Greatest battle implement ever devised - SVT-40? Stg44? .. or M1 Garand
- Thread starter steelgray
- Start date
- Status
Enough SVT's were manufactured for a long enough time to tell you they weren't " a flop". They saw very significant service and filled the Soviet Union's perceived need for a semi-auto infantry rifle- a need they ultimately saw they could ignore given what Germany was able to come up with. Personally I like the design more than the Garand- multiple magazines were certainly the way forward, not the en-bloc. My own experiences with the SVT 40 have been positive but I caution people against trying to draw conclusions based on an individual refurb SVT you may have used. These refurbs were not done to a high standard with some having very worn barrels and ill fitting stocks. I've had a couple that would shoot with any WW2 milsurp I own (inc No. 4 T) and some that wouldn't group at all. I've been fortunate in that every one I've used at the range cycled very well- particularly with surplus light ball. We know how good the Garand can be but the Soviets never developed a "National Match" SVT 40. The best ones I've owned have been '43 dated "Bulgarian light refurbs" which were essentially new guns. These are what should be compared with good condition Garands- something close to what the Soviet troops carried into battle.
milsurpo
milsurpo
The SVT failed in its design goals of being sufficiently reliable and soldier-proof and had a limited production run by Soviet standards. Other than captured examples used by the Axis, I've never really heard of it being well spoken of, nor are here derivatives of still in service with real militaries today as with the Garand.
If not a flop, it was disappointingly meh.
If not a flop, it was disappointingly meh.
No actually it didn't flop. The SVT 40 was being utilized in the worse combat conditions of the entire war. Winters and mud that were taking out even bolt action rifles and tanks. It was previously used in the Winter war, the continuation war against the fins as well as WWII when the Germans invaded Russia. The invasion was a surprise to the Russians who were in the process of outfitting 1/3rd of their army with the SVT40 but were unable to do so when they took on horrendous casualties from the Germans. Troop training was non existent as they had to throw farmers out onto the front lines. People forget that the Eastern front had more casualties than all the other theatres of WWII combined. Add in scorched earth polices, lack of ammunition/food and pretty much all supplies being scarce.
The M1 Garrand was with the right military and on the right front to be successful. The American Army started two years later as they frankly needed to gear up, so were able to field enough of them and trained people on how to use them. They weren't sending the common person into combat with a couple days training as the Russians were being forced to. The Russians were literally rolling T34 tanks partially finished of the manufacturing line and fighting with them to survive. The only reason they couldn't keep making the SVT 40 was due to needing cheap fast to make weapons right away that anyone seeing a rifle for the first time could use, as their loses were horrendous.
With the fastest way to reload being to fire off the remaining rounds, the Garand was again with the right military. Any other military in WWII under the conditions they were fighting wouldn't be able to waste ammunition like that. Also the Garand didn't have a dust cover which would have also been an issue on the Eastern front. The SVT 40 had a dust cover, could use stripper clips and had detachable magazines.
The SVT40 was prolific on the Eastern front and used by both sides. That Eastern front frankly really changed the way the war was going. Contrary to saving private ryan and all the other WWII American movies.
I don't know where you guys are getting this idea that they weren't reliable from. I've shot a number of them and they were very reliable. I never even thought about that until I read it here. The operating principle is exactly the same as the FN FAl. There is nothing unreliable about it. The only reason some on here think they are unreliable is because the gas block isn't set right or they are throwing all kinds of ammunition in it with the setting specifically setup for something else. Think what the quality of ammunition would have been like on the Eastern front!! In the video of the SVT40 vs Garrand you will notice he had issues when he went to Russian surplus while the previous owner had used Bulgarian surplus. Different ammunition!! Also the ammunition wouldn't be loaded for the SVT40 and instead most likely the Draganuv etc. The only real issue with the SVT 40 was the light stock which they often field rigged with cross bolts to fix that. Or you will see many of our refurbs n the heavier AVT stock.
Specifications of the SVT 40: 8.5 pounds with 24" barrel. Long action, detachable magazines, 1:10 twist 24" barrel, adjustable gas block, muzzle brake, FN FAL style gas piston/tilting block action. Anyone else noting that this compares not too bad to today's 308 semi autos? put on a 20" barrel and you are right there.
Let's look again at how this rifle was actually regarded.
1) Finns captured a lot of them and reissued them to their troops in the Winter War and continuation War. They retired them from service in 1958.
