Stirring the pot with the butt of an SVT 40

I am not surprised at the ratio so far, but I am glad to have a few friends.

here is my second swing. Many many semi autos use an action similar to the svt, what modern rifles are using the garand action barring m 14 derivatives? A design that is known to be only moderately accurate without vast amounts of custom work (mini 14 anyone??)

What about an SVT 40 in the hands of a trained US GI? Pretty fearsome I think...

come on garand people, keep it coming, just try and justify your newest $800 milarm/ P&S purchase. (j/k)

FYI, I was under the impression SVT were issued with 3 mags per rifle
 
Yeah, but Mosins were also supposed to be issued to EACH conscript. :rolleyes:

However, we can all agree comparing a US issued rifle in the hands of an American isn't fair to compare to a Russian issued rifle in the hands of a Russian...the troops were simply in different leagues.

But I'd argue the rifles weren't.

I would personally take the SVT-40 into battle anyday...

But if you wanted to turn me into a killing machine, give me a 1971 Cadillac. Those things are more dangerous than a grenade without the pin.
 
here is my second swing. Many many semi autos use an action similar to the svt, what modern rifles are using the garand action barring m 14 derivatives? A design that is known to be only moderately accurate without vast amounts of custom work (mini 14 anyone??)
Click to expand...

That isn't quite fair referring to the Mini 14 since it has other problems that affect accuracy. A pencil thin barrel and a throat so long that you will never seat a bullet out far enough to get anywhere close to the lands of the rifling. I've handloaded long reloads into mine with excellent results. They just wouldn't fit into the magazine.

The M1 carbine also uses a similar type of action. I do not see much wrong with the engineering. The gas piston is quite short and overall the whole gas system doesn't get that filthy because of it. I like the concept, it's very simple.
 
Between the two, I would choose the Garand. It is extremely accurate, has excellent sights, is extremely reliable with the right ammunition and definitely not fragile. The firepower and ammunition of both the Garand and SVT are similar.

If I had to choose a WWII era rifle today to carry all day and defend myself with, however, it would definitely be the M-1 Carbine. It is light as a feather, small (for cramped spaces), has virtually no recoil, has very good sights, has lots of firepower (15 and 30 round mags) and is dependable. The only problem was that .30 Carbine ball ammunition was inferior to 30-06 or 7.62x54R. However, since I'm not a signatory to the Geneva Convention, I would be using 110 gr. hollow soft points and they are nasty. I have no doubt that if this ammo had been used in WWII and Korea there would have been virtually no stories about the M-1 Carbine lacking in lethality. With modern kick-ass ammo, the M-1 Carbine is a clear winner IMHO. :rockOn:
 
FraserJ20 said:
I am not surprised at the ratio so far, but I am glad to have a few friends.

here is my second swing. Many many semi autos use an action similar to the svt, what modern rifles are using the garand action barring m 14 derivatives? A design that is known to be only moderately accurate without vast amounts of custom work (mini 14 anyone??)

What about an SVT 40 in the hands of a trained US GI? Pretty fearsome I think...

come on garand people, keep it coming, just try and justify your newest $800 milarm/ P&S purchase. (j/k)

FYI, I was under the impression SVT were issued with 3 mags per rifle
Click to expand...

Feel free to list all these many many modern semi auto's based on the Tok design, I can't think of anything modern that uses the tilting block lockup. The M1 is just a rotating bolt lock up, you could say the AK47 and AR15 are as much related as say the SVT and FAL.
P&S has SVT from $499 to $650 and Garands starting at $599. The Garand would still be the much better buy.....
 
After reading a bit I learned that the SVT-40 was issued only to commissioned officers. Also in regards to ammunition 7.62 spotter rounds were issued to Russian Snipers. The bullets used to explode on impact almost guaranteeing a kill,even the germans used them, but only against Russians as they were thought to be sub-human.As far as ammo goes anything that explodes is better than a fmj slug anyday. Score 1 for the SVT
 
The sks uses the tilting bolt, which I think is fair to bring up since you brought up the ak as modern. Lets take a look at the gas systems on these?

"The FN FAL is a gas operated, selective fire or semi-automatic only, magazine fed rifle. It uses short piston stroke gas system with gas piston located above the barrel and having its own return spring"

Regarding the vz 58 (this one even has a tilting system, albeit not quite the same) "It uses more or less conventional short stroke gas piston, located above the barrel. The gas piston has its own return spring. The locking system features a linearly moving bolt (breechblock) with a separate tilting locking piece"

Regarding LA85 "The gas operated action has a short stroke gas piston, located above the barrel. The gas piston has its own return spring."

Regarding the AR 18 "The gas chamber and piston are located above the barrel, and the piston has the cupped head and its own return spring."



I am still waiting (despite your clever attempt at dodging my question) to see some non garand derivatives that use an op rod in their action.

Where are all garand type gas systems?



