I bought a Peruvian 1891 carbine from a very well known auction company that couldn't identify it. It has mismatched numbers and no visible markings other than a stamp on the barrel indicating it was made in Belgium. It took a while to figure out what I had, still no clue what it's worth but it is a once in a long time find. Info is scarce. Glad to finally see these videos, as I have been an Argentine(and surrounding countries) Mauser collector for several years. Great work, almost wish my gun was in the video lol.
Peruvian government contracted FN for replacement 7.65 barrels too, apparently later than the SIG contract. They are observed in the 1909s and a few '91 short rifles. Haven't seen one of those in a long rifle upgraded '91 so far. Most upgraded '91s with the SIG barrels were apparently stored or seldom used since regardless of external condition, bores are usually find in great condition. Only images I've seen of those firearms being deployed were to firemen departments (To be used in case of a natural disaster or dire need), some police units and Air Force infantry.
Thanks for yet another great episode. I picked up a sporterized 1891 carbine that has the Spanish crest a bunch of years ago at a local auction for very little money. Whoever owned it previously had done the following. The stock is a replacement with a pistol grip, cheek piece, and inlet Winchester style butt plate. The protective ears had been ground off the front sight. The original rear sight was removed and replaced by a pretty cool Lyman peep that mounts to the bolt release. When I saw it I knew nothing about them other than it was a neat little sporterized early Mauser that felt REALLY good in the hand. When it came up in the auction the reason I got it for what I did was I believe due to nobody wanting a sporterized Mauser so I got lucky.
Still the best gun history/gun lover channel on TH-cam I'm so glad you guys keep the show going I've enjoyed your videos multiple times now and can't ever get enough of this channel
Just bought an Argentine 1891 Engineer Carbine (the one modified by HAFDASA). HAFDASA also produced a “clone” of the 1911 pistol, based on the Spanish Star design (also have that one). Waiting for the Steyr 1895 to arrive this week and to take both of them to range!
Thanks for this episode. I have an engineer carbine that I love along with a couple others, especially since my maternal family is from native Argentina. Any recommendations for downloaded 7.65 Argentine ammunition? Are there any custom loaders that would produce a few hundred rounds? Thanks again.
No kidding, I was about to comment about a 4 inch group, at 70 yards, standing, with iron sights is pretty gd legit. I could hardly do it with my modern scoped rifle.
@@yesthecrumbs5806 My favourite thing about "carbine" is it's a _relative_ term. It just means a rifle that's shorter than a "standard" rifle, and the overall historical trend is rifles getting shorter and shorter. The M1 Carbine has an 18.5" barrel, which is "full size" by modern standards. Hell, the "cavalry carbine" pattern of the Brown Bess musket had a 26" barrel!
I have one of these 1891s "engineer" carbine with the bayonet, it is so tight it barely fits, but I never bothered on why untill today, thanks! Oh and despite the crummy barrel on mine, it's surprisingly accurate up til 100 m with ppu and 6 o clock hold...
Regarding the rear sight locking in fold-down position (Minute 5:04), the one in the rifle does the same at least in the original round nose ball configuration if while pressing the single button you push the graduation slide all the way forward into the rectangular lug in the base.
The very first centerfire rifle I purchased. Back then it was known mainly as "The Little Mule"/"The Mule" because it "kicked like a mule". It made for a great close cover deer and hog gun, and I wish I still had it.
Yeah it's a kicker, not on the level of a jungle carbine, spanish Fr8, or swedish m94 but still a nice punch in the shoulder, makes 7,65 arg feels like 270 sometimes....
Observation: Is it common for vintage gun owners to white-wax the serials? Seems like that isn't how it came from the factory, no? Oh and Ballistol is amazing...and is stinks too!
It’s mostly up to the preference of the owner. I personally use white wax or chalk to fill in the markings because it makes marking more visible. But no, they would not have left the factory that way.
You are correct that it is not how they were issued, however since it is collectors and not the military using these rifles now, some liberties are taken to make things more usable (or legible in this case)
39:00 as a proud owner of one of the peruvian 1891/God only knows carbines, i can tell you that they do not shoot well at all. However, all of the ones ive seen are significantly higher quality than the long rifles.