2) Finns made a prototype copy of the SVT 40 the Tapako
3) Germans captured hundreds of thousands of them, reissued them as the 259r including manuals and made ammunition for them. Then based their gas system for the G43 off the SVT40.
4) The Swiss made a SVT 40 copy called the AK44 . It wasn't adopted but still they respected the rifle enough to make a copy of it.
5) It wasn't until about 1955 that the SVT40 was out of service
By the way the SKS borrowed from the SVT40. The SKS was a progression from the SVT40 before being replaced by the AK. SKS tilting block, short stroke.
The end of the SVT 40 was really the AK. Which goes back to the Russian experience of having to face the SGT44. They learned and changed their army to reflect those lessons. They were one if not the first military to change over that quickly to a shorter intermediate cartridge so called assault rifle over the main battle rifle. The rest of the world was still using the battle rifle until the 60's or in Canada and other Commonwealth countries the 80s.
I will also add that the M14 is really the progression for the M1 Garrand. The shortest used US military main issue battle rifle ever. It's replacement? The M16 an intermediate cartridge "assault rifle" that replaced it in the 60's. I would also argue that the concept of the SVT 40 lived on in the FN FAL. The FN FAL was a better execution and had some changes, but the operating mechanism was the same. That lived on into the 80's for Canada. My point is the short lived lifespan of the SVT 40 seemed to be more of a result of the Europeans being faster on the draw to change their army philosophies and adapt the intermediate cartridge rifle (after seeing it in action with the STG44) as their main military arm. Almost 20 years before the Americans and 37 years before Canada.
Last edited:
You just keep saying the same sh!t over and over again lol, " the SVT 40. ... would of, could of, should of " BUT IT DIDNT. Its really no different then the V2 rockets .... NUMEROUS German tanks... Railway guns.... WW2 jet planes etc. Also would of could of should of battle implements that brought novel and futuristic concepts to the field that other country's wanted to capture study, develop and perfect. Despite many of those things having the potential to be so much "better" the simple sh!t ultimately won the war for the most part.
Thats why if u go to the main Panzer museum in Munster Germany to this day, the German historians will state time and time again in the audio tracks that they believe the simple tanks like the Shermans and t34s were actually the better "battlefield implements".
SVT 40s didnt win the battles in the East. Mosins did
Just because a gun platform cold turkeys and doesn't carry over into the next thing doesnt mean it sucked. I dont believe the Brown Bess musket really carried over into anything, but yet it won battles for almost a century!
You keep pointing out that the SVT has a dust cover, like if your trying to imply the Garand (not Garrand btw) needs one ?? Thats like stating a VW Beetle has storage under the hood and a civic does not lol (apples to oranges) Just like the Garand, the ejection port (whatever u want to call it) is totally exposed. And the trigger group and action springs are covered from the elements by more what id call a receiver cover (cus lets face it are u going to daily a car without a hood over the engine? Lol). The Garand doesnt have an action spring and long receiver protruding behind the bolt like a SVT40, so really does it need a "dust cover"/ receiver cover?
You also keeping point out that all of these Countrys put alot of effort into making adaptations of the SVT 40.... if the SVT 40 was supposedly the sh!t i wonder why those countries didnt just start to clone it like the countries did to the SKS or the SVD ??? Huh maybe its because those country also noticed the SVT 40 wasn't exactly as well implemented through production as it was in theory.
Last edited:
There's the problem. I'm not saying the same Sh1t as you put it. Same theme, but if you think I'm saying the same thing then you clearly aren't bothering to actually read!!
Should have, could have actually did. Actually read my post!!
Really, you are going to argue that it didn't need a dust cover? See any modern firearms today that are exposed like the Garand? By the way some of these posts I did on a phone hence the spelling, but thanks for not being a d1ck about it.
The SKS was a continuation of the SVT 40 only with what they learned from the Germans. IE going to an intermediate cartridge. If you read my actual posts, I wouldn't have to reiterate this.
What you should really be stating is that attrition won the war. Throwing huge numbers of manpower and weapons against a numerically much smaller enemy and still almost losing. It's the old argument, small better equipped and trained vs shear numbers.
You mentioned how the Germans had advanced weapons etc. They reissued an estimated 200,000 SVT 40's to their own troops on the Eastern front. They realized the advantage of the SVT40 and utilized it when they could. It wasn't as if they didn't have K98 rifles they could have used instead.
