When you're a grunt on the back of a M3 halftrack cleaning your M3 grease gun while the grunt next to you sharpens his M3 knife while you're in a convoy behind a M3 medium tank, a M3 light tank, and a M3 scout car towing a 37mm M3 gun and the guy across from you talks about how much he loves the M1 and you can't figure out if he means the carbine, the garand, the flamethrower, the Thompson, or the helmet...
37:10 i'm from Bavaria, an ally of the Austrians in that war. Here, we still have a saying basically translating to "stay calm, the Prussians don't shoot THAT fast". Used when people get over excited. (well probably only used by older people nowadays :O). Crazy how "the enemy has faster shooting rifles then us" can be in popular memory 150+ years later.
Victor Suverov's book "Inside the Soviet Army" he writes a chapter on why soviet ammunition types are named slightly off what they are and why they phased out the 7.62 pistol cartridge, and it was to streamline supply issues saying something like "when theatre students and other untrained personnel are involved in the supply chain, having a rifle and pistol round bearing the same designation leads to issues like a motor rifle unit being sent large supplies of pistol rounds for the few pistols held by the officers and no rounds for the units many rifles"
Reminds me of Ian and Karl talking about the .45 Schofield and .45 Colt, where the US Army would send the wrong ammunition to units. He blames it on untrained people, but presumably people working for the American Army logistics train during a time of relative peace were trained, just lazy and incompetent (which from my understanding is an issue we still have). When Steyr made .375 Steyr for their Scout Rifle, Jeff Cooper apparently told them to call it the .376 Steyr instead (which they did) to avoid confusion. Also I would assume one of the reasons for calling the .357 Magnum the .357 and not the .380 Magnum.
@@molodoy.. a fact i found out well after this comment, cheers for reminding me, and allowing me to second your assessment, his Biographies in particular are piss poor, which makes me now doubt even whats inside "inside the soviet army", despite my personal nostalgia for the book i found in a country bookshop whilst working away from home
😂 So obviously those people couldn't fight a war to save their life. They'd expect their government to send in missile against their enemy because tbey know they dont stand a chance against a terrorist whos willing to die.
the wood used in the .303 was sterilised before use, we have no objection to blowing large holes in people, but giving them festering wounds just isn't Cricket old chap !
Let's consider, we have a nice sealed chamber (copper jacket with a lead base) filled with decaying organic matter. What's the chance even 1% of cartridges develop a distortion from the build up of pressure with an occasional split. Possibly complete paranoia but it might be safer to sterilise just in case.
I've read in soviet firearms history book back in the 80s that primary reason why 7.62x25 (7.62 Tokarev) was phased out is the fact that there was a lot of PPSh-41 and PPS-43 SMGs left in the hands of civilians right post-WW2, especially in those areas where people weren't happy being part of New Russian Empire (USSR) and would put up resistance if they could. Phasing out 7.62x25 completely would literally not give them any ammunition to fight with once initial small stockpiles were exhausted and they had no opportunity to capture new ammo from opposing Red Army. It was mostly fear of uprising and asymmetric/partisan warfare in western USSR bordering regions, where 'hot spots' were most likely to occur and where anti-soviet mood was at all time high especially after soviet atrocities in the 30s and 40S were very still very well remembered. Another reason was organized criminal element that would be just as well equipped with left-over and battle-field picked-up guns. And organized crime post-WW2 in Soviet Union took on epidemic proportions. Again, not being able to capture new ammo from military or police would quickly make 7.62x25 chambered guns in hands of undesirables and obsolete hardware. Very same reason USSR adopted an 'slightly enlarged' 9mm caliber projectile as well as slightly shorter case length for their new handgun. to ensure that new pistol round absolutely can not be used in German 9x19 SMGs that were also in hands of many civilians secondary reason was lack of interchangeability with opposing western force and third one was the cheapness of manufacture of primary handgun. all three facts played an equal role in this decision making. There was no single main goal, as with anything that was developed in USSR.