Mae is indeed deadly! If she was alive in WWI, disguised herself as a boy/man and joined the military (in similar fashion to the occasional woman of the American Civil War), she’d have been the kind of soldier you didn’t want on your adversary’s army, but would definitely want on your side! That girl can shoot better than many people out there!
When my Swiss Banker returns my calls, I shall keep you in mind. Appreciate the work ! Jes trying to keep mice-elf alive, at this point Thanks dir keeping what's left of my brain alive .
I don't know what it is but these like true "full stock" guns just look so sexy. I wish the Sako full stock Bavarian was still made so I could own something like this.
Excellent job once again! You have covered every obscure rifles I happen to have (Winchester 1905 and kropatschek rifle). But couldn't, wouldn't, you do one of your deep dives on the 6mm Lee Navy? Surely at least a few rounds were fired from these during WW1. Maybe from the decks of a merchant marine vessel!
The I/J thing is weird because Latin originally only had i, and you were supposed to know when j was meant from context, as with u/v. The German language ended up using j for the English y sound, but sometimes it was (is?) also used for a vowel that makes more sense to write as i.
Wonderful episode! Not surprised to hear you say the Argentine rifles tend toward collector blind spot… some of us have been hiding in here for a little bit… 😂 That is the tightest grouping I recall, ever.. from May… NICE! “La Mulita” I have heard it called… The Mule… It kicks.
That "SJG" marking on the barrel has me wondering... Would it be possible to check to see if SIG has any record of those barrels? Maybe someone said they were buying barrels from SIG and actually bought cheaper ones from someone else and pocketed the money?
@@51WCDodge Could you please elaborate on the IWM situation? I know that they have a good collection which is rather poorly catalogued, at least online, and they were once considered quite seriously.
The place was closed for two years or so and had some £21,000,000 spent. On the opening day, which I attended, no more library, exhibits dotted about with no information plates. a lot of open space. When I remarked on this to someone who worked there, I was told' Our prime purpose now is as a venue for buissness'. The money is the thing.
May is tougher than I, I hate the recoil on the carbine. I prefer the rifles in every way. The only complaint about the long rifle is getting cased to fit
Found a (sadly sporterized) mauser 1891, im paying it off over the next few months and by the time i turn 18 ill have payed it off and will be able to own it lol. Not sure if its a rifle or carbine, ill look into it more when i own it
This looks like a Mexcan M1893 Pieper carbine. Its handgun cousin was discussed in the Romanian M1915 revolver video, being as it was its distant progenitor.
@@johnjulson2563 Cheers! Also, I've just remembered that it might've been shown to some extent in the 1895 Nagant video, because it was its main competitor in the Russian trials.
Othais talking about the short handguard making sense because you aren't going to use a bayonet prompts the question: since that's the case (and the cav isn't doing rifle drill) what was the idea behind running the stock out to the muzzle?
@@Justice-ian Modern bolt-action rifles are rarely designed around weight limitations, unlike these cavalry carbines. Modern bolt-action rifles are typically heavier than short rifles of the past for the same barrel length and with less furniture. When weight is of lesser concern, one is free to increase the thickness of the barrel (thus limiting the scope of detrimental impacts upon the barrel harmonics), which can thus be made lightly bedded or entirely free-floating (as with chassis construction).
@@F1ghteR41 Modern manufacturers, building for paying customers with lots of choices, are much more likely to care about weight limitations / build ultralight rifles than in the era when end-users had to take whatever they were issued. You wrote as if absurd turn-of-the-century assumptions were immutable laws or requirements.
@@Justice-ian Modern manufacturers can also use light alloys and polymers, which weren't available back then, to save weight. Besides, custom-made rifles aren't exactly the majority of what's being designed and sold these days, and so was the case back in the day. Nor are these 'ultralights' expected to be carried as service rifles, withstanding all the rigors of combat. The service bolt-action rifle of the past 40 or so years, meanwhile, is a sniper rifle, which can weigh as much as 1.5 times more than a bolt-action service rifle of old with comparable barrel length. And no, the issues of bedding aren't some absurd assumptions, you're just ingorant of physics of the matter. Go watch Rifles 101 video, than maybe check out an old BotR video on No.4 forend stocking-up, then come back, and don't forget to grab a bunch of data to back up your words.