The Germans weren't vastly outnumbered by the Soviets until late in the war, and the tenuous, largely horse drawn supply lines that both sides were dependent upon meant that they were inclined to utilize the enemy's resources whenever practical.
If there was an mass issued regular infantry weapon on the Eastern Front that possessed a real advantage within its particular niche, it was the PPSh-41.
If there was an mass issued regular infantry weapon on the Eastern Front that possessed a real advantage within its particular niche, it was the PPSh-41.
Back that up with numbers? Germans invaded Russia in summer of 1941. A quick check online shows:
Russia in June 1941:
2,680,000 active in Western Military Districts out of 5,500,000 (overall); 12,000,000 mobilizable reserves
Germany in June 1941:
3,050,000 Germans, 67,000 (northern Norway); 500,000 Finns, 150,000 Romanians
Total: 3,767,000 in the east (80% of the German Army)
1942 Russians:
Total: 9,350,000
1942 Germans:
Total: 3,720,000 in the east (80% of the German Army)
For a thorough assessment of the SVT 40 the best book (essentially the only book) by R. Chumak, is, unfortunately, in Russian. He presents lots of specific data summarizing accuracy tests relative to other Soviet (and foreign) firearms as well as data pertaining to design flaws and reliability issues that the SVT 40 had. He talks about its fall from favor but also mentions some of it's successes- it's utility as a Sniper rifle and force multiplier is well documented. The number of SVT's captured and used by the Finns and Germans is astonishing and reflects how widely issued it was in the early days of the war. They are an important development in firearms design but neither they nor the Garand dictated the course of the war. Both Garand and SVT at least represent an effort to move forward- an interesting contrast to the British use of a rifle ,through Korea, that traces its ancestry right back to the M1879 Remington- Lee.
milsurpo
milsurpo
Look at the numbers actually employed in most of the battles of the early to mid war period, the Soviets rarely outnumbered the Axis by the degree the paper statistics suggest, as much of the Soviet manpower was too ill trained and ill equipped to be of much use in an active role.
Soviet logistic limitations and the need to keep large numbers of troops posted to the Far East prevented them from bringing much of their potential manpower to bear.
I'm inclined to approach the subject of this post by asking myself, if I were thrown into battle with one of these firearms and related equipment and supplies (cleaning kit, gas adjustment tool, ammunition, etc.) which would I choose to take?
Even at that, my answer would depend on the scenario. if I were in some kind of an entrenched, defensive position the SVT-40 and the Garand would come out on top. If I expected to be involved in a moving battlefield - with some urban activity; as was common on the Eastern front - then the choice would be a bit more interesting. In that setting, I have to acknowledge that I hate long guns and heavy guns. The Garand and the SVT 40 both have the same length of barrel, but the action of the SVT is longer and the flash hider adds to the firearm’s overall length. Of these 2, however, the Garand is a total pig - way too heavy - and not something that you would want to carry all day, or use in action where you have to move around and acquire targets quickly. The STG-44 Is the heaviest of the bunch - at least a pound heavier than a Thompson M1A1 - which itself is stupidly heavy. They look cool in movies but when you pick one up - or shoot one - your reaction is “sh*t”.
I much prefer peep sights and shoot way better with them. Obviously, in that department, the Garand has the edge. However, that positive point for the Garand is more than written-off by the fact that it is the only one on the list which has the real potential to destroy the right thumb, on your shooting hand, at the worst possible time - in the midst of some action. Others have described “Garand thumb” as some kind of gentle pinch, but it isn't. If your luck is off, you can basically have your thumb broken or suffer excruciating lasting pain if the gun’s action decides to clobber your thumb while you are shoving in one of those en block clips.
Garand fan boys will tell you that it will never happen if you do things right but the practical field experience of people who used these guns, in war, says otherwise. If you want to have a real laugh watch a YouTube video featuring one of these fanboys who is trying to convince you that it is, in fact, possible to top up a magazine in a Garand, or to load single rounds into a Garand. In these videos, the fanboy who is making such a pitch is obviously terrified that he's going to get clobbered on the thumb, any second. That tells you something right there.
Taking all of this together, If I was thrust into a wartime environment like Russia’s campaign to regain its lost territory and push on to Berlin - or if I was on the German side in the same theatre – in each case with access to sufficient ammo - my first choice would be the carbine version of the SVT-40; that is the SKT-40.
