SVT40 vs. the derivative 555 Mohawk ... your thoughts

[steelgray]

Globe also sold slightly sported SVTs, with the barrel cut at the gas block with the front sight mounted there. You are assuming that they relegated the dogs for 555 conversion, but they also cut decent ones.

The ad shows that they were actively grading the guns and trying to sell the good-VG ones at $49 (and the select ones for more). It isn't much of a stretch to assume that it was mostly the rougher ones that got converted. Ditto, the cleaner ones with moderately sporterizing - consisting of "cutting off the barrel at the gas block with the front sight mounted there" could have been the ones - which were overall VG but were received by Globco with damaged barrels at the end (let's hope so).

Globco would also have been subject to the pressures of the market. If the unaltered guns were found to be not selling well but the sporterized one were selling well what do you do? At least you tried, right.

Any evidence to back up your theory that 555s that malfunction because of the use of corrosive .303 ball?
For the longest time the only NC 7.62x54R ammunition was Norma. Everything else was corrosive. Did SVTs develop widespread malfunctioning problems because of this?

Sure, everything was corrosive back in the day but, as noted people who owned 7.62x54R guns knew how to service it and had reason to clean the guns (like depended on it and didn't want to go to the gulag for mistreating equipment). The rules and circumstances were different for Bubba 555 Mohawk owners. Corrosion may make the gas system so it can't be adjusted. If the gas system was set for two much gas, it will never be reset to a lower setting and will always feature "violent extraction" If the gas system was set to low - before mistreatment - then this would made the gas system no longer adjustable and the the owner would then have complained about constant misfeeds.

 

[tiriaq]

I recall going past the Globe shop on St. Paul Street. In their yard, behind the chainlink fence, were stacks of rifle chests, and a mound, perhaps a half a cubic yard, of SVT muzzle units. Everything was out in the weather.
Did Globe ever advertise any unaltered SVTs in Canada?
Ever see one of the ones with the muzzle unit cut off and front sight mounted on the gas block? Some of these have been restored to issue appearance by installation of a replacement muzzle unit. Numrich used to sell these for a very reasonable price. I installed one on a .303 barrel; the muzzle brake effect was very effective.
As far as your .303 corrosion theory goes, I was referring to rifles used on this side of the ocean, whether 555s or SVTs.

 

[Hitzy]

I've seen other "conversions" Globe did, they were very much into sporterizing at the time. Nothing I've seen indicates they were a quality shop.
At least we have one fellow that will buy the Mohawks if anyone wants to unload them lol.

 

[steelgray]

If you are referring to me, nope. I'm neither buying or selling.

The are lots of cases where I have a gun I like but I wouldn't buy another. Less is more.

I do, in fact know where another Mohawk like mine is available - but no interest. That guy (who I do not know) seems to be asking $600. Obviously anybody can ask anything.

I bring it up only for reference - since someone earlier said that everybody selling 555 guns wants big money. I said otherwise. From what I've seen, a clean Mohawk goes for less that a common-type, clean SVT-40 - as should be the case, IMO.

snip ...At least we have one fellow that will buy the Mohawks if anyone wants to unload them lol.

 

[Hitzy]

If you are referring to me, nope. I'm neither buying or selling.

The are lots of cases where I have a gun I like but I wouldn't buy another. Less is more.

I do, in fact know where another Mohawk like mine is available - but no interest. That guy (who I do not know) seems to be asking $600. Obviously anybody can ask anything.

I bring it up only for reference - since someone earlier said that everybody selling 555 guns wants big money. I said otherwise. From what I've seen, a clean Mohawk goes for less that a common-type, clean SVT-40 - as should be the case, IMO.

The guy 2 posts above yours...
"have two 555's always looking to add more to the collection.. pm me lol"

 

[steelgray]

I am not a great fan of 303 British - even though the round has nothing to apologize for. As noted, IF I had the money, I would re-barrel my 555 Mohawk BACK to 7.62x54 but keep the cool sporter stock. I'd lengthen the gas system about 4" - to be the same length as the system on the SVT-40 carbines. It is a tribute to the design that all it takes is a longer or shorter op rod to allow for adjustments to the distance to the gas take-off point.