Mike Koz That makes so much sense, in a totalitarian fashion. Would have been interesting to see if the USSR would have imploded in that fashion though
I would have thought it was more to do with the SKS and later the AK47 in 7.62x39 which took over the role of both rifle and SMG, so there was no reason to keep using the 7.62 Tokarev pistol round. Pistols ended up being an officer's status symbol or used by police, who would rarely use them.
" AK47 in 7.62x39 which took over the role of both rifle and SMG" nope lol, maybe you meant AKS-74U? but that gun has been developed in the late 1970s :? Friend After the war russia take over poland territories, country that was 3 times erased from maps and still fight. I don't wrote that because of pride or something, but men, Polish people can't stand oppression. uprising is inevitable, and we know each other very good with russia so i think that Mike Koz theory make sense, could be some factor in making up decision by soviets
I'm very grateful for your commitment to both educating viewers about the history of firearms, and assisting your Patreon supporters with even the silliest of questions. Thank you, Ian! You're a rockstar.
Bah, lore indicates that would not work. Stake needs to stay in, then you need to cut the head off, stuff it with garlic. Just an ineffective cost saving measure from a bureaucrat.
@@stephenshallcross7832 You're correct. It was designed as a blank cartridge for the Bren, in which for battle exercises the barrel would be replaced with a special barrel fitted with a wedge shaped splitter near the muzzle end which would shatter the wooden projectile.
Though I cannot answer why small countries used a 6.5 mm and larger countries used a 7.62 to 8 mm, I think it's just coincidence, and perhaps the fact that those nations adopted new rifles later, when smaller calibre cartridges were more accepted / proven / available. Italy however, had a very specific reason: At the battle of Dogali, the Italians ran out of ammo, and as a result, suffered heavy casualties. This was a key reason in moving to 6.5, as it allowed more ammunition to be carried than a 7.62 to 8 mm. My source on that is Italian Small Arms of the First and Second World Wars, by Riccio.
16:04 If you've got access to lever-actions as well, that might be a good option. The Marlin 336 series is available pretty cheap and in multiple calibers, and you can get a firsthand look at what Ian and Karl were saying about lever-actions being arguably the "assault rifle" of their day. Also, if you're in California, you're already in the West so you really might as well keep the tradition alive. Don't forget your big ol' hat.
can i just say how absolutely awesome the composition of this shot is? this whole background full of guns is amazing and you positioned exactly right. As if all the guns are emerging from behind you. It's almost like the Iron throne but with guns.
"0:03:46 - Why did large militaries have .30 cal at the turn of the century while small countries had 6.5mm?" The “lesser” nations that opted for 6,5mm (Japan, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Romania, Netherlands and the Swedish-Norwegian union) got their first small bore repeaters in the 1891 to 1903 time-range. The “major” nations (UK, France, Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungaria) that selected 7,5 to 8mm rifles, got their first small bore repeaters in the 1886 to 1892 time-range. Many “lesser” nations also selected rifles in the 7,5 to 8mm range. That or the 7x57mm Mauser. So the very first small bore repeaters were adopted by the major powers (and the Swiss), and were in 7,5 to 8mm. A few years later, 6,5mm and 7mm was an option, that a fair number of lesser nations opted for. "1:05:19 - Why did the Soviets change from 7.62x25 to 9x18?" There was not only guns in the 7,62x54R/7,62x38R/7,62x39/7,62x25 calibers made at the same time. The 5,45x39 had a smaller partner in the 5,45x18, used in the PSM-pistol. "1:14:52 - Most convoluted development history for a rifle" The H&K G11 was in development for 22 years.
Your depth of firearms knowledge is to be honest, incredibly , impressivly broad. ( i dont think ive yet heard you say "ill have to check and get back to you on that") From military specs and purposes, eg: how , why , where, when ,, to specific gun technical details is amazing. Another video well worth the time to watch. Thank you .