What if the US had adopted 7.65x53mm cartridge instead of the .30-06 (7.62x63mm)? By already having a relatively compact cartridge for MGs would there have been less motivation to develop and adopt the 7.62x51mm NATO and therefore earlier development and adoption of a true intermediate NATO cartridge? Could the US have successfully converted the MG42 (T24) to the 7.65x53mm cartridge during WW2?
The opposition towards intermediate cartridges in the US was (and maybe still is, given the -NSFW- NGSW program) doctrinal, not technical, as can be seen in comparison with the British attitude in Matthew Ford's PhD thesis on British rifle development ('The British Army and the Politics of Rifle Development, 1880 to 1986', available online). As for the 7.65×53 mm cartridge, I'm not sure that it would fit the bill for desirable ballistics for long-range machinegun fire. While spitzer 7.65 loading had heavier and faster bullet than the US M1906, giving it ~150 J more energy (it took a fair bit more time to develop though, as far as I get it), .30-06 had greater case capacity. So when boattail bullets were developed for both cartridges, tables were turned: for almost the same bullet weight M1 cartridge developed more than 80 m/s higher muzzle velocity, giving it a massive 670 J advantage in muzzle energy and much flatter trajectory. Given that the US military couldn't forsee the development of modern mortars and the role they would play in future conflicts, as was the case with almost any other military in the world, including the French who pioneered the mortar mine technology in the late '20s, it's reasonable to assume that 7.65×53 mm would be seen at the time with as much contempt as .30-40 was in the early XX century due to its lacklustre long-range potential. It might be argued that a re-evaluation of the M1921 HMG (at that time an anti-armour and possibly air defense weapon) and its .50 BMG cartridge for the long-range role might've been an alternative, but I suspect it would be a very costly one for the time. As for the conversion of the MG42 to the 7.65×53 mm, it would be pretty much the same as with the .30-06: both cartridges differ in both overall length and rim diameter when compared with the 7.92×57.
@@F1ghteR41 I think the 7.65x53mm is good enough for long range MG fire. In performance and bullet mass it's quite similar to .303 British which is generally considered as sufficient for any MG use. The Belgian military in the 1920s and 1930s did not see any reason to replace the 7.65 cartridge as their medium MG cartridge. As for converting the MG42 it would've been much easier with the 7.65 cartridge as it's case was shorter (53mm) than the 7.92 Mauser cartridge case (57mm) unlike the .30-06 which had a longer 63mm case. There was not enough space on the MG42 receiver to cut a ejection port long enough for the .30-06 cartridge and that's the reason why the T24 project failed.
@@hendriktonisson2915 The thing is, .303 Mk VII wasn't seen as a good enough round for MG role, hence why Mk VIIIz appeared, which was roughly 50 m/s faster than a boattail 7.65×53, with a slightly heavier bullet, resulting in ~469 J greater muzzle energy. Also, while the Belgians didn't see any need to switch to a ballistically superior cartridge, it wasn't the case for others. E.g. Turkey went to great lengths to convert their arsenal to 7.92×57 in the same period. As far as I'm aware, the ejection port is cut to the overall lenght of the cartridge (and with some room to spare over that), and in this regard .30-06 is only 3 mm longer than 7.92×57 despite having a 6 mm longer case. So this wouldn't be such a difficult task per se. And both with 7.65×53 & .30-06 you'd have to work with the bolt face and extractor, because both rounds have wider rims than 7.92×57, and then you'd have to tune the whole mechanism for the different cartridge, as was done with various 7.62×51 conversions later.
@@F1ghteR41 The reason why the .303 Mk VIIIz was adopted was not because of the Mk VII being not sufficient enough during WW1. The thinking was rather: "Can we make it even better?" During the interwar years the US and France also improved their cartridges in use by adopting bullet designs similar to the Swiss 7.5mm GP11 cartridge. The other version of the story why the MG42 conversion to .30-06 failed is that the engineers just forgot to lengthen the ejection port for the .30-06 which I find rather unlikely. It seems more plausible that they could not lengthen the ejection port either because it would've made the receiver too fragile or because there was not enough receiver to work with and as it required too much work in the middle of a war to make the MG42 work reliably with the .30-06 the project was cancelled.
