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

  1. Yeah, 1911 disassembly had never been a piece of cake. That was actually an improvement.
    1
  2.  @tonyneo6100  And because they didn't want it to be switched by accident, otherwise they could have used a button.
    1
  3. For those that had been hit by it.
    1
  4. The Beretta is not a copy of a P-38 more than a Glock is a copy of a 1911.
    1
  5. Had they did it at least in .30 carbine (yeah, .30 carbine can be fired in a pure blowback gun of acceptable weight. Trials made during the war tith a modified Thompson demonstrated that a merely 570g bolt was enough even for proofloads) sturdy enough, and shortening the silly ejection tube, it would have been a really interesting design.
    1
  6. The Italian rifle is "Model 1891", and the cartridge had been adopted before the rifle.
    1
  7. No, it's dimensionally similar to the .38 ACP, or .38 Auto, that's a different cartridge than the .380 ACP. In their typical loads the 9mm Largo (9X23mm) is slightly more powerful than the 9mm Parabellum, but with a lower pressure, due to the bigger internal volume of the case, so it tends to be less stressful for the actions.
    1
  8. Malfunctions happened on fairly old guns with worn-out springs, are not indicative of the performance of the weapon at the time.
    1
  9. No, it's called an "expander lock" patent US461968A. Due to the position of the pivots, the recoil tend to push the intermediate lever against the frame and not to make it rotate. There's no limit to the power of the cartridge that breech can control, as long as the frame is strong enough.
    1
  10. That kind of safety worked pretty well with M1 Garand, M14 and BM59. The only real downside of the one of the Vektor in respect to that of those rifles is that those automatically warned the shooter of them being engaged (since the lever was very close to the trigger) while the Vektor one doesn't, but that's in common with any pistol safety out there.
    1
  11.  @LilSwinney  What The Brits would have done? Invading Canada? During the IWW?
    1
  12.  @LilSwinney  Yes. it's how it works. Had the Canadians tought their ammos were useful to keep their rifles working, they could have easily kept them. Nothing more difficult than to say "our rifles don't work with your ammos, sorry". The Brits had no interest in having some hundred of thousand soldiers on the frontline with useless rifles and, even had they been those cartoonish bad guys you are depicting, they were not in position to impose anything, because they need Canadian men and materials, not the contrary. And please, don't invent supply line issues. To supply the Canadians with their own manufactured ammos was not more difficult than supply the Canadians with their own manufactured rifles. Canadians had been able to keep their rifles, hadn't they? They had been able to IMPOSE the use of their Ross rifles, while the Brits were using Enfields, hadn't they? The supply lines supplied them with spare parts for the Ross, even if the Brits used another rifle, didn't they? Logistically it was a pain in the ass, but THE BRITS COULD DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. Because the Ross had been Canada's choice and the Canadians wanted to use it. Now you are telling me that the supply line could supply them with their rifles, their spare parts, their specific Canadian made uniform, their specific Canadian made webbing, their specific Canadian made showels, every piece of their equipment that was different from the British one, but was unable to supply them with their ammos? They had a sudden amnesia on how to delivery items when it came to rounds? What kind of shitty supply line the Canadians had?
    1
  13.  @matthewbrian6360  Ian is not necessarily right but, as already stated, Had the Canadians tought their ammos were useful to keep their rifles working, they could have easily kept them. So the Canadians didn't keep track of their equipment? That's not how intendance works. None ever questioned the accuracy of the rifle. Fact is that the "ham fisted" British ammos worked just fine in the British rifles. Again, had the Canadians tought their ammos were useful to keep their rifles working, they could have easily kept them.
    1
  14.  @matthewbrian6360  You could have read the answers above, had you been able to understand them. Unfortunately they are above your level of comprehension. The colonial power had not been able to force Canadians to use British rifles, British webbings, British uniforms... but they could force them to use British ammos? Please...