Greece, Holland and Austria -Hungary also used 6,5s. Spandau made a 6x57 rifle, predesscor of Mauser 66 you might say. The Kaiser liked 6x57 very much for his roebuck hunting.6x57 is similar to 6mm Remington . The interest for 6mm came after the Boxer rebellion,Germany never adopted the 6x57 . 6.5S UP HERE IN Scandinavian countries came due to accuraccy, recoil, and penetration in testmedia, and dead horses compared to 8mm and 7mm. Also due to Norway and Sweden was in Union also.
I have wondered more or less that. Mostly with it being as hot as I understand it is out there, why not a shorter & cooler hair style? but then yeah want is the secret with all that heat, and moon dust, why does he keep it so à la Marshall Hickok, it is almost Custer pretty!
when I had long hair, it was shampoo + conditioner, then brush & air dry.. then brush again with coconut oil. .. ironically, long since shaving that all hair off when I'd enlisted.. these days I still do the same, but with a comb for my beard.
To answer the major power .30ish caliber minor power 6.5mm question: The major cartridges to come out the the 1880s were 8mm Lebel, 8x50, 8x57, and .303. These were from major powers that were on the cutting edge e.g. France, Austria Hungary, Germany, Britain. Going from an 11mm to an 8mm when smokeless powder was in its infancy made sense; and with Austria Hungary there were even compressed black powder loads first, which wouldn't have worked well with a really small bore. Fast forward to the 1890s and smokeless powder wasn't as mysterious so trying out a smaller caliber like 7mm or 6.5mm would have been more appealing, though 6mm was still too small. The Italians had a 6.5mm Mannlicher clip turnbolt rifle in 1891 and first Romania and then the Netherlands adopted something similar from Styer right afterwards. I'd almost credit Styer because later on they made the Greek Mannlicher Schoenauer in 6.5 as well. A few years latter the Swedes and Japanese got Mauser-esque 6.5mms as Mauser started to look better. Mauser 98s ended up beating out Mannlicher actions and the common flavors for those were 7mm and 8mm.
I thought that mayor powers stuck with .30 cal munitions for the same reason most rifles (at least the Gewehr 98) had sight distances for 2000m: that being their military doctrine of long range volley fire and grand army manouvering warfare opposed to 6.5mm for other nations engaged in more regional and smaller wars; although if I recall correctly some Arisakas had long range sight distances and even sights for airplane shooting based on approximate speed.
0:19:48 Oh man, I feel real dumb - I'm not really up on my knowledge of various guns so I always switch tabs and google guns I'm not familiar with so I can have some context for what is being referenced. Apparently I'm not good with US accents either, because I just spent 5 minutes looking for a "breeder peachy model 1935" .... it was the "Breda PG/1935" thank god and gun jesus for that detailed video description.
I love my M1 Garand. I got it through the CMP and it is beautiful Springfield. Even in 30-06, I can shoot it all afternoon and it soaks up recoil like a dream. It truly is the single best battle implement ever, outside the modern era.
30:50 Ian botched the question: Best loading system besides box magazines? Mannlicher clips? Stripper Clips? I'll take the third option.... BELT FED! ALL DAY, 'ERRRY DAY!
@@corey3606 You'll have to look through his FW vids about mags, clips and feeding systems until you find it. I couldn't remember which episode as I just happened on it a couple months ago.
Not that it would be legal but building a blind that could disguise a pintle mount for 12.7mm .50 would be fun. Unfortunately the deer might not have a lot of edible meat on it, but oh well.