It would be nice to be able to feed the gun with standard SVT-40/ Mosin stripper clips. I'd have to change the dust cover on mine - since Globco modified these to delete part of the stripper guide.

If a person is wants to shoot 303 British these days, the answer is to reload. The great news is that it is a breeze to take "el cheapo" 7.62x39 steel case surplus ammo apart (preferably with a real bullet pullers rather than one of those kinetic bullet "pullers") and reuse the bullets and powder in new Priv Partzan brass cases - capped with non-corrosive primers.

The fast-ish 7.62x39 powder will get along well with the short-ish 555 Mohawk gas system. Others will tell you that the formula for reloading 7.62x39 components into 303 British brass involves adding a fraction more than one 7.62x39 powder load into each 303 British hull.

Here, the adjustable gas system of the SVT-40 gun is your friend. I haven't tried this but I'm guessing that you could get a 555 gun to feed 303 British rounds made from one AK boolet and a standard, mil-surp 7.62x39 power load, re-thrown into a 303 British case - as long as the gas system is opened-up all the way. Great from practicing off-hand shooting without a lot of recoil. Then, add more powder and add a soft point for you hunting load - after dialing the gas system up to down (i.e. smaller orifice).

This is not a trick you can't do with your SKS (sorry).

The adjustable gas system and short take-off point might even let you shoot semi-auto subsonic 303 British loads with, say, 220 gr boolets and trailboss. Great for saving your hearing while decisively taking-out even the toughest groundhog. See how much foresight those Globco guys had?

I've never had a Mohawk 555. That said, I've read too many times that headspace tends to be off on them.

Since 7.62x54R ammo was Unobtanium at the time, Globco apparently rethreaded Lee Enfield SMLE barrels to fit the actions. Thus the .303 calibre.

The issue I have is that the gas system is much closer to the chamber on these than was the case with the SVT...thus higher more pounding pressures.

A good gentleman on this forum sent me a couple of pics of the Globeco 555 gas system. Also shown is the SVT original system. Note the difference in length of barrel before gas takeoff.

Not to say that they weren't an ingenious conversion etc. snip

 

[7ECA]

There's one issue with using 7.62 x 39mm bullets as a reloading component in .303 British - the bullet diameter is undersized. .303 British in her natural form, has a .312 diameter bullet - and most Lee-Enfields very much appreciate .312 bullets.

Of course, some companies sell .303 British with undersized bullets; Wolf Performance Ammunition (WPA) comes to mind with their "Military Classic" product which comes with .308 diameter bullets. Now, some Lee-Enfields may have tight enough bores to accurately fire a .308 bullet - but others (or most, if you prefer) will keyhole WPA rather nicely.

 

[steelgray]

As far as a know, the British never fielded a semi-auto rifle in any significant numbers during WW2. Obviously, two of Britain's most important allies fielded a combo of bolt action and semi auto battle rifles - the US with the 1903 and M1 Garand and Soviets with the Mosin and SVT 38 and 40.

The Lee Enfield served Britain (and its former colony partners) well. HOWEVER Globco's shoestring budget efforts showed that it wasn't much of a stretch to modify the SVT-40 to shoot 303 British. Globco literally did it "to a price" without even making a single new part - just modifying existing ones.

I figure that if a real, military-funded development program had been launched during WW2, the Brits could have been armed with some military-quality 303 British SVT-patterned guns, long before the war ended.

I'm not saying 555 Mohawks. More like an SVT40 CARBINE clone - with say a 20" barrel - in 303 British; fed by standard British-issue L-E type 5 round stripper clips.

IMO such an imaginary gun could have been the best semi-auto battle rifle of WW2. Specifically, its shorter length/ better handling characteristics and use of a slightly less powerful/ lighter recoiling cartridge might have made it a better close quarters combat "CQB" rifle than the original.

Obviously, Russia had its hands full and production would have to be done in Britain or Canada, etc. (much as the production of the Browning HP had to be initiated at Inglis - after the Germans overran Belgium during WW2 or how the Americans pumped-out P14s for the Brits and P17s for themselves).

If an SVT carbine-variant, in 303 British, had been created - maybe manufactured in Canada - and issued in significant numbers to commonwealth troops, then that guy - General George S. Patton - might have had to refer to the M1 Garand as the SECOND greatest battle implement ever devised.