@@hendriktonisson2915 The British just didn't have the funds at the time to make things even better. Thus they stuck with revolvers and didn't pay enough attention to the development of SMGs & semiauto rifles. Likewise bolt-action rifle development was stopped as soon as it progressed past iterative improvement over No. 1 rifle. The pressing matters, like an actually portable LMG, an anti-tank rifle or an infantry mortar, however, were all funded properly in the '30s, and I think Mk VIIIz falls in the same category. Basically, it was all about improving of the support arms. In regards to the T24 project, I'd like to remind you that the ejction port needs to be able to extract the round in case of failure to fire or any other reason to unload the gun, so given the overall lenght difference was only 3 mm, the conversion team might've considered .30-06 to be fitting within existing tolerances of the ejection port. In doing so they might have misjudged the trajectory of the case being extracted with a very high rate of fire, which MG.42 is infamous for. In my humble opinion, one shouldn't find it terribly surprising, considering the following development history of the M60.
I'm finally here early! Thank you for your excellent work Othais and May.
Thanks
Thanks!
I would actually watch an entire Primer style episode about Ballistol.
Perhaps a episode 250 or 300 special? 200 being way to close probably.
Would be pretty interesting.
I bought a Peruvian 1891 carbine from a very well known auction company that couldn't identify it. It has mismatched numbers and no visible markings other than a stamp on the barrel indicating it was made in Belgium. It took a while to figure out what I had, still no clue what it's worth but it is a once in a long time find. Info is scarce. Glad to finally see these videos, as I have been an Argentine(and surrounding countries) Mauser collector for several years. Great work, almost wish my gun was in the video lol.
Peruvian government contracted FN for replacement 7.65 barrels too, apparently later than the SIG contract. They are observed in the 1909s and a few '91 short rifles. Haven't seen one of those in a long rifle upgraded '91 so far.
Most upgraded '91s with the SIG barrels were apparently stored or seldom used since regardless of external condition, bores are usually find in great condition. Only images I've seen of those firearms being deployed were to firemen departments (To be used in case of a natural disaster or dire need), some police units and Air Force infantry.
🤠Thanks!
Thanks for yet another great episode. I picked up a sporterized 1891 carbine that has the Spanish crest a bunch of years ago at a local auction for very little money. Whoever owned it previously had done the following. The stock is a replacement with a pistol grip, cheek piece, and inlet Winchester style butt plate. The protective ears had been ground off the front sight. The original rear sight was removed and replaced by a pretty cool Lyman peep that mounts to the bolt release.
When I saw it I knew nothing about them other than it was a neat little sporterized early Mauser that felt REALLY good in the hand. When it came up in the auction the reason I got it for what I did was I believe due to nobody wanting a sporterized Mauser so I got lucky.
Delivering a great episode as always the day after Crimmas. Thank you guys so much and have a happy new year!
Still the best gun history/gun lover channel on TH-cam I'm so glad you guys keep the show going I've enjoyed your videos multiple times now and can't ever get enough of this channel
My favorite site, exactly for the amount of hard work the entire squad puts in for the episodes!
Thank you and Merry Christmas!
Just bought an Argentine 1891 Engineer Carbine (the one modified by HAFDASA). HAFDASA also produced a “clone” of the 1911 pistol, based on the Spanish Star design (also have that one).
Waiting for the Steyr 1895 to arrive this week and to take both of them to range!
oh this is why the internet is cool! Does that company have a web page(did a small google search)
Is that the Ballester-Molina, or am I mixing up my M1911 clones?
@@Tunkkis It's probably a Ballester Molina but it might also be the Sistema Colt 1927 copy of the M1911A1.
thank you to the whole crew for putting together yet another wonderful episode.
Merry Christmas C&Rsenal, thanks for the holiday video
Thanks for this episode. I have an engineer carbine that I love along with a couple others, especially since my maternal family is from native Argentina. Any recommendations for downloaded 7.65 Argentine ammunition? Are there any custom loaders that would produce a few hundred rounds? Thanks again.
Sadly, regulation changes on ammo sales put a lot of small hand loaders out of the business. It's mostly bigger companies now.