Re Richard's question: use of Madsen LMG in WWI at 0:41:19 Russian Empire was the 1st of Great Powers to adopt original Madsen (running on "Danish" ammo) on the verge of the XXth Century. Some say, it was due to the mother of the last Tzar being a Danish Crown-Princess, but there are other opinions on the matter. M LMG was adopted in certain manner: 6 of those were given to each regiment of Russian Imperial Cavalry - both Guards and Army (Regulars, in the Army they were all Dragoons at the time; I do not know about Cossacks). Interesting detail here: it was the first time since 1840s Russian Regular Cavalry was not only allowed to shoot while on horseback - as the general rule, it was prohibited - but, actually, the special devices were invented and issued to the troops to install on the saddle-bow, and the horses were given special training to withstand the noise and movement of the firing Madsen. It was considered a big military secret (and I personally believe, it is "kind of responsible" for Mosin-Nagant getting no updates: some people just looked forward at the Russian General Staff HQ). At the start of Russo-Japanese war LMG squads of 32 regiments - without some Guards and Warsaw Military District-based ones - were sent to Manchuria to fight. One of those sent was one First Lieutenant Zass of the Regiment of Dragoons (before 1882 and after 1907 - Hussars) of Sumy - with his Squad of LMGs. "Nobody still not noticed a thing." Some of the guns very probably have seen their 1st police engagement on the outbreak of Polish unrests in 1905. Around 1909 it was decided that having a machine-gun with the different type of ammunition produced in foreign country is not a good idea, so they gave every cavalry division 8 Russian Type Maxim Guns - all attached to the Hussar regiment of every Division, and put Danish Madsens on back-sit (they remained in the possession of the regiments - each of them had junior commissioned officer who's duty was to oversee the maintenance of weapons), but they asked the Danish producer to make Madsen in 7,62x54R. And after they managed that, not without some difficulties, Russian Government asked the producer to oversee the establishment of the Armoury in the town of Kovrov (Vladimir Governorate) specifically for producing Russian Madsens. It did not happened until after February Revolution, that the factory produced its first guns, and after October Coup Danish fall out completely. And the plant started producing Fyodorov's Assault Rifles and RPDs (We know it now as the "Factory named after Degtyarev"). All the original Danish Madsens ended up on the Battlefields of the Great War (famously, in the siege of the Osowiec Fortress). Officers of all the regiments of Russian Imperial Cavalry were all ancient gentry, if not nobility, and well-off guys, so a lot of them just ended up buying the Danish ammo on the free market before the war. With the war started it was almost impossible, and most of the guns were probably worn off anyway by 1915. Russian Madsens, after the end of Russian Civil War, most probably ended up in the hands of Chinese Kuomintang, before being captured by Russian White Emigres serving with Zhang Zuolin; and of cause, in Spanish Civil War.
Hi Guys! :D I just wanted to say, Ian...: great work and keep that up mate! I enjoy pretty much every one of your lectures and get to learn something new almost each time ;)
I was issued the Garand in the Army. I was taught to use my thumb to off-stage the rifle. This preclude having having your trigger finger on the trigger until ready to fire.
0:34:27 During the Boer War, the usage of the Mauser vs the SMLE, Lee-Metford and the Martini-Henry. Churchill's Memoirs discussed the disparity between the UK forces and the Boers armed with their Mausers.
I once saw a reproduction of an early 19th century firearms shop and they would actually make muzzleloader barrels by taking flat stock and hammering it into a tube. It was particularly difficult to get the same internal diameter in every barrel so many makers just assumed each one was a custom caliber.
Another excellent Q&A (I watched Othais and the nice chap who does Muzzleloader), questions and answers very good, an amazing programme. As a total tyro whose entire experience of firing a gun was many years ago with a .22 rifle, all targets were missed but I did hit the ceiling of the indoor range. Yes vert enjoyable.
Makes sense, when we trained on the AT4 they had practice weapons with various other ammunition, 1 being a 9mm bullet and the other was a big blue plastic thing that had a greater kick to better demonstrate back blast. Which was easy to see with the clear blue plastic fragments laying around after it was shot.
Lack of modernizing efforts on maxims: There was the Finnish Maxim M/32-33. Had many improvements including metal-link ammobelt, accelerator mechanism and muzzle booster. Served in all the three wars FInland had and performed admirably. They were also in service until the 1950's they did something right with it. Like the Mosin Nagants :) That had the modernized sniper version in service to the 1990s or something close to that..
About the 30cal or larger question. I always had a view that it might have been because of barrel life. Smaller caliber might be "better" but not by much, and especially when you take into account having to replace components more often. That and machine guns usually use larger heavy bullets so having the infitry rifle chambered for the same cartrage helps on supply and manufacturing. Any thoughts?
