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

  1. 4
  2. 4
  3. 4
  4. 4
  5. 4
  6. 4
  7. 4
  8. 4
  9. 4
  10. 4
  11. 4
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. The original Glisenti load was almost identical to the original 7.65 Parabellum load (since, like the 9mm Parabellum, it derived from that cartridge, but the designers of the MBT, differently from those of the DWM, didn't took advantage of the larger case to enhance the load), so, 1/4 less than the 9mm para load (literally, 3.3 grains Bullseye is a good 9mm glisenti load, and 4.4 grains Bullseye is a typical 9mm para load). However, during WWI, 9mm Glisenti loads had been enhanced, since the cartridge was primarly used in the Villar Perosa SMG, and blowback SMGs are pretty strong actions. For example, USCco, during the war, made for the Italian Army a batch of 84 million Glisenti cartridges loaded with 4 grains bullseye, that's only 10% less than a typical 9mm para load. Those "hot" cartridges were not especially marked, and were in the Army magazines, so, a 9mm Glisenti pistol made in the '20s had to be safe to shoot them too. So, what happens if you tries to shoot a load that's 10% hotter than what the pistol is designed to handle? Nothing extraordinary. We are still in the safety margins of any pistol design. When the Beretta designers declared that the pistol could handle a 9mm para cartridge (obviously not +P or +P+, that didn't existed at that time), they were not mad or irresponsible. Simply YOU ARE PUTTING UNNECESSARY STRAIN IN AN ACTION THAT WAS DESIGNED FOR MILDER LOADS, and that is 90 years old too. In the long run, you'll almost surely have some damage in the action. Most likely in the slide. Moreover, if the recoil spring has weakened with time, you'll probably have some overpressure problem with the cases, and even some case head failure.
    3
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. ***** Unfortunately there is an attitude between commentators of military equipements, being them "experts" or not, that could be described as "if there is something different to what we are used to, then there has to be something wrong in it". That "wrong" was rapidly "theoretically" identified, and then passed from a commentator to another as a "fact". An example is the manlicher clip fed system for rifles. Almost every description of it's efficiency contains a statement like "the bottom opening for the discharge of the spent clips was prone to let debris and dirt enter in the mechanism". Unfortunately, the only real-life comparative study of the efficiency of this system VS the closed magazine (the observations of Vladimir Grigoryevich Fyodorov, the designer of the Fedorov Automat, on the battlefields of the Russo-Japanese War), showed the exact opposite. On the winter battelfields, frozen mud and snow rapidly get stuck into the magazines of the Moisin Nagant, quickly rendering them single shooters, while the passage of the clips kept the action of the Steyr Manlicher clean and functional as repeaters. All in all the Chauchat was an exceptional design. A design that permitted to produce 262,000 of them during the war in a partly invaded country, VS only 50.000 Lewis Gun produced in both UK and US. As a single soldier, maybe I would prefer to have a Lewis Gun in my hands, but as an army (and as a soldier too) I would greatly prefer to have five times more LMGs on the frontline.
    3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3