 

[tiriaq]

Are you aware of the semi auto rifle developed at SAL/Long Branch and tested in June 1944? It used a tipping breechblock and detachable box magazine.

 

[steelgray]

That is such a cool point. The problem is that the Small Arms Ltd. (SAL) SLR project - which I see commenced in 1944 took too long of a pathway. It eventually produced a gun - which came too late to the party. This is rather like the annihilator project of WW1 (which became the post WW1 Thompson).

The forgotten weapons article on this gun makes no reference to it being SVT-40 inspired. They just say "The British government was apparently interested in a self-loading rifle chambered for the 8mm Mauser cartridge (note that they were using the Czech vz37 machine gun, aka Besa, in 8mm). In response, SAL designed a rifle with a tilting bolt action along the lines of a Bren.". But the SLR 44 was obviously SVT inspired with the same tilting bolt, pass through in the back of the receiver for a cleaning rod etc.

By 46 they had a gun that was as light and easy to use as a my proposed 303 British chambered SVT-40 carbine derivative. See my comparative photo.

BTW note that the gas system on the SLR EX2 seem to be shorter than that of the SVT40 carbine and apparently about the same length as that of the 555 Mohawk - even though it uses the hotter T65 cartridge

My point is that the Globco example shows that a shorter pathway would have been available - where a gun using the existing 303 British cartridges and - I presume - existing Lee Enfield strippers could have been developed by the military in time to make a difference in the war.

Here the Brits (or perhaps we Canadians) fell into the trap which often ensnared the Germans - of going overboard on radical new development efforts when an evolution of something already developed would have made more logistical sense

Are you aware of the semi auto rifle developed at SAL/Long Branch and tested in June 1944? It used a tipping breechblock and detachable box magazine.

 

[M1-Garand]

Are you aware of the semi auto rifle developed at SAL/Long Branch and tested in June 1944? It used a tipping breechblock and detachable box magazine.

During the war Dieudonne Saive was also working in England on his SAFN49,but could not get all the bugs out of it,action very similar to SVT40,tilting bolt,gas operated.
Had the basic rifle almost complete but the wehrmacht overran Belgium so he had to flee to the UK to continue his work.

 

[tiriaq]

Given the Belgian connection, the SAL design was probably closer to the FN.
If you stop and think about it, the SVT, AG42 and FN designs all share common elements in the bolt/bolt carrier/receiver.

 

[tiriaq]

As far as a Canadian semi auto service rifle in .303 based on the SVT goes, did Uncle Joe share any Soviet military technology with his Western Allies? Were any Soviet weapon systems made available to the Western Allies for study and evaluation?

 

[steelgray]

This is really interesting. As far as I can tell, what you are exploring are the unwritten rules of diplomacy as they relate to copying other country's firearms designs.

From what I can see, the rules work such that if you want to copy your enemy's designs you can do that without their permission. Anything goes. I point to the example of the Lancaster - which was a total rip-off of the earlier German MP28. Later, the Germans returned the favor by producing the Potsdam - which was a copy of the Sten.

The Finns and Soviets used virtually identical firearms even though they were on opposite sides of the conflict. The drum on the PPSh was a copy of that developed by the Finns for the Suomi. Hitler's panzerfäust was a copy of the American's bazooka. The Galil is a loose copy of the AK47.

An exception to this anything-goes rule is the fact that the American 1903 was such a close copy of the Mauser bolt action that the Americans apparently had to pay royalties to the Germans for every 1903 that they produced - even while fighting against them in WW1.

As far as I can tell, the rules of diplomacy regarding copying somebody else's firearms design gets a bit more murky if the other party is one of your Allies. The T34 used some special suspension system that had been developed by the British but not adopted by them. Later, the jet engine in the MiG15 was a direct, unauthorized copy of a British expermental jet engine prototype - and some initial MiG15 planes actually used British built prototype engines - supplied to them for some reason.

I guess what is being sugested here is that - in the case of your Allies - it is politically correct to get their permission before copying their designs.