And yes, this was an actual issued firearm, used in that theater - unlike the shortened Garand prototype T26 -which was just a prototype and never issued or used in WW2
My second choice would be the Sturmgewehr 44. My third would be the SVT-40 and my last choice would be the Garand
Even at that, my answer would depend on the scenario. if I were in some kind of an entrenched, defensive position the SVT-40 and the Garand would come out on top. If I expected to be involved in a moving battlefield - with some urban activity; as was common on the Eastern front - then the choice would be a bit more interesting. In that setting, I have to acknowledge that I hate long guns and heavy guns. The Garand and the SVT 40 both have the same length of barrel, but the action of the SVT is longer and the flash hider adds to the firearm’s overall length. Of these 2, however, the Garand is a total pig - way too heavy - and not something that you would want to carry all day, or use in action where you have to move around and acquire targets quickly. The STG-44 Is the heaviest of the bunch - at least a pound heavier than a Thompson M1A1 - which itself is stupidly heavy. They look cool in movies but when you pick one up - or shoot one - your reaction is “sh*t”.
I much prefer peep sights and shoot way better with them. Obviously, in that department, the Garand has the edge. However, that positive point for the Garand is more than written-off by the fact that it is the only one on the list which has the real potential to destroy the right thumb, on your shooting hand, at the worst possible time - in the midst of some action. Others have described “Garand thumb” as some kind of gentle pinch, but it isn't. If your luck is off, you can basically have your thumb broken or suffer excruciating lasting pain if the gun’s action decides to clobber your thumb while you are shoving in one of those en block clips.
Garand fan boys will tell you that it will never happen if you do things right but the practical field experience of people who used these guns, in war, says otherwise. If you want to have a real laugh watch a YouTube video featuring one of these fanboys who is trying to convince you that it is, in fact, possible to top up a magazine in a Garand, or to load single rounds into a Garand. In these videos, the fanboy who is making such a pitch is obviously terrified that he's going to get clobbered on the thumb, any second. That tells you something right there.
Taking all of this together, If I was thrust into a wartime environment like Russia’s campaign to regain its lost territory and push on to Berlin - or if I was on the German side in the same theatre – in each case with access to sufficient ammo - my first choice would be the carbine version of the SVT-40; that is the SKT-40.
And yes, this was an actual issued firearm, used in that theater - unlike the shortened Garand prototype T26 -which was just a prototype and never issued or used in WW2
My second choice would be the Sturmgewehr 44. My third would be the SVT-40 and my last choice would be the Garand
Coyote Ugly
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
The Thompson SMG all the way. Chicago Typewriter. Zigarette?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivZgbGwsKnA
[youtube]ivZgbGwsKnA[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmj6AocIsRg
[youtube]Hmj6AocIsRg[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivZgbGwsKnA
[youtube]ivZgbGwsKnA[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmj6AocIsRg
[youtube]Hmj6AocIsRg[/youtube]
Last edited:
I never liked the SVT-40. Only draw for me was that it looked kinda cool. (And I'm a milsurp guy) Other that that, we had crates of them back in 2013 and whenever I picked one up it just felt like a poorly constructed rifle. Not to mention all the gas tweaking, being finicky with ammo types, the failures, the cracking stocks and the ill conceived field take down and corrosive cleaning regiment.
Sure it was a SA that fired a big a$$ round...cool, but that's about it.
I saw one for sale the other day for $1,400. Lol!
No thanks,
Sure it was a SA that fired a big a$$ round...cool, but that's about it.
I saw one for sale the other day for $1,400. Lol!
No thanks,
I had the use of a 12.3 one. Like I said, looks cool in the movies but when you handle and shoot one, it is disappointing
And regarding the guy two posts above who scoffs at $1,400 SVT-40s. Those are the rare collectible ones. However I am seeing common Grands in the shops for $2,000. That "weirds me out"
Who said anything about a one time shooter? I shot that thing multiple times, over a one year period or so. It was a really pretty gun - which is really disappointing to shoot.
As for vet stories, I haven't personally heard any but the US was happy to get rid of the Thompson by war's end in WW2 in favour of the M3s - in spite of the crazy money that they had invested in their inventory of Thompsons - always an UBER costly gun.
I haven't shot one of those (i.e. an M3) but that Ian M. guy on Forgotten Weapons has reviewed both. You should check that out. I trust his opinion.
BTW have you actually shot a Thompson?
- Status