    1
  15.  @obviouspseudonym9345  Ross rifle had ABSOLUTELY been Canada's choice. The refusal of the licence was of 1903. the Canadians had 11 YEARS to choose any rifle they wanted, there were tons of designs and available licences to choose from, and they chose the Ross. In 1914 they were at the 4th iteration of the rifle. The "we were a colony" argument can work had the Brits IMPOSED a rifle, but they didn't. Any country can refuse a production licence to another, it happens evey time. It's not like the other country is forced to use garbage only because they didn't get a specific licence. "oh no!, the US didn't grant me the licence to produce the Humvee! Now our soldiers should reach the battlefield by bycicle!" No, there are many other light trucks to chose from. Canada chose the Ross not because they had been forced. They did because they thought it was good and the Canadian government kept on defending the rifle against any evidence, even accusing the British officers that rised the issue of ignorance and incompetence, so much an oppressed colony they were. The Ross was a piece of equipment specific of Canadian soldiers, as many other pieces of equipment were specific for canadian troops, and none of them had been "forced" onto them.
    1
  16. It doesn't happen IRL. If you see the shape of the sear slot on the bolt, it's not 90° with the receiver, but slightly inclined. That's for the sear to recatch the bolt in any case. BTW, many safeties work that way, introducing a further lock (on the bolt, on the striker, or on the hammer), different from that of the sear. They are designed so that the chain of events described cannot happen.
    1
  17. Not moving at 90° makes the recatching of the bolt easier, not harder. Many safeties work that way, introducing a further lock (on the bolt, on the striker, or on the hammer), different from that of the sear. They are designed so that the chain of events you described cannot happen.
    1
  18. So we passed from "presumably" to "it could be, if it had been designed by an incompetent. Have you some clue that an incompetent designed it? I repeat. Many safeties work that way, introducing a further lock (on the bolt, on the striker, or on the hammer), different from that of the sear. They are designed so that the chain of events you described cannot happen.
    1
  19. There is no animosity, but follow me. You described, like it's higly probable, a chain of events that it's possible in theory, but really it doesn't happen in any weapon that has a similar kind of safety, since it's quite easy to avoid. It can happen only if the designer is amateur that doesn't know what he is doing. Now, there is some clue that the designers of this weapon, didn't know their job?
    1
  20. We know that those weapon are unsafe, from actual accounts and demonstrations (and yet much of the widely known cases are wildly exaggerated). We don't guess it. To affirm that a wepon is unsafe it must exist, if not a proof, at least some serious clue. There is some clue that the designers of this weapon, didn't know their job?
    1
  21. The Western Cartridge Company 6.5mm are probably the best 6.5X52 Carcano ammos ever made. They have the correct dimensions and the correct construction (Carcano projectiles are not cylindrical, but slowly tapering toward the front and are opened at the bottom, that way the projectile can seat nicely in the deep rifling of the barrel without displacing too much material), but used post-WWII manufacturing and propellants, so they were more consistent than the Italian military ones.
    1
  22. In the '80s selection for the 5.56 NATO rifle for the Italian Army, in the end, the AR70/90 competed with a AR15 derived rifle, the SOCIMI AR831. HOWEVER the AR831, like the Daewoo K2, replaced the direct impingment with a long stroke gas piston with an AK-syle recoil spring over the bolt, so to use a folding stock.
    1
  23. The project is neat for being something made for fun, but, since he was at it, it's weird that he simply didn't rotate 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
  24. This is the first weapon that had been officially designed "pistola mitragliatrice" (that's the same of the German machinepistole), so it simply defined the category. A machinegun that fires pistol cartridges.
    1
  25. Not a MAB38, but a nice attempt at.
    1
  26. Veramente è calibro 9M38, che è una versione potenziata del 9mm Parabellum.
    1
  27.  @222TripleJ  No, è più alta. Veniva ottenuta dando al proiettile una base leggermente concava. In questo modo si aumentava la capacità del bossolo, e si poteva mettere più polvere senza aumentare la pressione. La velocità di bocca, rispetto ad un 9mm Para, aumentava di circa 20m/s.
    1
  28.  @222TripleJ  Per il MAB 18 e il MAB 18/30. Il MAB 38 non cicla con il 9mm Glisenti.
    1
  29. Tribuzio patented the gun both in UK and USA in 1891, so probably yes, he was thinking about exporting them.
    1
  30. Actually this is a simple action even by modern standards. In WWI, only the Hotchkiss was simpler than this.
    1
  31. They are both rated for 750 RPM, that's higher than desiderable but, in the case of the BM59, there was little to do, since the receiver and trigger group had to be the same of the M1 Garand. BM59's competitor for the Italian Army contract, the Franchi LF59, had a "double hammer" system to reduce the ROF to 500 RPM, and be even more controllable.
