I served in the Italian Alpine Paratroopers in 83/84 and we had the "paratroopers" version of that rifle. It had foldable stock and detachable muzzle break to shorten it enough to be able to attach it to the ventral tactical backpack and jump "safely" from either C130 or G222. Occasionally we also jumped from CH47 and Agusta 205.Great rifle...kinda heavy, lots of recoil.But hey, what do you aspect from a 7.62? Full auto was fun, but if want to actually hit something 2-3 round burst was the thing. Excellent range...I never shoot anybody with it, but it was rumored to be effective up to a 1000 yards.VERY easy to disassemble and clean. My personal record was 1.14 minute (blindfolded) to disassemble it and back.I have to say it showed its age though... we watched with envy the US paratrooper in Vicenza, think it was the 173rd Battalion, with their light 5.56 AR platform.Great memories anyway. EDIT: Funny thing about it:..within the Italian Army, this rifle was referred to as the F.A.L. (Fucile Automatico Leggero) but clearly has nothing to do with the FN FAL" from Belgium.
ZAGOR64 per anni, ogni volta che mio padre mi raccontava le storie di quando era a militare, mi diceva che usava il FAL, e io solo adesso ho scoperto che non era l'arma belga ahhahaha
Having used both the foldable stock and the full stock when I was in service I can tell you that the full stock seats better on the shoulder and helps a lot in controlling it. But since emptying a magazine in full auto is supposed to be done only in certain situations its not a big problem.
I had tbe chance to shoot the Alpini version. I served with the British Army and was the Liaison officer for a group of Italian soldiers on a recce for the 'Cambrian Patrol' NATO competition. I had the chance to try the Alpini, Para and BM59, the latter I found was marginally better to shoot....it was a great weapon! The Alpini guys name was De Polo I think.
Its funny how the m14 costed a fair bit in development and was shortly replaced by the m16 the point of Mcnamara called it "a digrace" while this rifle was developed using scraps of old rifles with an extremely low budget (post ww2 Italy was in ruins) and menaged to be a fairly popular and good srvice rifle. I call this a win.
McNamara was himself a disgrace. He spearheaded the program that created defective jet fighters during Vietnam which caused many pilots to crash. May he burn in >>>>>ll.
"Who needs an auto-cannon on a F-4 Phantom? It's not like they'll run out of rockets and missiles during their mission!" (Idk if he was behind that in specific, but not very smart nonetheless.)
@@aeddonmckaba9797 The real travesty was the Air Force letting dogfighting training lapse. The F-4 was successful even with missiles due to the Navy's TOP GUN, not due to a cannon. Lack of cannon didn't hamper. Lack of good training on dogfighting hampered it.
As for the M14 itself, it wasn't a well done rifle. It was built on worn out machinery, was more expensive than expected, and lacked some more modern features that other 7.62 NATO rifles of the same time period had. McNamera was correct in naming it a disgrace, and understandably thought the US Army was just trying to make up excuses for incompetence, because it genuinely had been incompetent regarding this ridle. Literally even by the mid-late 1960s, Army units in Europe still hadn't received the rifle. The Army did genuinely drop the ball on this rifle. McNamera's fault was pushing the M16 into service before full testing was done, because it had been understood by everyone that the M16 would be a COTS type of rifle, because that was how the Airforce had ordered it. Most of the problems with the M16 were down to user malfunction, such as users never cleaning the rifle. It's telling that the SEALS & SAS both liked the early M16s and had little problem with them.
Probably because the US was more focused in rigging the tests so that they could have an excuse to not adopt a foreign rifle, than they were in actually doing proper development of the M14.
The US was like "We don't want a dirty foreign gun, we want a good American gun." Which is ironic, because the FAL and G3 were significantly better than the M14 in almost every regard. And don't even get me *started* on the adoption process of 7.62NATO.