Such a beautiful rifle! Awesome grouping too!
No kidding, I was about to comment about a 4 inch group, at 70 yards, standing, with iron sights is pretty gd legit. I could hardly do it with my modern scoped rifle.
aCtUAlLy iTs A cArbInE
@@yesthecrumbs5806 My favourite thing about "carbine" is it's a _relative_ term. It just means a rifle that's shorter than a "standard" rifle, and the overall historical trend is rifles getting shorter and shorter.
The M1 Carbine has an 18.5" barrel, which is "full size" by modern standards. Hell, the "cavalry carbine" pattern of the Brown Bess musket had a 26" barrel!
Merry Christmas C&Rsenal fam!
Excellent work again ❤
I have one of these 1891s "engineer" carbine with the bayonet, it is so tight it barely fits, but I never bothered on why untill today, thanks!
Oh and despite the crummy barrel on mine, it's surprisingly accurate up til 100 m with ppu and 6 o clock hold...
Regarding the rear sight locking in fold-down position (Minute 5:04), the one in the rifle does the same at least in the original round nose ball configuration if while pressing the single button you push the graduation slide all the way forward into the rectangular lug in the base.
The very first centerfire rifle I purchased. Back then it was known mainly as "The Little Mule"/"The Mule" because it "kicked like a mule". It made for a great close cover deer and hog gun, and I wish I still had it.
Yeah it's a kicker, not on the level of a jungle carbine, spanish Fr8, or swedish m94 but still a nice punch in the shoulder, makes 7,65 arg feels like 270 sometimes....
One of the best shows that ive binged
Thanks for another great episode! The Mauser episodes are my favorite by far, followed by martini henrys!
Thank you Othais and Mae!🎉🎉🎉🎉 Happy New Year 🎊🎆🎈!
The quality of steel and workmanship is unsurpassed. And they are antiques
Observation: Is it common for vintage gun owners to white-wax the serials? Seems like that isn't how it came from the factory, no? Oh and Ballistol is amazing...and is stinks too!
It’s mostly up to the preference of the owner. I personally use white wax or chalk to fill in the markings because it makes marking more visible. But no, they would not have left the factory that way.
Highlighting the markings in white was done so they could be better seen in B&W photography and it just stuck.
Chalk can also be used to highlight serial numbers. Not really needed today unless you have a very light stamped number.
You are correct that it is not how they were issued, however since it is collectors and not the military using these rifles now, some liberties are taken to make things more usable (or legible in this case)
39:00 as a proud owner of one of the peruvian 1891/God only knows carbines, i can tell you that they do not shoot well at all. However, all of the ones ive seen are significantly higher quality than the long rifles.
Congratulations. Half a million subscribers 🌮🍺
Almost 500k. So excited
Happy Crimmas y'all. Thank you for continuing to push the bounds of firearms history.
I don't want Mae to be shooting at me...
Mae is indeed deadly!
If she was alive in WWI, disguised herself as a boy/man and joined the military (in similar fashion to the occasional woman of the American Civil War), she’d have been the kind of soldier you didn’t want on your adversary’s army, but would definitely want on your side!
That girl can shoot better than many people out there!
Beautiful rifle and an excellent shooter!
I love your channel. I am enjoying my tshirts too! Thanks for showing these fine firearms to us.
Mauser Mulita (Mauser little mule). Called this way because it kicks like a mule.
When my Swiss Banker returns my calls, I shall keep you in mind. Appreciate the work ! Jes trying to keep mice-elf alive, at this point Thanks dir keeping what's left of my brain alive .
Marry Christmas to all the C&Rsenal crew.
An absolutely awesome gun. For such a small platform, this has a fairly soft recoil (in my experience using one for deer hunting as a teenager)
I don't know what it is but these like true "full stock" guns just look so sexy. I wish the Sako full stock Bavarian was still made so I could own something like this.
The sound of cello’s, a good day begins even if utube doesn’t want you to see it
What a lovely little carbine, can't help staring at the Pieper and Gahendra on the wall though...
Proudly wearing my Othias patch. Anyone who inquires, is sent to TH-cam!
Your show is incredible. I’d be happy to contribute.