    1
  32. SIA 1918 https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIA_Mod._1918#/media/File:Mitragliatrice_SIA.jpg
    1
  33.  @gondolaservicepeschieradel4115  "we"? Or you are near to be one century old, or you are adorning yourself with the bones of some dead guy. As for the "honor" of being the lackeys of the Germans and handing your own peope to them, is better to not talk too loud about it.
    1
  34. Actually the Breda 20/65, the Scotti 20/70 and the German 2cm FlaK were double-purpose, AA and AT guns, for wich AP, APE, API and HE rounds were available.
    1
  35. Another example of magazine fed gun adapted to belt fed and issued is the Fiat-Revelli 14/35
    1
  36. Also to have a lighter ammo for the rifles (and consequently lighter rifles) allow the infantrymen to carry more ammos for the MG.
    1
  37. Actually this is a simple action even by modern standards. In WWI, only the Hotchkiss was simpler than this.
    1
  38. TheKoba49 has a series of great videos on gunsmithing the Carcano rifles in 6.5 and 7.35, casting lead bullets for them and shooting them. Check for him.
    1
  39. 13.3kg. It's rather heavy even for a LMG.
    1
  40. 100 years old magazine.
    1
  41. The M16 had a 250m zeroed battlesight, used from 0 to 300m. The long range aperture (300m to 400m) was never really used. This system became pretty common after WWII.
    1
  42. There had never been a special load for the Breda 30.
    1
  43. No BM59 had been made converting a rifle. After the war Beretta received the Wincester tooling for the production of the M1 rifle (they were worn out and unusable, but good to see what the production stages were and build new tooling) along with a ton of spare parts never assembled. That's why many BM59 have the original Winchester and Springfield markings on the receiver. That's also why the Danish soldiers preferred the Breda made M1 to the Beretta ones. Breda rifles were all made with new parts, while the Beretta ones could have receivers made during the war with old tooling, that had a rougher surfaces.
    1
  44. It's not misconstrued, it's their function. When the rollers are forced inwards during the recoil, they not only retreat the firing pin, but all the rear part of the bolt, that's really heavy. So they accelerates the rear part of the bolt in respect to the front part, and, by reaction, since the energy impaired to the system is fixed, they slow down the front part and prevent extraction problems.
    1
  45. You should really do a segment on the Bernardelli Semiautomatico shotgun of 1949. That design was phenomenal. Not only because it didn't use the then ubiquitous Browning long recoil action and used a prismatic magazine, but it's like if Baldassarre Belleri (the designer of the action https://patents.google.com/patent/US2622359 ) had seen a SVT-40 and thought "oh, nice rifle, it could be a great shotgun, but that gas piston is so unnecessary" and redone it as a delayed blowback action only changing the inclination of the locking surface. And it worked flawlessly, absorbing a lot of the recoil too. https://www.armeriasebina.it/uploads/2013/06/Fucile-Semiautomatico-BERNARDELLI-.jpg
    1
  46. Longer, heavier and more complex.
    1
  47. 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).
    1
  48. 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
  49. Mind that the .30 carbine originated from a family of cartridges developed for the Winchester 1905 and 1907 blowback carbines, and it was not the most powerful of them ( the .351 Winchester Self-Loading of the model 1907 was). The experiments done during the war determined that a 570gr bolt was enough to safely fire even proofloads, so it was entirely feasible to design a six pound rifle in .30 carbine using the blowback system (the Winchester model 1905 weighted 7lbs, and the model 1907 8lbs). The problem is that the Thompson SMG is an heavy design in itself. Unfortunately, if you want to make it select fire, the more practical way to slow down the ROF in a blowback design is to enhance the weight of the bolt (that's why WWII 9mm SMGs had bolts that weighted nearly 700gr, that were clearly an overkill only to fire the 9mm para safely).
    1
  50. The Garand was not that accurate. 5MOA at 100yrd was the acceptance limit. Practically any bolt action could do better.
    1