Yep, FN is a major supplier of the M4 and IIRC the only company that still makes the rifle-length M16 for military contracts. FN is such a major supplier of the US military that they opened up a factor in South Carolina to handle the orders. But back in the 50s it was completely unacceptable to buy from them, just because.
that's when the USA very much twisting, pushing, intimidating by any way imagineable so other NATO's member very much accepted the idea, despite the fact the UK .280 was better and fit to the intended roles nicely ?
agurjaunak Ultimately, I blame MacArthur. If not for his penny-pinching refusal to accept the .276 caliber Garand because there were already so many .30-06 rounds in inventory, the US Army would've already been using a 7mm. Which would've made it pretty much impossible to object to the .280 British round on the basis of its caliber.
We still had in 1993. Even then we learned marksmanship with the Garand and then got issued this, the FAL (which stands for "fucile automatico leggero", its not just the Belgian FN that was called FAL), basically none of us ever called it BM59... It could take a beating and still do its job very well. That so called "winter" trigger wasnt much for gloved hands in operation. It was used a lot more for the SuperEnerga grenade which used to give quite a kick and you could really hurt your finger. The winter trigger instead was making things a lot safer when shooting the s-Energa, and also was making easier to aim and hold everything steady shooting it. The reason the magazine is made that way is because its a simple pull out and slap in without fiddling with the front catch like other rifles had when the bm59 was designed. You can switch magazines very quickly. Many of us that trained with it liked this rifle a lot, it had a whole different feeling than the the 70/90 we were issued later on.
I read somewhere that it was mostly meant to launch grenades with it than a winter trigger, since the blanks required for them had 3 times the recoil of a normal cartridge, and using the normal trigger with them would break your finger against the trigger guard.
I was issued with the BM59 when I was a conscript in the Italian Army in 1997/98, it's an excellent gun, and this example we see in this video is in absolutely mint condition: ours were well worn guns, but they did their job perfectly, with good hits even with training rounds. I'm commenting with the account of my classic bus association , so I'll sign myself: Patrizio Castelli, former Drill Corporal at the 7th Cuneo Infantry Regiment in Udine, 1997/98.
This is an absolutely fantastic firearm! I own one of the original M1 Garands made by Beretta after the war... very low serial number, below 2000. It was also issued to the Danish Army. It's in amazing shape and I use it when moose hunting.
Player Review Many people here use .308 for moose hunting actually. I even know people who use 6.5 Swedish or .243 Winchester. My father uses 7mm Rem Mag out of a Browning Stainless Stalker A-Bolt... used to use a .303 British Lee-Enfield before that. My Garand had obviously seen service so I still enjoy shooting it often and it's still incredibly accurate... and always turns heads at the range. But not as much as my Johnson M1941. Haha
Player Review I only use the iron-sights on the Garand too... it would be a sacrilege to drill and tap it for a scope. I've never had to adjust the sights since I bought it and zeroed it... that was almost 15 years ago.
toomanyaccounts Oh I know that, that's why I said I'd ever do it. I bought it for an absolute steal 15 years ago and it's probably worth 6 or 7 times what I paid for it now.
Trained extensively with this rifle during my auxiliary officer’s course in 1996. Once you got to know your rifle you could easily hit a target at 300m and over consistently with the iron sights and the in-built bipod. I also trained on its replacement, the NATO 5,56mm AR70/90. While the 7,62mm BM59 was a bit heavy to carry (about 4,5kg if memory serves) I know which weapon I would take into battle... 162^AUC
Ricordo benissimo.... Ho fatto il militare nel 1993.... Pesava, vero.... All epoca, stavano arrivando proprio i primi sc-70/90(versione a calcio pieghevole dell AR - 70/90),e ricordo benussimo la differenza di peso e maneggevolezza, rispetto al FAL BM-59... 👍. 10°\92, brigata taurinsense. car presso la SMALP di Aosta. Un saluto ✌️
Back in 1972 I ordered a Ciener machine gun catalog. He had all the BM59 models for sale. I was 11 at the time and growing up in Syracuse NY where you can't own a machine gun. Made me fall in love with this rifle so now I have my own BM59 (semiauto) and moved to a FREE state where you can legally own machine guns!
