, in a full blown cartridge, so a new rifle, and tested many. In 1938, still testing semiauto rifles, they recognised the convertion to a semiauto would have likely required a long time, but they didn't want to fight the next war with long worn-out, WWI Carcano rifles, so they adopted the M38 short rifle, that was a new rifle anyway. BUT there is a trick. You can take an old, worn-out, 6.5 long rifle barrel, and turn it in a brand new, 7.35 short rifle barrel, only cutting and reboring it. You can't turn an old worn-out 6.5 long rifle barrel in a brand new 6.5 short rifle barrel. Even cutting it, it will remain worn out. So, since they had to manufacture new rifles and new ammos anyway, to adopt the 7.35x51, was economically convenient in respect to adopt a 6.5 spitzer.
    1
  17. Any semiauto pistol has an exposed bolt that violently slaps back and forth. Simply people don't put their body parts in the way.
    1
  18. Is not that they didn't know detachable magazines. Is that the goal was exactly to not have a detachable magazine, cause detachable magazines often had feeding issues, cause it was not easy to design a magazine that was so cheap to be discarded on the field, and so tough and consistently built to not have feeding troubles. The Brits too designed a tilting magazine for the BREN (they didn't adopt it in the end, but it was even more awkward than that of the Breda). There was not a single belt fed LMG in the world in 1930. Belts were not that a great solution for LMGs in general, cause, for weight consifderations, you cannot use too long belts in LMG role, and to change a short belt, requires more time than to replace two or three magazines (and you don't have a spent belt hanging from the rifle while trying to run).
    1
  19. Have you seen the 2 gun match report?
    1
  20. Actually to use your most able hand to reload is not a fail. It's not like you are doing much with your right hand while reloading, better to use it for the complex movements, and the left one to simply hold the gun. Mind that this weapon has a shoulder support, so you don't need the right hand to keep it in position.
    1
  21. The Marine Corp adopted the Beretta M9A1. Some special unit was given that Colt, without any competition, mostly due to Gen. William M. Keys connections, and had little more than just problems with those.
    1
  22. The project is neat for being something made for fun, but, to have sense, he should have simply rotated the M14 gas system 180° so to have the gas piston at hour 12. That way he could have mantained the entire AR15 lower as it was.
    1
  23.  @burroaks7  They are called 91/38. After they scrapped the entire idea of 7.35 (because of the beginning of the war), the Italians keep on manufacturing the "Fucile Corto" in 6.5. the vast majority of the "Fucile Corto" are like that of Osvald.
    1
  24. The locking block seems to be actually more efficient than the Walther/Beretta one (the part is mechanically less stressed, and infact is way smaller) and it can be simplified further (probably it doens't need to have that "L" shape, a straight bar is sufficient). The opening is complicate, probably for the short time spent in designing (usually mechanical designs tend to be complicate at first, then are simplified later, Browning's original designs too had been much simplified with time).
    1
  25. When in 2012 the newly adopted M45A1 couldn't complete the planned tests due to the slides inevitably cracking first to reach 12.000 rounds, Beretta guys "lol'd" a little too.
    1
  26. Yes, and it has a lot of mass in the forward part of the bolt, that makes little sense since, for every weight you keep away from the front part, you have to add only a fraction of that weight to the rear part to have the same delay of opening. for a comparison, that's the bolt of a FNAB-43, a lever delayed SMG made in italy during WWII. https://www.traxarm.it/area/prod/img002727A.jpg In that case it's obvious the designer wanted the weight to be in the rear part.
    1
  27. The CR.42 had been in first line service when the Gloster Gladiator was as well.
    1
  28. The Beretta 57 had been designed in competition with the Franchi LF58 (that was inspired by the Stg.44 in shape, like the Beretta 57 was inspired by the M1 carbine http://www.exordinanza.net/reprint/Franchi_LF-58-59/LF58.jpg ). The problem adressed was that of the controllability of fire. Any sane manufacturer knew that .308 Win. was not controllable in full auto. While the Brits tried to impose the .280 British, the Italian manufacturers thought there was no need to reinvent the wheel and, since the Carabinieri had already adopted a good number of surplus M1 carbines, so the round was already in use by the Army, tried to offer ARs in .30 Carbine (if more muzzle speed was required, the cartridge could have been easily necked down, so saving all the design apart for the barrel). In the end, the 6.72 NATO was forced on all NATO countries, so there was no market for .30 Carbine rifles. When it was time to switch to 5.56 NATO, other manufacturing tecniques were available.
    1
  29. You can work around the fact that's rimmed and a lot tapered, but why chose it over one of the several rounds that were in the same energy ballpark without being rimmed or so tapered?