The pistol grip shotty was the first gun that wasn't a .22 I ever shot. I still shudder remembering how it wanted to jump out of my hands with every trigger pull
They did have Tangfolios in .41 AE, and I had the good fortune of having come across the ammunition, manual, and magazines for a Pre-88 that belonged to my wife’s recently departed uncle. His brother had taken the gun thinking it was just another 9x19mm, but not realizing that it came with the .41 AE barrel and springs and had given the rest to me, along with a plethora of pretty unique accouterments and calibers…so I can sincerely say that at one point I had over 550 rounds of .41 AE in the box (Uzi and Samson manufactured) as well as a handful of .41 Magazines before shipping them to the appropriate party.
Two things. 1. I worked with a brilliant female ballistician during my time in the ammo industry but I'm not at liberty to reveal her name or employer. Rest assured; there are many women playing a large part in arms development. 2. Three more cases where infantry weapons made a big difference. a. Late in the "Indian Wars", especially the Battle of Little Big Horn, the natives often had modern repeating rifles matched up against trap door Springfields and U.S. troops were often at a disadvantage if they did not have heavy weapons and/or a huge numerical advantage. b.The Spanish-American War saw U.S. troops, even those equipped with Krags, at a serious disadvantage when faced with 7X57 Mausers while the Boer War saw the Brits outgunned by the same weapon. c. The early deployment of the M16 in Vietnam. It wasn't out of date by any means but the reliability problems did leave the AK-47 as a more effective weapon for a time and more than a few good men lost their lives to SNAFUs perpetrated by their commanders and civilian officials.
pete sampson For A I'd say that the repeating rifles that the natives had probably did not make that big of a differance in the grand scheme durring the Battle of Little Big Horn. The reason being that the natives had an army of 5000-8000 warriors to Custer's 250 men. So even if the natives only had single shot rifles they still would have won quite easily. For B. The Mauser being better really did not really hurt the US. Considering just how bad the Spanish-American war was waged by the US, the US forces really should have been anialated
Ian, I'll take you up on that EM-2. I'm currently in Gunsmithing school in South Carolina, and I intend to stay in the firearms industry for a long while. If you can get me a semi auto EM-2 (or technical drawings and access to an EM-2) and fund the materials (bar stock, heat treat, furniture) I'll turn out a left handed, paratrooper EM-2.
Octagonal & half round half octagonal barrels existed WELL before bar stock & stock removal manufacture were even a thing. They existed from the beginning, when barrels were hammer forged around a mandrel or even cast in bronze. Aside from the aesthetic value, it's easier to forge & file precise flats in a barrel than to get it perfectly round.
I just noticed that you have the exact same model of office chair I do. It was the most comfortable one they had at Office Depot that was not too rediculously expensive or flimsy.
My theory (uneducated) for why the smaller powers had ~6.5mm cartridges was that they were closer to blank slates. Like all militaries they had elements seeking the latest tech. Most other powers had a lot of institutional groupthink that resists change. However those guys were so small, that they lacked an element who thought they needed a compromise between "old reliable" (Lot's o' power and heavy projectile) and "new tech" (controllable flat shooting, moderate recoil.) Further the longer minimum point blank range is easier to train on a smaller budget for range time.
GunFun ZS smaller countries generally didn't have empires. The major powers like big cartridges for the terminal effect on the indigenous people they were building their empires on. The whole reason the British army excluded Winchester style repeating rifles was their 'anaemic ' cartridge as its ability to stop a charging 'zulu' or fuzzy wuzzy
But they often did have civil wars. Mexico is a great example of that. Japan did a lot of empire building, and Italy had African empires. Those two would be the most iconic examples of mid caliber.
Point on spotting rifles: They had field uses besides training. It was doctrine on the 106mm Recoilless to range in predesignated target with the spotting rifle. Which for the 106 was a standard BMG .50 cal round, as both munitions had identical ballistics.
Sound moderators... these have always been freely available in New Zealand, and so NZ people have developed the very best ones, especially for high powered rifles..... Most hunters here use them.......