I had a really, REALLY shitty day today. This video made me feel better. Thank you, Ian, not only for providing amazing information on rare and obscure guns, but also for providing some distraction and comfort.
E ' stato un fedele compagno per ben 85 servizi armati sempre con il colpo in canna , 30 poligoni di tiro come istruttore , che botte che tirava , indimenticabile....
I used it during my military service in the mountain artillery in 1993 /94. It was a very good and reliable weapon. Very easy to be cleaned. We called it Fal truppe alpine.
I served in the Italian Mountain Artillery in 1987 and we were issued the BM59 Truppe Alpine with pistol grip and foldable stock but not the detachable muzzle break which was only for the paratroopers version. The tripod was absolutely necessary in full auto while hitting the target with a three round burst after some practice was relatively easy. Truppe Alpine version was slightly lighter than the one in this video but still heavier than the contemporary M16.
Sorry, my English is very poor. Argentina did not adopt and not buy the BM-59. In the late 1950s, Argentina bought several destroyers and cruisers to USA that were of the WWII, these ships were provided with the complete armament, including rifles M1 Garand and Colts M1911A1. Then, in the late 1960s, these rifles were sent to Italy, where Beretta transformed them into BM-59 rifles. The Argentina Navy used them until the end of the '80s, together with the FAL. Some Garand-Beretta were used in the Falklands War by argentine marines. In Argentina it is known as "Garand-Beretta".
I have fired M14s as a Marine. The cyclic rate is also 750 rpm. If the M14 had a muzzle break like the BM59, I think it would work better in auto. By the way, I aways wondered if the cyclic rate of the M14 was reduced to 650 rpm, if we would have made it better in auto. Unlike many, I know auto fire in a M14 is doable if you are at least 5-10+ tall. I owned M1As and the semi BM59. I believe the BM59 is a Cadillac version of our M14. It is a better shooter and made better than the M14. Thanks for the video.
He mentioned it was very accurate but the full auto was totally pointless. The rate of fire was way too high for that cartridge, it would empty the tiny magazine veeeery soon and you wouldn't hit shit.
Honestly should’ve been a tick above the Chauchat fire rate. Then a full-power cartridge wouldn’t be essentially impossible to use as anything other than to scare off someone.
First one is a Browning wz.1928 (basically a Polish version of the BAR), second is a Hotchkiss 1909, better known as the Benét-Mercié. Middle is an M60, last two are different versions of the STG44.
That has got to be one of the most Innovative full auto designs ever in a machine gun. Years ago I sold my Beretta M1 Garand tanker in 30 ought 6 and I could kick myself in the ass for it.
I had this during my service in Carabinieri , good gun , more controllable then the m14 in full auto , this due the total weight and the superb flash suppressor , generally we used it for self protection during check points and also for launching tear gas granate. The winter trigger was used also for the launching of the grenate ( energa ) and tear gas , this because the recoil was very strong, and using the normal trigger was proibitive .
Just snagged one recently made by James River Armory. I haven't gotten to fire it yet, but I must say it is a pretty gorgeous looking firearm. Was a little sad at first when I realized it wasn't an M1A like I was told, but seeing the comments here and watching Ian talk about it makes me pretty damn happy 😎
now avaible in the italian gun market, converted from full to semiauto only, 5 rounds in the mags, only, by law, in standard model, alpine and paratrooper models
@Massimo K from 2013_2018, decreto Alfano, ora elevato a 10. Salvo maggiore capacità per armi sportive. Le A6 in quanto demilitarizzate restano a 5 in virtù di vecchie disposizioni. Se ha dubbi interlelli il BNP
The Indonesian Army not only bought the BM59, they used a Berretta design for their 5.66 mm standard infantry rifle - the Pindad. The Pindad is manufactured in Indonesia. In the semi-automatic form, the Pindad is also the standard rifle of the Indonesian police.
Nope, Pindad _did_ produce the BM-59 under licence as the SP1, but it was in the original 7.62 NATO, not the 5.56. It’s no longer standard issue for the Indonesian army or police either (it was briefly in the 1970s and 80s before the switch to 5.56) but a fair number are still kept in reserve, and personally I’m wondering why Pindad didn’t just repurpose old SP1 jigs and machinery to build a new modern battle rifle rather than awkwardly trying to upscale the FNC-based SS1 and SS2 into the SS3.
