SVT 40 action underbuilt?

C

ceilingcat

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
I've read on the internet a lot of people talking about how the svt 40's receiver is "underbuilt" for the 7.62x54R is that just another fase notion regarding the svt 40s or what? I own an svt 40 and the action looks to be strong enough... nothing like a mosin but doesn't look much weaker than say an m1 garand?

Do people just think that way since the rifle is really light?

I've also seen this video on youtube of an svt 40 being shot in slow motion and it has quite a bit of flex, more than most other rifles I've seen. Gas setting too high? etc?

what are your opinions (for those who own svt 40s)
 
Its not overbuilt by any means. I think continued use with too high a gas setting could damage the rifle, and maintenance is complicated (for a Soviet weapon). That's why the Russians didn't care much for it and just gave it to NO's, snipers, and elite troops.

It does flex a lot in slo mo films, so does the SKS and many other semi auto rifles - nature of the beast. I like the basic design better than a garand (no bent op rod). I love my SVT's, if they were a little more idiot proof, the rest of the world probably would too.
 
My biggest criticism in terms of the SVT compared to something like a Garand is the SVT has a rear locking tilting bolt, and the Garand has a front locking rotating bolt. The locking lugs on the Garand are much bigger than those of the SVT too. Now this isn't to say that the SVT is necessarily under built for what it was designed for... on the contrary, if it were under built, I don't think the Soviets would have adopted it... but I do not think that the action is as strong as that of the Garand. I guess you could call the SVT "sufficiently built".
 
I agree with both of you. I was just wondering if the svt 40 would have a lower service life compared to the M1 or other rifle with actions that are considered to be on the strong side.

M1 garand action does definitely look stronger as most of the stresses would be around the chamber area, and the m1's receiver is thicker in basically all places compared to svt 40
 
The SVT is a very good rifle overall. With proper gas setting, the action handle the 7.62x54r without problems. A total of 5 772 085 SVT38/40 have been built. From that about 1 600 000 are SVT 40 and 51 000 SVT were used as sniper. Another point is that the FN49 also use a tilting rear locking bolt and its chambered for 30-06 and 7.92x57 mauser so the SVT design is fine enough.
Joce
 
Last edited:
M1 Magazine (published in 2010), reprinted a late 1950's/early 1960's article.
The article compared the M1, G/K43 and the SVT40 semi-auto rifles and most of the information came from results of Post War US Ordanance testing.

Now, I am sure there was some bias because the M1 came out on top, but if kept clean the M1 Garand is a great semi-auto rifle with a fast rate of fire.
The G/K43 came in second, but the complaint was stamped parts.
The SVT40 came in last, with the point being the weak reciever which could easily be bent, rendering the rifle useless.
Now, if things are so bad that you are using your rifle as a baseball bat, I am sure you have other things to worry about.
They did give the SVT credit for inspiring the G/K43 rifle.
 
agentcq said:
M1 Magazine (published in 2010), reprinted a late 1950's/early 1960's article.
The article compared the M1, G/K43 and the SVT40 semi-auto rifles and most of the information came from results of Post War US Ordanance testing.

Now, I am sure there was some bias because the M1 came out on top, but if kept clean the M1 Garand is a great semi-auto rifle with a fast rate of fire.
The G/K43 came in second, but the complaint was stamped parts.
The SVT40 came in last, with the point being the weak reciever which could easily be bent, rendering the rifle useless.
Now, if things are so bad that you are using your rifle as a baseball bat, I am sure you have other things to worry about.
They did give the SVT credit for inspiring the G/K43 rifle.
Click to expand...

I bet the SVT would come out on top if there was an "SVT40 Magazine" :p.

I have roughly 500 or so rounds through mine (probably more) and although thats nothing in terms of service life I still have not seen one issue with any part of the rifle. With a 10rd detachable magazine and more then suitable combat accuracy I would even go so far as to say the SVT is superior to the M1 :eek:. I have shot (and really enjoy) both rifles, but if I had an M1 and an SVT (with 10rd mag) in equal condition I would grab the SVT.

One mans preference.
 
ArtyMan said:
I bet the SVT would come out on top if there was an "SVT40 Magazine" :p.

I have roughly 500 or so rounds through mine (probably more) and although thats nothing in terms of service life I still have not seen one issue with any part of the rifle. With a 10rd detachable magazine and more then suitable combat accuracy I would even go so far as to say the SVT is superior to the M1 :eek:. I have shot (and really enjoy) both rifles, but if I had an M1 and an SVT (with 10rd mag) in equal condition I would grab the SVT.

One mans preference.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think the SVT-40 is maybe one of the most underated rifles around as far as simplicity in design, innovation for its time and accuracy in a semi automatic rifle.
Its one design flaw I have an issue with (the only one as far as I have) is the not very robust stock. I know the AVT-40 stocks were beefier but the standard stocks are not very solid.
 
There's an interesting dual thing goes on in the deign and manufacture of any service weapon. They are built with ruggedness in mind in order to operate under extreme conditions and even neglect in the field. Those are the realities of war. At the same time, they are not expected to last forever. They are a "for the duration" weapon and then tossed for all anybody cares.
It seems these two are at odds with eachother but that's how they work. Your grandchild is not expected to go to war with your old rifle. The fact that these weapons are still around 60 years after their expected service is pretty damned good.
 