I wrote a book 40 years ago, with no words in - it about ballistics. How to sight in firearms for 100 yards with a target just a few feet in front of the muzzle (upward arcing trajectory principle). The Speer Company bought it from me. In answer to the 6.5 mm caliber question, it might be that some "bullets" when designed correctly, balance, length, ogive, weight, powder load, barrel twist, etc. simply carry through the atmosphere more easily, with more efficiency, and accuracy than others. Their sectional density and ballistic coefficient hit a "sweet spot". Two other calibers that come to mind are the .338 and the .50 bmg. For a while a famous gun catalog and ammo source, I believe it was Herters, came up with a "coke bottle" shaped bullet, that answered most bullet prayers but, never got very far. I think it was too hard to seat in a brass case correctly because the belly of the bullet was slightly larger than the base.
I have a TINY 5 shot Belgium bulldog thingie in .442 Webley with a folding trigger and no hammer spur. Ultra cute and it almost fits into the change pocket of my blue jeans. I like it a lot. However, all of the edges on it are sharp. Over the years I have run about 30 .44 Bulldog and maybe 70 .442 Webley loads through it. The Bulldog loads are mild and no problem, but in .442 Webley the pistol is a monster and I have yet to fire a round barehanded without one edge or the other bringing blood. It is very much not a 'let's go shoot this for fun' pistol. But it is tiny enough to easily hide in a front pocket and it makes .44 caliber holes 2" deep in wood at 10" with reasonable accuracy (most holes touch when aimed or within an inch or two), so it remains in my inventory, but yes, I often wear work gloves when plinking with it. I have learned to. :)
A real common unpleasant experience is shooting a cylinder of 158gr .357 Magnum out of a 2-1/2" S&W Model 19 using the stock diamond checker round-butt grip panels. Ouch.
The scandium j-frames as well. I had a student yesterday bring one to our CHP class. He shot 1 cylinder (not sure the weight, but it was Buffalo Bore ammo). I had some 148gr wadcutters in my truck I let him use to finish qualifying. There was an envelope with $100 and a thank you note under my windshield wiper when I finished cleaning up after the class. I had warned him that combo was going to be brutal prior to qualifying. He kept insisting he wanted to 'train like you fight.' I don't think he will be carrying that combo going forward.
This is just my speculation on caliber sizes. Alot just has to do with the area and field of measurements. Smaller countries tended to convert to metric sooner to conserve time and money, while larger countries tended to stay standard. And a .30 caliber or 7 mil round was and still is a fairly jack of all trades caliber that tends to work well with everything from military, to law enforcement, to hunting and even accuracy with rounds like the 30-06 being a common sniper round.
IAN you forgot about the Hudson H9, that was a team effort of that dude and his wife, I imagine that'd be a good female gun designer for that one question !!!
My theory - only a theory, mind - is that smaller nations, if they bothered to adopt an indigenous cartridge, would have had cost and material efficiency in mind. 6.5mm rounds use less lead and brass than 7.6 or 8mm rounds; if you're going to be manufacturing thousands or millions of cartridges on a budget, shaving off that little bit extra translates to a big savings on material.
On the 8mm vs 6.5, Sweden bought and made mauser style rifles in 6.5 in 1896 called M/96. We also used the Czech light machine gun ZB.26 in 6.5, almost all our machineguns used 6.5 up until we adopted the 7.62 round, we then rechambered our carbines and machine guns for the 7.62. We did use 8mm Mausers before WW2, sold them after. My guess is ballistics. I couldn't find any other reason why we used the 6.5.
For James's question at 35min I'd say while it was only a single a battle that The Battle of Little Bighorn is a great example of how effective a force armed with repeating rifes is against one with single shot rifles.
Maxim-Tokarevs are quite rare even here in Spain, they were uncommon compared to DPs and you can see many more MG-13s, Bredas, etc. than M-Ts in museums.
On the intermediate cartridges question. The 30-30. It's ballistically very similar to the 7.62x39 so falls right into that intermediate range and saw wide spread success fairly early.