Worth noting that the Italian Defence Ministry sold large numbers of its surplus BM59s to resellers. One italian company (Nuova Jager) bought them in mass and it is selling them on the Italian market with a new trigger group to convert them in a semi-auto version. They go for about 1150 euros. Unfortunately [.... ggrrrrrr ....] these are not allowed in the European country where I live, nor can they be imported in the US / Canada (further gnashing of teeth in the background).
The winter trigger was also used when firing the rifle grenade, to avoid the recoil injuring the finger of the soldier. At lest that's what I was told.
One bit of trivia: if you see an M14 in a movie, chance is that it's actually a BM 59 due the similar looks and easier availability on the civilian market. Funny trivia: the Italian Army designated it the "Fucile Automatic Leggero", "Light Automatic Rifle", shortened to FAL (Italian and French languages are pretty close), but the soldiers who actually had to use it and feel the weight would rather call it "Fucile Automatico Pesante", "Heavy Automatic Rifle". And before you guess the shortened designation, remember that most Italians at the time didn't speak English.
@@francescozati3746 I was there at Darby 81-83 and in Vicenza/Oderzo 75-78. The Italians with the 3rd Missile Brigade in Oderzo were carrying these during that time. They also had the clip fed Garands in 7.62. AFAIK they were all Berettas.
Because of the weight, the BM59 was just about usable in full auto, certainly usable with the heavy bipod, unlike the M14. The grenade launcher is easy to use also...great weapon!
Around the ten minute mark of the video, Ian discusses the changes made to the Beretta gas system and operating rod, and then briefly mentions that perhaps there were not too many bent op-rods on M-1s. Early M-1 Garands came with the characteristic dog-leg op-rod, but when stress cracks started forming at the bend, and some op-rods bent or broken under the strain of use, it was decided to add a hemispherical "relief" cut at the bend to relieve stress lines converging on that point. Which is why all subsequent M-1s have that feature. Early M-1s were supposed to be retrofitted to modify their op-rods, but a few escaped such treatment and are now valuable and quite rare collector's items in the M-1 community. You may not want to fire such an M-1, but it is worth a pretty penny as a collector's item.
It's gas cutoff system is like the Yugoslavian SKS system except the Yugo's sks has a knob that acts as both the valve and a lock to keep the grenade sights in place
They had access to some BM59 samples. Beretta hoped to sell them, but then it didn't go well but the good idea remained, as in 1966 they modified the SKS M59 by adding the part of the grenade launcher.
Thank you, I have been waiting for this one. I am a retired British officer and had the chance to try both M14 and BM59 and apart from the latter being slightly heavier, it is a much better weapon. The M14 (a good rifle) was an utter waste of RD funding and time, for the sake effectively for a pound in weight saving. This was comparable with the FN FAL
And to think, we Americans could’ve paid the Italians to convert our M1s into BM59s for less than the R&D and procurement costs of the M-14......or just buy the FN-FAL
Thanks Jan another Great movie about Beretta and Our past . 30 years ago , We could not Imagine to have such a trusted , respected rifle in Our Army . We have learnt a lot also watching all your movies about last century Beretta's , Pavesi or Armaguerra production . Congratulations ..... Just a note about the " winter trigger " according our Army manual , that's to avoid hurting the finger in the normal trigger position , after the shooting , specially once equipped with the granade launcher .
Hello. Thanks for this video, very interesting. I did my military service in Italy in 1993, perhaps the last year of service (at least from an operational point of view) of the BM-59. I was in the "ALPINI", 3rd regiment, SUSA battalion. we went on a mission to Mozambique, (UN ALBATROSS mission), and we brought the FAL BM-59! (this was the military denomination). We had already tried the SC-70/90, Alpine version of the AR-70/90, such as the BM-59 Ta, (Alpine troops), with a folding butt plate. Very reliable, heavy, yes, but it was "our" gun, and I remember it fondly. Besides, he was in 7.62 NATO ... 👍 💪😁
I used to have a semi-auto BM59 from Springfield Armory. Sweet rifle. A bit handier than the M14. VERY comfortable to shoot with the Tri-Comp and the butt pad. I loved it, but had to sell it to pay for an operation for my daughter.