P.S., I think it was Hogue where use of expanding ammo was prohibited and the US was never a ratified member so technically the US could have (still can) used hollowpoints (I am not an expert though)
 
Another thing I forgot to mention, a rotory bolt operated by a roller (m-14)/metal lug and op rod (as in the garands case) is a HUGE difference in action design from a rotary bolt within a bolt carrier such as the AK, AR 15, AR 18, sig 550. I would even go so far as to say the only thing similar between the two designs is that the bolt rotates. The mechanisms by which a garand accomplishes this has very little in common with the modern designs you cited.
 
FraserJ20 said:
The sks uses the tilting bolt, which I think is fair to bring up since you brought up the ak as modern. Lets take a look at the gas systems on these?

"The FN FAL is a gas operated, selective fire or semi-automatic only, magazine fed rifle. It uses short piston stroke gas system with gas piston located above the barrel and having its own return spring"

Regarding the vz 58 (this one even has a tilting system, albeit not quite the same) "It uses more or less conventional short stroke gas piston, located above the barrel. The gas piston has its own return spring. The locking system features a linearly moving bolt (breechblock) with a separate tilting locking piece"

Regarding LA85 "The gas operated action has a short stroke gas piston, located above the barrel. The gas piston has its own return spring."

Regarding the AR 18 "The gas chamber and piston are located above the barrel, and the piston has the cupped head and its own return spring."



I am still waiting (despite your clever attempt at dodging my question) to see some non garand derivatives that use an op rod in their action.

Where are all garand type gas systems?



P.S., I think it was Hogue where use of expanding ammo was prohibited and the US was never a ratified member so technically the US could have (still can) used hollowpoints (I am not an expert though)
Click to expand...

First question you had was in regards to action, which I answered, now you are talking about gas sytem and saying I dodged your question.
If you don't know what you are talking about, how am I suppose to answer to your satisfaction?
 
I don't own either, but have fired both, the Garand has 2 things working for it : marginally better accuracy, and slightly better sights, everything else IMO is hands down int he SVT's favor. Too bad the Soviets didn't have the ressources to keep tinkering with the design as it was truly an outstanding rifle.
 
Coyote Ugly said:
You got to love that sloppy scope arrangement on the SVT-40 Sniper, duh...I guess that's why it didn't last too long.

Patton knew what he was talking about, M1 Garand wins again.
Click to expand...

Apparently it was a consistent problem with 3rd shot flyers. The problem might have been fixed with more R&D but the 91/30 was more than adequate and the SVT sniper was dropped.

The SVT snipers you see here are sloppy because they were hastily assembled from standard rifles and reproduction mounts. The repro mount lock key is a particularly nasty bit of poor work.
 
How many non M1 derivatives (m-14, m1a, mini 14, m1 carbine) use an op rod in general? More specifically how many rotary bolt designs don't use a bolt carrier, but instead have the op rod which directly works on the bolt? I can't think of any rotary bolt designs that don't have a bolt carrier (like the svt 40 does although not rotary locking).

my question still stands.


Don't get me wrong, I like em both, I am just trying to start a discussion as the garand being the best almost always seems to be a given in north america.

Garands are cool, but the technology involved stopped at the M 14

even short stroke piston gas systems are giving way to long stroke, bolt carrier attached pistons AK style (sig 550, tavor, etc.)but that is off topic.


Does anyone know which rifle was cheaper/ quicker to produce? That would be interesting to find out.
 
FraserJ20 said:
How many non M1 derivatives (m-14, m1a, mini 14, m1 carbine) use an op rod in general? More specifically how many rotary bolt designs don't use a bolt carrier, but instead have the op rod which directly works on the bolt? I can't think of any rotary bolt designs that don't have a bolt carrier (like the svt 40 does although not rotary locking).

my question still stands.


Don't get me wrong, I like em both, I am just trying to start a discussion as the garand being the best almost always seems to be a given in north america.

Garands are cool, but the technology involved stopped at the M 14

even short stroke piston gas systems are giving way to long stroke, bolt carrier attached pistons AK style (sig 550, tavor, etc.)but that is off topic.


Does anyone know which rifle was cheaper/ quicker to produce? That would be interesting to find out.
Click to expand...

Well the mini14/mini30 are both still in production today, 70 years after the M1
was created. What is being produced today that uses a rear locking tilting block like the SVT?
 
I'm glad someone mentioned the flyers.
Russians sucked in WW2. The germans where killing them 10 to 1 just to give you an idea. As for the tokarev it wasnt even in production that long before it was canned and nobody else has bothered to copy it, not even other soviet block countries right after WW2. Its really a faillure of a rifle with a short service history that even makes the M14 look great.
 
it makes perfect sense. mini 14, m-14 and garand I consider to be the same basic rifle. Show me a rifle that uses an op rod other then those.


nevermind



i give up


you win
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom