I disagree about all 8 steps being performed: as he points out, the M3 "Grease Gun" is simpler in that it doesn't lock or unlock, as it's blowback (with bolt weight holding it in place long enough).
@@goldenace10.9 in the era that this video was released (WWII, I know I saw an M1 carbine so no earlier than 42) there were still a wide number of combat arms that were blowback: Thompson, grease gun, Mp38, Mp40, Sten, etc. Plus a bunch of blowback handguns... it wasn't really until the last couple decades that blowback became uncommon aside from low end stuff.
@@totensiebush ... as you said, it is the weight of the bolt that "lock" and "unlock" these SMGs. That is the reason why SMGs use pistol cartridge instead of full rifle or even intermediate cartridge. The weight of the bolt would never properly "lock" while using it's own weight against such powerful cartridges. Unless you have incredibly large and heavy, thus impractical bolt. But those 8 steps are still there. They are just performed by different means. 😀
Blowback guns with inertial "locking" are dealt with half way through the second video of this series. The writers of this series seem to think - and I agree - that non-mechanical "lockup" is a valid form of lockup for both functional and historical reasons. Functionally, the purpose of locking the bolt is to keep the breach closed enough long enough for the bullet to escape the muzzle, so power isn't lost and so hot gasses don't hit the user in the face when the breach is opened. If you can achieve that result in a blowback system through clever use of bolt inertia, barrel length, bullet velocity, spring stiffness and other such cycle time factors - and no mechanical lockup - then good for you. Since you've met the functional goal of keeping hot gas from coming out the rear of the gun until after the bullet has left the muzzle, we can call an inertia system a form of lockup. And historically, blowback systems - though seemingly simpler than mechanically locked systems - are basically developmentally later than mechanically locked systems - the toggle-locked Broomhandle Mauser gained popularity before Browning brought to market blowback vest-pocket pistols several years later; you don't see militarily significant blowback guns until the SMGs used in WW2, while you see mechanically locked breach loading military rifles going all the way back to the Trapdoor Springfield in the 1870s. So if you look at things from an evolutionary perspective, treating lockup as a distinct and fundamental step in the firing cycle makes sense, and then you view blowback designs as an evolved simplification that can really only happen once the rest of you system has evolved to the point where semi or fully automatic fire (which blowback action supports) is otherwise possible.
![Why Won't the Ruger Mini-14 Just Die? [Part 1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EzyGl_w-IXg/mqdefault.jpg)
Very informative.
Sir please make a video on acquiring gun licence for sports shooting.
License? LICENSE? You don't need a license. Do what you will and to hell with the rest.
I disagree about all 8 steps being performed: as he points out, the M3 "Grease Gun" is simpler in that it doesn't lock or unlock, as it's blowback (with bolt weight holding it in place long enough).
Great observation, but isn't it the evolution of guns? This I think was the basic for further developments
@@goldenace10.9 in the era that this video was released (WWII, I know I saw an M1 carbine so no earlier than 42) there were still a wide number of combat arms that were blowback: Thompson, grease gun, Mp38, Mp40, Sten, etc. Plus a bunch of blowback handguns...
it wasn't really until the last couple decades that blowback became uncommon aside from low end stuff.
@@totensiebush ... as you said, it is the weight of the bolt that "lock" and "unlock" these SMGs. That is the reason why SMGs use pistol cartridge instead of full rifle or even intermediate cartridge. The weight of the bolt would never properly "lock" while using it's own weight against such powerful cartridges. Unless you have incredibly large and heavy, thus impractical bolt.
But those 8 steps are still there. They are just performed by different means. 😀
Blowback guns with inertial "locking" are dealt with half way through the second video of this series.
The writers of this series seem to think - and I agree - that non-mechanical "lockup" is a valid form of lockup for both functional and historical reasons.
Functionally, the purpose of locking the bolt is to keep the breach closed enough long enough for the bullet to escape the muzzle, so power isn't lost and so hot gasses don't hit the user in the face when the breach is opened. If you can achieve that result in a blowback system through clever use of bolt inertia, barrel length, bullet velocity, spring stiffness and other such cycle time factors - and no mechanical lockup - then good for you. Since you've met the functional goal of keeping hot gas from coming out the rear of the gun until after the bullet has left the muzzle, we can call an inertia system a form of lockup.
And historically, blowback systems - though seemingly simpler than mechanically locked systems - are basically developmentally later than mechanically locked systems - the toggle-locked Broomhandle Mauser gained popularity before Browning brought to market blowback vest-pocket pistols several years later; you don't see militarily significant blowback guns until the SMGs used in WW2, while you see mechanically locked breach loading military rifles going all the way back to the Trapdoor Springfield in the 1870s. So if you look at things from an evolutionary perspective, treating lockup as a distinct and fundamental step in the firing cycle makes sense, and then you view blowback designs as an evolved simplification that can really only happen once the rest of you system has evolved to the point where semi or fully automatic fire (which blowback action supports) is otherwise possible.
Shutup