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

  1. I don’t agree with leaving out blowbacks just because they're blowbacks. Especially the FN1903 and Beretta 1915. The 9X20mm Browning Long, 9mm Glisenti, 8mm Roth Steyr and the military loads of 9mm Steyr develop practically the same energy. The FN and Beretta had not weight disadvantages over the breechlocks (The Beretta was actually the lightest of the pistols firing the four cartridges, and the Steyr M1912 the heaviest). Blowbacks were easier to build, so why are they excluded?
    1
  2. That's what happened when SIG headquarters told to the designers "we need to be more forward-thinking".
    1
  3. Blow forward weapons are known to increase the felt recoil.
    1
  4.  @tiortedrootsky  Yeah.
    1
  5. Tribuzio patented the gun both in UK and USA in 1891, so probably yes, he was thinking about exporting them.
    1
  6. 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
  7. It's called an expander lock. Due to the direction of the respective inclined surfaces, when the bolt is pushed back by the recoil, it can only push the lever downward and not rearward, so the bolt is locked. https://patents.google.com/patent/US461968A/en Other than the ejector doubling as the sear, the cocking lever doubles as the locking wedge. Being the lever quite sturdy, it's only the strenght of the frame that limits the power of the usable cartridge (Notice that the frame wraps around the pivoting point of the lever, so that it's not the hub to be stressed). In theory you can make a Tribuzio in .45 ACP capable to accept 1911 magazines. And it will still be quite compact (the bore axis is so low that the recoil will be even pleasant).
    1
  8. Probably. The .32 ACP (7.65 Browning) real diameter of the bullet is 7.94mm. The ammos were marked "8mm". https://topwar.ru/42773-pistolet-molniya-pistola-lampo-katello-tribucio.html
    1
  9. The similar .32 extra short has about the same power of a modern .25 ACP. so yes, it can kill.
    1
  10. It's called an expander lock. Due to the direction of the respective inclined surfaces, when the bolt is pushed back by the recoil, it can only push the lever downward and not rearward, so the bolt is locked. https://patents.google.com/patent/US461968A/en Other than the ejector doubling as the sear, the cocking lever doubles as the locking wedge. Being the lever quite sturdy, it's only the strenght of the frame that limits the power of the usable cartridge (Notice that the frame wraps around the pivoting point of the lever, so that it's not the hub to be stressed). In theory you can make a Tribuzio in .45 ACP capable to accept 1911 magazines. And it will still be quite compact (the bore axis is so low that the recoil will be even pleasant).
    1
  11.  @grayeaglej  It will be enough to have two flat bars passing around the magazine instead one passing under it. Think of how the trigger bars of a modern semiauto pass around its magazine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7ri33LDHZk
    1
  12. Found the patent. it's called an expander lock. Due to the direction of the respective inclined surfaces, when the bolt is pushed back by the recoil, it can only push the cocking lever downward and not rearward, so the bolt is locked. https://patents.google.com/patent/US461968A/en
    1
  13. Unfortunately Ian left out the fact that's actually a LOCKED BREECH gun. It's called an "expander lock". In theory there's no limit to the power of the ammunitions this gun can use, as long as the frame is strong enough. https://patents.google.com/patent/US461968A/en
    1
  14. The similar .32 Extra Short had about the same power than a modern .25 ACP.
    1
  15. That's the patent. It's called an "expander lock". The lever locks the bolt like a chair put at an angle under the door knob. In theory there's no limit to the power of the ammunitions this gun can use, as long as the frame is strong enough. https://patents.google.com/patent/US461968A/en
    1
  16. It's probably the diameter of the bullet, like the .32 ACP/7.65mm Browning has a 7.94mm diameter bullet.
    1
  17. It's called an expander lock. Due to the direction of the respective inclined surfaces, when the bolt is pushed back by the recoil, it can only push the lever downward and not rearward, so the bolt is locked. https://patents.google.com/patent/US461968A/en Other than the ejector doubling as the sear, the cocking lever doubles as the locking wedge. Being the lever quite sturdy, it's only the strenght of the frame that limits the power of the usable cartridge (Notice that the frame wraps around the pivoting point of the lever, so that it's not the hub to be stressed). In theory you can make a Tribuzio in .45 ACP capable to accept 1911 magazines. And it will still be quite compact (the bore axis is so low that the recoil will be even pleasant).
    1
  18. Yeah.
    1
  19. 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
  20. The .32 short develops twice the energy of a .25 ACP and it falls just short of a .32 ACP. Not super powerful, but nothing to laugh about.
    1
  21. Unfortunately Ian left out the fact that's actually a locked breech gun. It's called an "expander lock". In theory there's no limit to the power of the ammunitions this gun can use, as long as the frame is strong enough. https://patents.google.com/patent/US461968A/en
    1
  22. Unfortunately Ian left out the fact that's actually a LOCKED BREECH gun. It's called an "expander lock". In theory there's no limit to the power of the ammunitions this gun can use, as long as the frame is strong enough. https://patents.google.com/patent/US461968A/en
    1
  23. Unfortunately Ian left out the fact that's actually a LOCKED BREECH gun. It's called an "expander lock". In theory there's no limit to the power of the ammunitions this gun can use, as long as the frame is strong enough. https://patents.google.com/patent/US461968A/en
    1
  24. Found the patent. it's called an expander lock. Due to the direction of the respective inclined surfaces, when the bolt is pushed back by the recoil, it can only push the lever downward and not rearward, so the bolt is locked. https://patents.google.com/patent/US461968A/en
    1
  25. Looking at the movement of the lever when Ian releases the "trigger" (the lever recoils, but for some mm of movement the bolt doesn't follow) there is probably a lock in the last part of the movement, that's released only when the lever goes backward. https://youtu.be/-8Nm89NQK-A?t=388
    1
  26. 54 grain bullet at 650 fps with 51 ft.-lbs. of energy.