As tiriaq suggests, it is doubtful that Uncle Joe would have offered to share SVT-40 technology with the Brits and Americans - even at a time that they were delivering supplies and equipment to the Soviets. It can be suggested that Uncle Joe was suspicious of everyone and might have been concerned that any technology shared with his Allies might have ended-up benefiting his enemies.

Beyond this, it was clear that his strategy was to be the winner among winners at the end of the second world war. Helping Britain and America with his war-making technology - patterns for the T34, information about the Katyusha rocket launcher system, etc. could have helped Britain and America - and could have shortened the war - BUT could have left Britain and America in a better place when the maps of Europe were being redrawn in the post war period.

Further, if Russia had offered to help the British develop a 303 version of the SVT-40 one wonders if the British would have accepted. Churchill had his eccentricities and national pride might have been an issue. On the other hand, if the SVT-40 had been a German design, I can see the possibility that the British might have been more comfortable making a copy - in their caliber. Strange, but probably true.

As far as a Canadian semi auto service rifle in .303 based on the SVT goes, did Uncle Joe share any Soviet military technology with his Western Allies? Were any Soviet weapon systems made available to the Western Allies for study and evaluation?

 

[cyclone]

...

From what I can see, the rules work such that if you want to copy your enemy's designs you can do that without their permission. Anything goes. I point to the example of the Lancaster - which was a total rip-off of the earlier German MP18. Later, the Germans returned the favor by producing the Potsdam - which was a copy of the Sten.

Wasn't the Lanc a copy of the MP-28?...



Not a whole world of difference, I know, I know....

 

[SKS Bitten]

This is really interesting. As far as I can tell, what you are exploring are the unwritten rules of diplomacy as they relate to copying other country's firearms designs.

From what I can see, the rules work such that if you want to copy your enemy's designs you can do that without their permission. Anything goes. I point to the example of the Lancaster - which was a total rip-off of the earlier German MP28. Later, the Germans returned the favor by producing the Potsdam - which was a copy of the Sten.

The Finns and Soviets used virtually identical firearms even though they were on opposite sides of the conflict. The drum on the PPSh was a copy of that developed by the Finns for the Suomi. Hitler's panzerfäust was a copy of the American's bazooka. The Galil is a loose copy of the AK47.

An exception to this anything-goes rule is the fact that the American 1903 was such a close copy of the Mauser bolt action that the Americans apparently had to pay royalties to the Germans for every 1903 that they produced - even while fighting against them in WW1.

As far as I can tell, the rules of diplomacy regarding copying somebody else's firearms design gets a bit more murky if the other party is one of your Allies. The T34 used some special suspension system that had been developed by the British but not adopted by them. Later, the jet engine in the MiG15 was a direct, unauthorized copy of a British expermental jet engine prototype - and some initial MiG15 planes actually used British built prototype engines - supplied to them for some reason.

I guess what is being sugested here is that - in the case of your Allies - it is politically correct to get their permission before copying their designs.

As tiriaq suggests, it is doubtful that Uncle Joe would have offered to share SVT-40 technology with the Brits and Americans - even at a time that they were delivering supplies and equipment to the Soviets. It can be suggested that Uncle Joe was suspicious of everyone and might have been concerned that any technology shared with his Allies might have ended-up benefiting his enemies.

Beyond this, it was clear that his strategy was to be the winner among winners at the end of the second world war. Helping Britain and America with his war-making technology - patterns for the T34, information about the Katyusha rocket launcher system, etc. could have helped Britain and America - and could have shortened the war - BUT could have left Britain and America in a better place when the maps of Europe were being redrawn in the post war period.

Further, if Russia had offered to help the British develop a 303 version of the SVT-40 one wonders if the British would have accepted. Churchill had his eccentricities and national pride might have been an issue. On the other hand, if the SVT-40 had been a German design, I can see the possibility that the British might have been more comfortable making a copy - in their caliber. Strange, but probably true.

Thanks Steelgray, good read interesting...

 

[Hitzy]

Americans were already ahead the the USSR in small arms rifle development by WWII, they didn't have much need for commie designs.