Excellent job once again! You have covered every obscure rifles I happen to have (Winchester 1905 and kropatschek rifle). But couldn't, wouldn't, you do one of your deep dives on the 6mm Lee Navy? Surely at least a few rounds were fired from these during WW1. Maybe from the decks of a merchant marine vessel!
The I/J thing is weird because Latin originally only had i, and you were supposed to know when j was meant from context, as with u/v. The German language ended up using j for the English y sound, but sometimes it was (is?) also used for a vowel that makes more sense to write as i.
Mae is having more fun than anyone should be allowed. 😂
Going to be enjoying my latest Christmas gift video.❤
Wow 500 K subs ! Well done folks
Excellent research!
Great video thank you
Thanks for sharing
Peru keeping the Lange Vizier around was not something I was expecting.
Comment for the algorithm, love the show
Awesome thanks for the great education keep up the great work 👍
Wonderful episode! Not surprised to hear you say the Argentine rifles tend toward collector blind spot… some of us have been hiding in here for a little bit… 😂
That is the tightest grouping I recall, ever.. from May… NICE!
“La Mulita” I have heard it called… The Mule… It kicks.
Oh my god I love that Peruvian carbine at 38:35, there's something simultaneously cute and also hilarious about the way it looks :)
I think the reason we don't see the carbines sporterized is that they're basically already a hunting rifle.
Great video!
well its so short and adorable!
I like my 1891 but I have always wanted one of the carbines
I love y'all just a question wasn't there two 1891 carbines calvary and engineer??
Balistol sponsor is so cool love yall
Nice! Any ides when a Lee Metford carbine episode might come out?
I have a bayonet for the 1909 Peruvian, very well built S98 derivative!
Yes!!!! Was here at 79 views!
Very well done
That "SJG" marking on the barrel has me wondering...
Would it be possible to check to see if SIG has any record of those barrels? Maybe someone said they were buying barrels from SIG and actually bought cheaper ones from someone else and pocketed the money?
The next one is the Chilean Mauser. I can feel it in my bones!!
If you guys were UK based you would very likely get funding from the IWM and the lottery. You are as good as Jonathan at this.
Better than Jonathan, and IWM has become a joke.
@@51WCDodge Could you please elaborate on the IWM situation? I know that they have a good collection which is rather poorly catalogued, at least online, and they were once considered quite seriously.
The place was closed for two years or so and had some £21,000,000 spent. On the opening day, which I attended, no more library, exhibits dotted about with no information plates. a lot of open space. When I remarked on this to someone who worked there, I was told' Our prime purpose now is as a venue for buissness'. The money is the thing.
@@51WCDodge That is a sad state of affairs indeed. Thank you!
May is tougher than I, I hate the recoil on the carbine. I prefer the rifles in every way. The only complaint about the long rifle is getting cased to fit
First rifle you showed is called the Mae Special
Great work as always guys. Any chance at a trapdoor springfield vid in the future?
I have one of the engineer conversions. Defineatly an eye catcher with the bayonet on it.
8:17 mark... o~0 Sniper-Mae at work... ^~^
MUCHAAACHOOOS!
Можете сделать видео с винтовкой Федорова и винтовкой Шпитальски
Good luck finding those… especially the Federov… I highly doubt there are many of those in private ownership in the United States.
@@EuropeYear1917 жаль ну ничего поживём увидем
Found a (sadly sporterized) mauser 1891, im paying it off over the next few months and by the time i turn 18 ill have payed it off and will be able to own it lol. Not sure if its a rifle or carbine, ill look into it more when i own it
Merry Christmas to my 2nd favorite firearms channel! Sorry, but Gun Jesus takes priority!
Was there an engineers model? Mine has a barrel that is not as long as the full size rifle, but is longer than the carbine.
Very curious about the revolving rifle behind Mae. Future episode?
This looks like a Mexcan M1893 Pieper carbine. Its handgun cousin was discussed in the Romanian M1915 revolver video, being as it was its distant progenitor.
May is so far out of O’s league. Word to the big man for setting precedents for the rest of us. ✊🏽
Mae is indeed Bae…
" History of Weapons & War " App early gang .... reporting in
They're not on the app though.
HAFDASA being it low quality sure makes it sound halfassed it.