I was thinking the same thing and I remember shouting at this video back when it first came out, what about the .30 carbine (7.62 X33) would that also not have been an intermediate cartridge and it was also widely used in WW2? Hmmm
Fun times to be had when applying what you said to US Army tanks of the period. There were light tanks/combat cars M1, M2 and M3, but they skipped M4 to prevent confusion with Medium Tank M4 and went to M5. Medium tanks started at M2, M3 and M4, skipping M5 (a light tank) and M6 (the only heavy tank) to M7, then M27, then M26. Granted, if you account for T-numbers they do fit in spaces not filled by the mainline M-numbers, and presumably the M1 Abrams is the first US "Main Battle" tank (the M60A3 being the last Medium tank). Still doesn't explain how we got to M103 for heavy tanks, however.
The OSS suppressor is probably most radical change from traditional baffle design. They're pretty neat, and expensive. The gas is directed into a turbine like series of channels, then allowed to escape the suppressor. There is no back pressure, over gassing, and the unpleasant eye watering smells of traditional baffled suppressors. The turbine design keep the suppressor tight and will not vibrate loose under recoil due to the rotational forces of the directed gasses. As such eliminates the issue with thread on, or needing locking collars
I really loved to get to meet you and Karl at Varusteleka, but I do have to say I was slightly disappointed with how crowded it got for exactly the reasons you mentioned here. I don't suppose there's a chance for another, smaller, purely Patreon announced one while you're still here? Any plans on coming back?
Czechpoint does a "Liberty" series of rifles that are fixed mags and stripper clip fed, as well as a single stack mag version of the 5.56 vz58. Those might be good options for those in restrictive states that want a more comfortable gun, but still in a smaller caliber.
Awesome run mate and damned good answers as ever. I might have to join on the EM2 as my unicorn. The more I look into them, the more i just want to own one.
Me to as a American I hate that we made NATO adopt 308/ 7.62x51 instead of 280british putting NATO 20years behind Russia and the 7.62x39mm. 280 would have been everything the 223/556 just isn't
Regarding suppressors the OSS Helix doesn't use a traditional baffle system like most manufacturers use right now but instead a multi-layer core inspired by the flow of gasses inside a jet engine. This is a significant departure so while the market doesn't show it as revolutionary (other companies aren't copying it or going out of business) it's certainly different and they tout significant advantages over traditional designs with the downside being it's significantly more difficult and expensive to produce. Some companies are also experimenting with using different materials and while that is usually for durability (titanium and Inconel are popular) some of them end up with interesting side effects in sound suppression results. I am interested to see if advancements in material science lead to a sudden shift in the suppressor market.
Regarding the Austro-Prussian war and the Battle of Königratz (Hradec Králové in todays Czech Republic): the problem was not just the rifle, but the use thereof - Lorenz rifles were capable of quite accurate fire up to 400m, whereas Dreyses wouldnt do past 200m. However, the Austrian army manual was to march in formation and hold fire, up until the formation made it within 100m of the enemy and then volley-fire into the enemy and continue to do so, or engage in bayonet charge. The Prussians however did use the Dreyse in a tactic that might seem too modern: they took positions lying down (that was allowed by the Dreyse action, because you cant just LOAD a muzzle loader while prone) at the edges of small forrests and fired as fast as possible into the advancing Austrain block formations. If forced out of the edge, the Prussians retreated deeper into the forest, where the advantages of faster fire rate and prone-loadable Dreyse took hold. If interrested, I may try to dig out the literature I took this info from.
On the subject of blowback spring weight, don't you sort of need a certain amount of mass at the breechblock regardless of the weight of the recoil spring? As I understand it, there's a period during the pressure curve where the spring is essentially irrelevant and the recoiling mass is the only thing slowing the case head's acceleration. Short of having a spring so strong that the weapon can't cycle to begin with, no amount of spring tension is going to prevent a case head separation if your breechblock simply isn't massive enough. The only way you can really work around this is with API or a delaying mechanism.