I built one. Had an M1 receiver machined by Tim Shufflin and I absolutely love it! The next thing I'm putting on mine is a Hopco mount and a Trijicon RMR. Gotta put my SWFA 10x on something more practical. No, it wasn't cheap lol. I assembled the rifle myself. The kit was around $500, the receiver was a CMP Grade C @ $130, and the machining was $500. Scope mount and scope and yikes... the price shot up. But, hey for less than an M1A I have a pretty cool Italian FAL!
Hi Ian, I'm from Italy and my father had this gun as training rifle and also the Italian version of the M1. He told me that the winter trigger main use was in effect to shoot the front granade using a blank bullet charged with 3 times the powder of a normal bullet and so the recoil may broke your finger with the normal trigger. Hope to been useful
I am also Italian, & you are absolutely correct , some people believe that the lever is a " Winter trigger ". NO, it was used to fire rifle grenades , as you correctly pointed out , the cartridge was hot loaded & so the butt was placed on the ground , sighted , then lever pressed. Ciao
@@Bunduki The same reason the Swiss had a "winter trigger" on the STG57. It was not for mittens or gloves but to keep your finger from being injured firing rifle grenades!
Another superbly researched and presented video, Ian. Thank you! I discovered one additional minor modification made to the M1 by the Italians as they were designing this rifle: the ejector has an additional bevel milled to one of the corners. I discovered this modification the first time I shot my BM59 in the prone position from the left shoulder when the empty cases flew straight back and beaned me in the noggin. :) Replacing the ejector with a stock M1 part took care of that. BTW, my rifle was built from a like new BM59 parts kit by Tim Shufflin of Shuff's Parkerizing, and it is an excellent shooter.
My father was armed with this rifle in the italian army in 1981...at the time other corps were already equipped with beretta ar70 in 5.56, infantry still had this one in 7.62.
Apparently, the BM-59s featured a very effective muzzle device that made recoil manageable. I don't know if it's AR-10 levels of manageable, but it should be close given the higher weight in comparison. Either way, most militaries would soon learn that a full-auto .308 firing rifle wasn't too smart of an idea.
I've fired a BM59 once, like most battle rifle it's not enjoyable in the least in full auto, the stock is more of the issue for full auto fire as the recoil impulse is not inline, it causes it to rise in the shoulder, it's better then the M14 in full auto, but not much more. Honestly full auto battle rifles are just stupid and meaningless, the British figured that out and just removed the full auto mode from their FAL to keep people from playing rambo.
I'm pretty sure the stock has more of an influence on the muzzle climb than the muzzle device. To be frank I've never shot a gun in full auto but from my understanding a standard stock as seen on an M14 and most other rifles raise the center of mass and direction of the recoil energy above the contact point with the stock and the shoulder, creating a fulcrum about which the recoil energy can turn the firearm and raise the muzzle. On and AR platform the barrel is lined up with the contact point of the stock and the shoulder, forcing more of the recoil energy directly into the shoulder rather than the rifle.
The cool thing of the tri-compensator is that the muzzle brake's holes are asymmetrical, so to reduce the spin on the rifle given by the bullets engaging in the rifling, that contributes to make the recoil less predictable and so less controllable. It's obviously not perfect, but it was probably the best that could be obtained in the 60's with a full blown cartridge.