What is that Revolver Musket above Mays head?
It's a Mexican M1893 Pieper carbine. Its handgun cousin was discussed in the Romanian M1915 revolver video, being as it was its distant progenitor.
@@F1ghteR41 Thanks!
@@johnjulson2563 Cheers! Also, I've just remembered that it might've been shown to some extent in the 1895 Nagant video, because it was its main competitor in the Russian trials.
Do you plan to do an episode on the FN 1935 Peruvian rifles, in 30.06? I have one with an interesting story
Thats a nice short rifle.
Mae is working on her bruises with this Carbine.
Othais talking about the short handguard making sense because you aren't going to use a bayonet prompts the question: since that's the case (and the cav isn't doing rifle drill) what was the idea behind running the stock out to the muzzle?
Bedding of the barrel. Although, it has to be said, some cavalry carbines didn't have their stock reaching nowhere near the muzzle.
@@F1ghteR41 Right, some didn't (and none do today, including many much more accurate rifles), so was it just a theory / belief at the time?
@@Justice-ian Modern bolt-action rifles are rarely designed around weight limitations, unlike these cavalry carbines. Modern bolt-action rifles are typically heavier than short rifles of the past for the same barrel length and with less furniture. When weight is of lesser concern, one is free to increase the thickness of the barrel (thus limiting the scope of detrimental impacts upon the barrel harmonics), which can thus be made lightly bedded or entirely free-floating (as with chassis construction).
@@F1ghteR41 Modern manufacturers, building for paying customers with lots of choices, are much more likely to care about weight limitations / build ultralight rifles than in the era when end-users had to take whatever they were issued. You wrote as if absurd turn-of-the-century assumptions were immutable laws or requirements.
@@Justice-ian Modern manufacturers can also use light alloys and polymers, which weren't available back then, to save weight. Besides, custom-made rifles aren't exactly the majority of what's being designed and sold these days, and so was the case back in the day. Nor are these 'ultralights' expected to be carried as service rifles, withstanding all the rigors of combat. The service bolt-action rifle of the past 40 or so years, meanwhile, is a sniper rifle, which can weigh as much as 1.5 times more than a bolt-action service rifle of old with comparable barrel length.
And no, the issues of bedding aren't some absurd assumptions, you're just ingorant of physics of the matter. Go watch Rifles 101 video, than maybe check out an old BotR video on No.4 forend stocking-up, then come back, and don't forget to grab a bunch of data to back up your words.
A 1911 Argentine Mauser was rechambered to .30-06, any word on this. Or should I wait to watch the whole show?
Woah
I'm waiting for the Argentine 1905 rifle. When and why did they paint it with crappy black paint that flakes off so badly?
Mine has a Belgian barrel. Is that unique?
Mae is one very deadly shot wonder how long she been shooting guns
She’s a Southern Girl… probably most of her life.
I'm going to be late for work!
Happy boxing day
Compared to the standard gun, it looks so cute!
Did Mae get a new chair?
Mine has the most beautiful tiger striped stock …
What if the US had adopted 7.65x53mm cartridge instead of the .30-06 (7.62x63mm)? By already having a relatively compact cartridge for MGs would there have been less motivation to develop and adopt the 7.62x51mm NATO and therefore earlier development and adoption of a true intermediate NATO cartridge? Could the US have successfully converted the MG42 (T24) to the 7.65x53mm cartridge during WW2?
The opposition towards intermediate cartridges in the US was (and maybe still is, given the -NSFW- NGSW program) doctrinal, not technical, as can be seen in comparison with the British attitude in Matthew Ford's PhD thesis on British rifle development ('The British Army and the Politics of Rifle Development, 1880 to 1986', available online).
As for the 7.65×53 mm cartridge, I'm not sure that it would fit the bill for desirable ballistics for long-range machinegun fire. While spitzer 7.65 loading had heavier and faster bullet than the US M1906, giving it ~150 J more energy (it took a fair bit more time to develop though, as far as I get it), .30-06 had greater case capacity. So when boattail bullets were developed for both cartridges, tables were turned: for almost the same bullet weight M1 cartridge developed more than 80 m/s higher muzzle velocity, giving it a massive 670 J advantage in muzzle energy and much flatter trajectory.