    1
  30. Functionally the Gustloff is a pure blowback AR. There 's no way a gas port placed past the half of the barrel can have any effect in delaying the opening of the action before the projectile leaves the barrel. For the same reason a gas port placed there doesn't open the action, in a standard gas action, before the projectile leaves the barrel. The only function of the gas piston in this, or in the Steyr GB, is to slow down the bolt/slide when the opening already happened, to avoid it slamming too hard on the frame.
    1
  31. What's "weirdly over complicated" in this gun? This is A FIRST. Others could have seen its performances and enhanced the design, but only after having copied it.
    1
  32. They were mostly devoted to physical, cultural and charitable activities. However fascism introduced as regular classes in school "military training" for boys and "childcare" for girls.
    1
  33. To need an hammer to open the bolt is a sign of overpressure.
    1
  34. Not really. Like the Beretta Mab 38 it's only rational. The ejection port is on the left side because, when a right hander hold the rifle, it's easier to look into it that way.
    1
  35. Why the eagles are looking backward? It seems like they are laughing at the shooter.
    1
  36. Think of this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Newtons_cradle_animation_book_2.gif The case is the first element of the line, then the bolt, the lever, and finally the slide.
    1
  37.  @76horsepower  The "hammer" is the explosion of the powder. That's the first impulse. When the breech is closed, the slide is actually resting on the lever (the lever can't rotate further forward) not on the frame, so the system is tight enough to transfer the impulse.
    1
  38.  @76horsepower  the lever can't pivot further forward, so it can't dampen the impulse coming from the case. In that respect it's like a rigid element (like the spheres in the Newton's cradle).
    1
  39.  @76horsepower  Because in locked position the lever pushes the rear of the bolt downward, so making the locking effective. When the pressure is lifted, the same lever allow the bolt to push the slide backwards. The little pin in the slide that lifts the bolt is only required to drag the bolt when the slide is manually racked. When the pistol is fired, the bolt is pushed by the residual pressure in the barrel. The lever could have been replaced by a complex curved form of the surfaces of the bolt and slide, but it was easier to machine the lever.
    1
  40.  @76horsepower  Yes.
    1
  41. 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
  42. Yeah. The 9M38 was a very hot Luger +P+,
    1
  43. Other good ideas: Quick exchange barrel. it's the fastest of WWII along with that of the MG42, and it doesn't require the gunner to change position or to move the weapon (M60 designers should have taken note). Reload, doesn't require to the gunner to change position or to move the weapon (differently from the DP-28, or any belt fed MG). Breda weapons tended to be "overmachined", but there is very little precision machining involved (Not by chance the very precise "H" piece is a separate one), so machining was not time consuming.
    1
  44. They were very common in early 20th century. They replaced mounted infantry, not cavalry. A man on a bicycle can travel farther and faster than one on a horse, while a bicycle is much cheaper than a horse, and can't be killed.
    1
  45. Field strip (remove the muzzle cover and expose the gas ports, chamber and piston for cleaning; remove the recoil spring for inspection/replacing; remove the bolt assembly for cleaning/replacing of the firing pin) is actually very easy and can be done in seconds without tools. Disassembly requires more time, but almost all the bolt action and semiauto rifles' designs until that point, and several later, were not supposed to have the receiver and trigger group removed from the stock that often. That's why they were screwed to it. When Ian reviewed the Gew. 41 and 43 for example, he didn't remove them. Otherwise there would have been several screws to remove as well. There is not "a series of operating arms" connecting the piston to the bolt. There is a single op-rod that links the piston to the bolt (and is linket to it by the handle). The count of the part of the gas system, the bolt assembly and the rigger group (bar the burst device, that's an added part) is actually very low.
    1
  46. Quite the contrary.
    1
  47. It does the same job, but it's lighter, faster to reload and has one more in the magazine.
    1
  48. Really the MAB38 was made to shoot the super-hot M38 cartridge, that's around 20% more powerful than a standard service 9X19 Parabellum.
    1
  49.  @wilsonj4705  The Glisenti was no more service cartridge in 1938 (there were still some Glisenti 1910 pistol used by officers, but it wasn't a problem to supply the few cartridges they needed with WWI leftovers) and the standard 9X19 Parabellum had never been adopted. The only 9x19 cartridge in the Italian inventory in WWII was the M38. Simply around the middle '30s Italians decided to separate the service handgun round (it'll be the .380ACP) from the service SMG round (it'll be the M38), so that they could have inexpensive blowback handguns and powerful SMGs. Germans nominally had the 9mm Parabellum for both handguns and SMGs, but in reality issued much more Walther PP and PPk, Mauser HSc and Sauer 38H in .32 ACP than Walther P38 (other than still fielding Mauser C96 in 7.63×25 Mauser).
    1
  50. You know you are not talking of the same model of rifle, and that, in WWII, there were no problems in finding en-block clips (the ammos were packed directly into the clips) and the smaller cartridges were LESS expensive to manufacture?
    1