The Indonesian production of these is interesting. I am not sure whose plant they bought, but there was a LOT of it. The most curious thing about the process of making the receiver body was that, first, they machined M-1 receivers, then re-machined those to provide the "features of a "BM-59 receiver body. In the case of the Italians, this was the "logical' follow-on from "converting" large numbers of pre-existing US-made M-1 rifles and then almost new Italian-built M-1s to BM-59 configuration. So all of the BM-59 "plant" was built around the concept of "converting M-1s. Allegedly, the "source" M-1 receivers were fully heat-treated and thus, the only way to machine them is with Tungsten carbide tooling. Way back in the late 1970s, I was party to '"re-engineering" a bunch of tired but mostly serviceable International Harvester M-1s into what were essentially BM-59 look-alikes for the Australian market. M1As were available but for serious money. Unfortunately, genuine BM-59 mags were unobtainable, so, M-14 mags (and mag catches) were used. No "tri-compensators" were fitted, either. About a hundred of these conversions were made and they worked just fine. Someone in Britain also did something similar, before all of that "went away".
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.
In the past, Indonesia also made this rifle the company made it PMS or now better known as PT PINDAD with a license from Bareta with the name of the rifle is SP-1 (long rifle-1 / senapan panjang-1).
After seeing this I just have on question. How did it take the US military 12 years to convert an M1 Garand to magazine fed and full auto and the Italians did it in six?! Not to mention the M14 was terribly outdated as a military rifle the second the STG-44 was invented. Meaning the design was out of date to begin with. Military intelligence. The greatest oxymoron of all time.
That and the M14 development cost wasn't exactly cheap to begin with. Meanwhile the BM59 was developed in post-war Italy (which isn't exactly in great shape)
That's cause americans aren't accustomed to lack of money and having to make do with leftover scrap, they're too busy rigging stuff up so Joe gets the contract instead of Jack. In Italy we know from the start that we have to do with what we have around, cause getting your hands on a 30 y.o. rifle and telling your engineers "tinker with it" is cheaper and faster than telling them "design a rifle like this, but with more features". Kinda like turning a jalopy into a hot rod instead of buying a brand new sportscar
the funny thing is that you can own an M1a in NJ but you can't own a Semi auto BM59 which is literally the same thing. Its banned by name. Why... because reasons?
toomanyaccounts not necessarily. NJ has a list of evil assault features on semi autos, and a bayonet lug is one of them. you can only have 2. for example, I could have a thumb hole stock, and since that doesn't count as a pistol grip, I can have 2 more, like a flash suppressor and or a bayonet lug. there's a whole list of them online here www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firearms/njac-title13-ch54.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjWicTLnpHXAhXFRyYKHWL6BOcQFggoMAA&usg=AOvVaw3F2_i28ugLaFHsrUjTLyrX You can have bayonets, flash suppressors and folding stocks and other scary assault features (technically) on bolt guns, but I'm not going to be the one to test it out
for me this was a very good rifle, quite accurate and quite good for a left handed too. It allows a left handed to reload with the right hand and shoot without having to move the hand off the trigger. it's a bit heavy due to the wood but with the bipod or with the paratrooper's version you can still aim while reloading
I had a transferable BM-59 (actually within a couple of serial numbers as the example reviewed in the video) back in the '90s. Was reasonably easy to control considering how fast it ran. I had all three stock variations (bought them from Reese Surplus) and spares of several parts that I had broken at one point. I had the extractor fly out of the bolt assembly once, and I broke the operating rod at Knob Creek once. If you ran the gun too hot, you risked breaking the operating rod at the weld (Beretta didn't make an operating rod specifically for the length of the BM-59, they cut down and re-welded a Garand length rod). Mine also need some attention for the gas system to run reliably; the grenade sight is made to cut off the gas when flipped up, and the cutoff would rattle loose while firing and gradually close the gas.
Ultimately thanks to Ian for doing a video on the BM 59, whereas I just hoped he would just address the BM 59 M 14 dichotomy in a question I submitted to the Q&A ... this is an embarrassment of riches.
I have fired a M1 Garand with a magazine, shortened barrel, and gas system. It was fun. I had a few run ins with a Los Angeles gun smith named Chuck Rees he built 1911 back when Jeff Cooper was at Arrowhead later when I met him he was shooting a M14 he built a 30-06 Garand into an M14. It used BAR magazines. Only saw it once but if you knew M14's you could tell the difference.