Regarding smaller vs larger caliber: Could it not be that the larger powers were early adopters of smokeless powder, and were hesitant to go as far down in caliber relative to the black powder cartridges. The smaller powers adopted smokeless a bit later and could draw advantage of more information on the advantage of having larger velocity. Then finally the trend reversed again as more emphasis was placed on long range shooting in the wake of the boer war and introduction of machine guns.
About the 6.5mm/7.62/8mm small country vs big country thing, I wonder about the effect of smaller countries having a preference for lighter ammunition, since they'd want to spend less per shipped amount of ammunition, given the same effectiveness, especially bearing in mind that a smaller country/military is going to have to have it shipped TO them and then TO the area of conflict again after that. When you're compounding multiple layers of expense like this, minimizing them and saving what you can does tend to add up, and while I'm not aware of any records to this effect, this is at least a hypothesis I have that could be verified if those records were available.
Hypothesis, Smaller countries adopted 6.5mm rather than the 8mm of larger powers for considerations that prize defense over offense. The greater range and lower armor penetration of the small high velocity rounds are better suited to manning fortifications than breaching them.
In the 1920's what would become the M1 Garand was experimented in a caliber around .256 to .280 that was proving out quite successful and offered 2 extra rounds in the magazine capacity.... BTW, I got the original heads up to this on "Forgotten Weapons" as well as a few others, but I started with Ian's channel.... But from what I understand, the decision to stay with the 30-06 Cartridge was due to a decision and order by General Mcarthur who ordered the self loading rifle project be set in 30-06 call. because the United States had such a large supply of it left over from WWI .... So all further development would be in the 30-06 for all entries to the competition for the new rifle...
Ian--some informatin about your backgroun d would be useful! I like your presentatinos, and with Paul Harrell's instructional videos and comparisons of various items are very good together--the old, and the new.
Ma dude! You should throw in some B-roll and pictures on these QA videos. I find myself quite curious about some of the things you reference (280/30 british, Howell, etc.) I think pictures would be quite complementary to your (already quite entertaining) videos. Just a thought.
53:53 I've always wondered why the hell water cooled MGs aren't still on vehicles, especially something like the coaxial MF of a tank or IFV. I haven't thought of a good reason yet.
In modern vehicular warfare, there's a lot of shoot and scooting, long periods of time spent waiting around, and limited amounts of ammunition onboard. Water-cooled guns are in their prime in a situation like WWI, where they are expected to stay stationary, have access to large amounts of ammunition, and require near-infinite continuous fire capability.
Hey Ian, In reference to James question about different rifle technologies being the predominant reason for a victory....On "The Great War" Indy mentioned a battle a couple of months ago. DON'T take the next part as gospel, it's from memory... "...the Turkish (?) soldiers held off the attacking Anzacs (?) by using the bolt action rifles for long distance shooting but then switched to lever action repeating rifles (Winchester?) when the enemy troops got closer. The high volume of fire stopped all attacks against their front. The attacking force and their bolt action rifles were overwhelmed by the less powerful but more numerous Turkish fire..." I'm pretty sure this is NOT Galipoli....but it was an amphibious action in the same area.
AFAIR, it was about Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78. Specifically, the Siege of Plevna. I think in this case the big role was played by the persistence of the Turkish troops and the mistakes of the Russian command, rather than the presence of rapid-fire rifles
The italians went with 6.5mm ammo after their hummiliating defeat at the Battle of Adwa in 1896. The primary cause of Italy's defeat in said battle was that they ran out of ammo. Therefore, the italian High-command was trying to give their troops as much amo as possible (although that wasn't necessary, as the italian defeat was not in small part, due to them beeing severly outnumbered..) With 6.5mm ammo instead of 7-8mm caliber, the troops CAN carry substantially more ammunition, and as a benefit, the Caracano rifles thus had a magazine capacity of 6 rounds.
There have been some modern changes applied to suppressors/silencers mainly redesigning internal baffling etc to absorb more of the sound but no major improvements otherwise that I can see would be interesting to see like a foamed baffle or something like that to try reduce sound further.