Given that the US military couldn't forsee the development of modern mortars and the role they would play in future conflicts, as was the case with almost any other military in the world, including the French who pioneered the mortar mine technology in the late '20s, it's reasonable to assume that 7.65×53 mm would be seen at the time with as much contempt as .30-40 was in the early XX century due to its lacklustre long-range potential. It might be argued that a re-evaluation of the M1921 HMG (at that time an anti-armour and possibly air defense weapon) and its .50 BMG cartridge for the long-range role might've been an alternative, but I suspect it would be a very costly one for the time.
As for the conversion of the MG42 to the 7.65×53 mm, it would be pretty much the same as with the .30-06: both cartridges differ in both overall length and rim diameter when compared with the 7.92×57.
@@F1ghteR41 I think the 7.65x53mm is good enough for long range MG fire. In performance and bullet mass it's quite similar to .303 British which is generally considered as sufficient for any MG use. The Belgian military in the 1920s and 1930s did not see any reason to replace the 7.65 cartridge as their medium MG cartridge. As for converting the MG42 it would've been much easier with the 7.65 cartridge as it's case was shorter (53mm) than the 7.92 Mauser cartridge case (57mm) unlike the .30-06 which had a longer 63mm case. There was not enough space on the MG42 receiver to cut a ejection port long enough for the .30-06 cartridge and that's the reason why the T24 project failed.
@@hendriktonisson2915 The thing is, .303 Mk VII wasn't seen as a good enough round for MG role, hence why Mk VIIIz appeared, which was roughly 50 m/s faster than a boattail 7.65×53, with a slightly heavier bullet, resulting in ~469 J greater muzzle energy. Also, while the Belgians didn't see any need to switch to a ballistically superior cartridge, it wasn't the case for others. E.g. Turkey went to great lengths to convert their arsenal to 7.92×57 in the same period.
As far as I'm aware, the ejection port is cut to the overall lenght of the cartridge (and with some room to spare over that), and in this regard .30-06 is only 3 mm longer than 7.92×57 despite having a 6 mm longer case. So this wouldn't be such a difficult task per se. And both with 7.65×53 & .30-06 you'd have to work with the bolt face and extractor, because both rounds have wider rims than 7.92×57, and then you'd have to tune the whole mechanism for the different cartridge, as was done with various 7.62×51 conversions later.
@@F1ghteR41 The reason why the .303 Mk VIIIz was adopted was not because of the Mk VII being not sufficient enough during WW1. The thinking was rather: "Can we make it even better?" During the interwar years the US and France also improved their cartridges in use by adopting bullet designs similar to the Swiss 7.5mm GP11 cartridge.
The other version of the story why the MG42 conversion to .30-06 failed is that the engineers just forgot to lengthen the ejection port for the .30-06 which I find rather unlikely. It seems more plausible that they could not lengthen the ejection port either because it would've made the receiver too fragile or because there was not enough receiver to work with and as it required too much work in the middle of a war to make the MG42 work reliably with the .30-06 the project was cancelled.
@@hendriktonisson2915 The British just didn't have the funds at the time to make things even better. Thus they stuck with revolvers and didn't pay enough attention to the development of SMGs & semiauto rifles. Likewise bolt-action rifle development was stopped as soon as it progressed past iterative improvement over No. 1 rifle. The pressing matters, like an actually portable LMG, an anti-tank rifle or an infantry mortar, however, were all funded properly in the '30s, and I think Mk VIIIz falls in the same category. Basically, it was all about improving of the support arms.
In regards to the T24 project, I'd like to remind you that the ejction port needs to be able to extract the round in case of failure to fire or any other reason to unload the gun, so given the overall lenght difference was only 3 mm, the conversion team might've considered .30-06 to be fitting within existing tolerances of the ejection port. In doing so they might have misjudged the trajectory of the case being extracted with a very high rate of fire, which MG.42 is infamous for. In my humble opinion, one shouldn't find it terribly surprising, considering the following development history of the M60.
Engagement :)
I love the carbines too ... I have a No. 5 Mk 1 (f) ,,, and a Polish Mosin-Nagant carbine made in 1955 and has a side folding bayonet