You know the Italians make good stuff. When you want mechanical reliability but with an extra touch of class and exoticism. Cars, Guns, and cars again because you can't have enough Italian cars.
America: Screw them europeans and their FAL, we need a good ol murican battle rifle. Gentlemen, I present you the m14! **Has a bunch of unexpected teething issues, is extremely behind schedule and over budget** Italy: We really need a new 7.62 nato service rifle with a detachable box magazine, but we have no money to give you to develope it. Beretta, see what you can do. Beretta: Hmm, why don't we just take some surplus m1 garand receivers, cut a mag well in the bottom, add a bipod mount hear. While we're at it let add a new winter trigger, slap on a muzzle device aaaannnd...there, I say we call it a day. **Ends up being a well regarded rifle that serves italy all the way into the 90s while earning a decent amount of export orders**
Mind that the BM59 was not the only option. The alternative was the Franchi LF59 (you can google it, it's actually a very nice looking battle rifle), that used a STG44-esque action (long stroke, tilting bolt, gas action), coupled with a very clean telescopic "MP40 style" recoil spring placed behind the gas piston, like in a AK (so that it could have a collapsible stock). The LF59 was prefectly serviceable, but the BM59 won because its price couldn't be beaten.
I remember as a kid in the 70’s my uncle was a firearms collector so I got all his tons of shotgun new newspaper magazine anyways one of the coolest guns back in the daybwas the Italian bm59 or style Italian rifles folding stocks long and standard…nobody wanted them much ..everyone was waiting for the m14 American made better rifle …back then there wasn’t any guns like you see today mostly old west or hunting with the exception of expensive foreign assault rifles like Hk or the Fal…a colt m15 or m14 was the biggest eye opener back then cheap Italian rifles had a bad reputation due to there ww2 reputations and most collectors where ex military like my uncle Vietnam vet or ww2 Korean War…..whole different time …I do remember them talking about the bm59 …wondering if you could make it look more m14 or not and if the parts would swap …..this was around 1975 or so .. different time for sure
leave it to the Italians to design a better M14 without even having access to an M14. this thing has only one real flaw when compared to a milsurp M14 and thats the RoF. A flaw which could probably be fixed by a talented gunsmith. hell I’d love to see a replica of this but scaled down for 5.56mm.
you almost got your wish. The italian army was thinking to do precisely that, e.g., to take bm 59s and some mg 42/59 and rechamber them in 5.56, so that the reserve equipment would be standardized on the same caliber of the ar70/90 and FN minimi. They thought the better of that judging the costs of conversion not worth the candle. On the other hand they are now available on the milsurp market, so ....
It was only for prime soldiers in eighties (alpini, paracadutisti, bersaglieri, lagunari) not for all the coscripted army. The standard rifle was M1 Garand refitted 7,62 x 51 mm from 308. It was a cheep system to modernized the army that at that time was about 300.000 that had to stop the first hit of red invasion.
Ahhh, my one year duty memories! Bein in artillery m109l crew we too we had the TA type foldable. Nice to see it again. I've also used that one you are showing during the first two months in the assault troops. Nice times nice guns.
Could make a case that this is the Garand in it's final iteration. And wouldn't be entirely wrong either. Lovely gun though, and I'd love to shoot a one.
2:33 buttplate hook for LMG role. Like the winter trigger and grenade launcher indicates familiarity and experience with predecessors. I wonder if the winter trigger was also intended as a tickler for fixed mounts
Back in the mid-80s 83/84, I had my hands on this, the civilian version, and I was told, it was the Italian mountain division rifle, what I remember most of all aside from the price, was it it looked exactly like a shortened M1 Garand, it was a civilian version, ( semi-auto only) no muzzle brake, no bipod, with the sites where exactly like an M1 Garand, and back in the 80s they wanted like $1,500 for it, I was just recently married, and my new bride would have nothing to do with it for I was going to have to take money out of the savings for our house, and she saw that look in my eyes I was willing to do it, if I recall she hid the money, fast forward years later we got a divorce, but I wished I had purchase that rifle.....