 

[Horilka]

Actually they were not. Let's not confuse firearm development/design and manufacturing. First is product of qualified engineers available with county's demand and experience with firearm usage. Latter is product of resources - financial, manufacturing and material. Russia and then USSR had enough of population to have critical number of designers. They also had a lot of wars behind to understand what they need. Certain works of Fedorov, Tokarev and Simonov while not "world-wide" revolutionary , however were very mature and influenced a lot of other designs. Russia and then USSR were way behind in machinery, technologies, processes/management and did not have competitiveness of free market economy. This was imposing great limitation on what designers could offer and and what factories could manufacture. As an example I can mention SVT. It went through Model 38, Model 40 and only in 1944 factories were able to fully meet Tokarev's original quality requirements, and these requirement were already created based on limited manufacturing ability of Soviet factories.
As another example allow me to mention that USSR had AVS-36, then SVT-38 - all three with gas port, while US Garand project still had gas trap system. Germans were also monkeying gas trap and had their G.41, but not because of engineers/designers stupidity, IIRC it was initial army requirement - no ports in the barrel. And this is another important factor - requirements. When army requests "lighter" rifle, then designer no matter what's his opinion has to produce one and then who should be blamed for receiver stretching or stock breaking?
M1 Garand clips are also were dead-end road, while USSR even with limited resources understood the importance of detachable magazines.
So I would not say USA were ahead in development. In manufacturing, technologies, quality - yes, for sure.

 

[Hitzy]

The M1 Garand used front locking bolt lugs (M1 Carbine as well) and the gas trap was dropped before mass production. It eventually spawned the BM59 and M14, they knew it was a stronger design then rear locking, could be made shorter, and today everything is front locking.
It's not like the SVT soldier was issued with several mags, their mags were designed to be loaded with strippers which is not exactly an improvement over enblocs.
If they were into mags, why was the SKS put into full production for almost a decade post war?

 

[steelgray]

Actually IF the Brits were interested in finding a short, successful path to issuing a practical semi auto - based on existing development possibilities - and avoiding the need for major departures from existing available ammunition and provisioning - then obviously the M1 Carbine and Garand were non-starters - with no potential to be adapted to fire 303 British ammo; and no potential to get along with the common SMLE-type stripper clips.

The shoestring budget 555 Mohawk development "program" clearly proves that a successful military-grade semi auto rifle could have been created, based on the SVT-40 pattern, I am NOT saying that the 555 Mohawk can be seen as a military grade semi auto but rather that, if a few guys, apparently all named "bubba", could easily produced such a firearm - without a military contract mega-budget behind them - then some serious firearms engineers would have had no trouble creating a 303 British version of the SVT 40 - which could have been better than the original; particularly if it had been made lighter and better handling, like the 555 Mohawk or the SKT-40 carbine.

As for gas system lengths, it is clear that designers of the day were stupidly-obsessed with gas systems as long as the barrel - whether we are talking about the Garand, the SVT-40 or the Gew 41. I suppose that the concern was that they wanted to be sure that the round had cleared the barrel before the gas action operated the bolt. The SVT CARBINE the, 555 Mohawk and - as a matter of fact - the M14 got it right - recognizing that such goofy, long gas systems add weight and make it so that the available gas impulse - to actuate the bolt - has to be very brief, and intense.

In practice, the gas pressure takes quite a while to overcome the mass of the gas system plumbing - and a shorter gas system more smoothly overcomes the inertia of the various gas system parts; and allows for the required dwell time. That is, less is more. I figure that Soviet designers figured this out by the time that the SKS came along.

As for detachable mags v.s. the non detectable types I think that military leader didn't always trust their sometime-illiterate conscripts to keep from losing their mags in the heat of battle. For example, some SMLE guns had the mag chained to the gun, etc.

If I had to guess, I would assume that such planners were thinking that the SVT-40 would normally only be issued to competent, well-trained users (hence the detachable mags); whereas the SKS was to be a gun issued more-widely to less-trained types. Even so, the SVT-40 had an interesting provision for locking-in the mag.

As an an aside, I have seen a two gun match-up video - with a guy running an SVT 40 in a course against another guy with a Garand. The SVT 40 guy lost - and fumbled like crazy with his mag changes., I'm sure that he would have done much better by sticking with stripper clips. Did I say less is more?

Americans were already ahead the the USSR in small arms rifle development by WWII, they didn't have much need for commie designs.