    1
  27. Add that the optic on the dust cover eliminates any pretense of accuracy. That thing is just not solid enough (not by chance the sights on the original AK are NOT attached to the dust cover).
    1
  28. The Rhino trigger group is not really more complex than that of any other revolver. It's an aluminium framed revolver, that adds some cost to simply cast steel, but that's needed to keep the weight low.
    1
  29. Elklund describes it as a piston action in his patent infact. Direct impingment doesn't exist. Both this, the direct derivate Rasheed and the MAS 49/56 are piston actions. That's also why the "gas tube" has the external diameter of a standard rifle gas piston (and way larger than the diameter of the internal gas pipe). Because in a piston action what moves the carrier is pressure for surface. A smaller piston, (thus with the same internal diameter of the gas pipe, and so the same pressure) wouldn't have had enough force to move the carrier.
    1
  30.  @jimmyh6579  This isn't direct impingment either. In his patent, Elklund clearly say it's a piston action.
    1
  31. @ The cylinder is what here is named "cup" that happens to be a cylinder. Many gas pistons don't have any gas ring, IE that of the M1 Garand (or, even better, the Degtyaryov DP-27, whose gas setup is practically identical to this gun, in having a "static piston" solidal to the barrel, and a cylinder/cup in the rod solidal to the carrier) . Here, enough sealing is provided also by the fact that the rim of the cylinder in the carrier protrudes and precisely enters in a slot in the receiver. Any gas piston action is "different in operation", but all of them are gas piston actions.
    1
  32. At that time it was a REAL PROBLEM to manufacture a magazine that was enough well and consistently built to not have feeding issues and cheap enough to be discarded on the field.
    1
  33. The barrel and the gas tube expand differently while heating. That means that the gas tube "forces" the barrel upward or downward, changing the harmonics in respect to a cold shot. It's like firing with, or without, a weight attached to the muzzle.
    1
  34. At that time it was a REAL PROBLEM to manufacture a magazine that was enough well and consistently built to not have feeding issues and cheap enough to be discarded on the field. That's why still post-war battle rifles like the M14 and Canadian FAL were intended to be fed primarily with stripper clips.
    1
  35. Nor this, nor the directly derived Hakim/Rasheed, nor the MAS49/56 are "direct impingment" actions. Direct impingment doesn't exist. No rifle action ever was actuated simply by the "kick" of the gasses. In Elklund's patent (mind that the guy's main job was to design hydraulic pumps, he knew a thing or two about pressure) this is clearly described as a PISTON action. The "open tube" is actually a piston, and it has the diameter of a piston, because a piston works thanks to pressure X surface area. That's why the external diameters of the "open tubes" of the Ljugman and MAS49/56 are so much larger than the gas key of an AR15 (despite the internal gas pipe being practically the same). Because they need surface area to work. The only difference between this, or that of the MAS49/56, action, and that of the Mini14, IE, is the location of the piston and cylinder. "direct impingement" is how Stoner described Elklund's action in his own patent, to artifically differentiate it from it's "internal piston" action. In reality, the ONLY thing that's patented in Stoner's patent is that, in his design, the gasses are in direct contact with the bolt (while, in Elklund's patent, they are in contact with the bolt carrier, not the bolt).
    1
  36. @ You are welcome. If you are interested, look at the gas setup of the Degtyaryov DP-27, because it's exactly the same of the Ljungman (and probably inspired it). Only, in that case, the static piston (without sealing rings, exactly like in the Ljungman), holed in the center to let the gas pass, is at the end of the barrel, and, consequently the mobile cylinder/cup, solidal to the carrier, is at the end of a rod.
    1
  37. Nor this, nor the directly derived Hakim/Rasheed, nor the MAS49/56 are "direct impingment" actions. Direct impingment doesn't exist. No rifle action ever was actuated simply by the "kick" of the gasses. In Elklund's patent (mind that the guy's main job was to design hydraulic pumps, he knew a thing or two about pressure) this is clearly described as a PISTON action. The "open tube" is actually a piston, and it has the diameter of a piston, because a piston works thanks to pressure X surface area. That's why the external diameters of the "open tubes" of the Ljugman and MAS49/56 are so much larger than the gas key of an AR15 (despite the internal gas pipe being practically the same). Because they need surface area for the pressure to work. The only difference between this, or that of the MAS49/56, action, and that of the Mini14, IE, is the location of the piston and cylinder. "direct impingement" is how Stoner described Elklund's action in his own patent, to artifically differentiate it from it's "internal piston" action. In reality, the ONLY thing that's patented in Stoner's patent is that, in his design, the gasses are in direct contact with the bolt (while, in Elklund's patent, they are in contact with the bolt carrier, not the bolt).
    1
  38. The Soviets had stamped weapons for decades by the end of WWII, yet they took the German engineers that made the STG44, because they know how to stamp better, yet the AK47 couldn't be stamped the way they would have wanted, it took 12 years of studies to finally obtain the AKM.
    1