I re-read the article (especially as I recenlty posted pics of an M1, K43 and SVT sniper in the milsup section).

Other complaints made about the SVT:
1. The cartridge; rimmed and creates design problems with semi/full auto weapons.
2. The fact that the Russians actually stopped using the SVT by the wars end and went back to the Nagant (this was a maitenance issue in my mind).
3. That detailed stripping required tools.
4. Short service life compared to the M1, which was used into the 1970's by some countries.
5. Extended external magazine (can be lost and increases the profile of a prone soldier)

The SVT is a neat weapon (heck, I own six). The M1 and K43 are neat to. The only rifle that has actually broken in my own hands was a K43 (locking flap broke) and I have heard other similar stories. I have had problems with the SVT gas system. I know some people like that option, but in my opinion the rifle should work in all weather/climates without adjustments.

agentcq said:
M1 Magazine (published in 2010), reprinted a late 1950's/early 1960's article.
The article compared the M1, G/K43 and the SVT40 semi-auto rifles and most of the information came from results of Post War US Ordanance testing.

Now, I am sure there was some bias because the M1 came out on top, but if kept clean the M1 Garand is a great semi-auto rifle with a fast rate of fire.
The G/K43 came in second, but the complaint was stamped parts.
The SVT40 came in last, with the point being the weak reciever which could easily be bent, rendering the rifle useless.
Now, if things are so bad that you are using your rifle as a baseball bat, I am sure you have other things to worry about.
They did give the SVT credit for inspiring the G/K43 rifle.
Click to expand...
 
I HAVE seen SVT-40s which have self-destructed.

They were Finn capture SVTs which were rebuilt into Globco 555s and fired repeatedly with the gas setting 'WAY too high. Gas system on the 555 is absurdly short, anyway.

Trouble is that the SVT has a trough-shaped receiver, same as the SLEM and the SAFN-49. With a too-high gas setting, the Bolt Carrier recoils at a terrific speed and BOUNCES off the back end of the trough. If it is fast enough, this will COMPRESS the Bolt Carrier and STRETCH the frame momentarily. As the parts stop, they then are PROPELLED forward at great speed by the action of the Springs ADDED TO the metal returning to its proper dimensions.

The Bolt Carrier then runs forward at great speed, stripping and chambering a round.... but the speed is so great that the Firing-Pin drifts forward and INTO the Primer, FIRING THE INCOMING ROUND OUT OF BATTERY. So the cycle repeats, this time even faster and with even more battering of parts.

The Rifle goes BRAPPPPPP! and is empty, the muzzle is pointing at that 747 'way UP there and you are wondering WTF happened.

You check the Rifle and there is NOTHING WRONG..... except that you KNOW what happened.

So you scrap the rifle.

That's what happened to quite a few 555s.

Now you know.

Keep the GAS SETTING AS LOW AS YOU CAN AND STILL HAVE RELIABLE FUNCTIONING and this will never happen to you.

This does not occur with the FAL because the split receiver generally prevents it from occurring, but it can happen with the SAFN-49. Same cause, same treatment.

I have this all written up in an article. Anyone interested can PM their e-mail address for a copy.

Hope this helps.
.
 
points said:
There's an interesting dual thing goes on in the deign and manufacture of any service weapon. They are built with ruggedness in mind in order to operate under extreme conditions and even neglect in the field. Those are the realities of war. At the same time, they are not expected to last forever. They are a "for the duration" weapon and then tossed for all anybody cares.
It seems these two are at odds with eachother but that's how they work. Your grandchild is not expected to go to war with your old rifle. The fact that these weapons are still around 60 years after their expected service is pretty damned good.
Click to expand...

^I guess the cold hard reality of designing anything for a purpose is the economics. FOR EXAMPLE: a recent Canadian documentary on using algae as a fuel source for wheeled automobiles. Apparently there is limited research going on by the Cdn gov't to this end. On this recent documentary, they were big in showing the actual product (a reddish oil in a test tube), however they neglected to mention what energy ($$$) it took to come up with that test tube of red oil. *Currently the fuel from algae is a lazy pipe dream.

To go back to my first point, why do you think booby traps / landmines / cluster munitions enjoy such popularity worldwide?
 
agentcq said:
Other complaints made about the SVT:
1. The cartridge; rimmed and creates design problems with semi/full auto weapons.
2. The fact that the Russians actually stopped using the SVT by the wars end and went back to the Nagant (this was a maitenance issue in my mind).
3. That detailed stripping required tools.
4. Short service life compared to the M1, which was used into the 1970's by some countries.
5. Extended external magazine (can be lost and increases the profile of a prone soldier)

The SVT is a neat weapon (heck, I own six). The M1 and K43 are neat to. The only rifle that has actually broken in my own hands was a K43 (locking flap broke) and I have heard other similar stories. I have had problems with the SVT gas system. I know some people like that option, but in my opinion the rifle should work in all weather/climates without adjustments.
Click to expand...

1) That rimmed cartridge is still used today... Draganov, Tiger, MG use..

2) The SVT 40 was replaced by the SKS due to the documented fact in Russian combat most fighting took place within 300m. The higher power cartridge was no longer needed. The new 7.62x39 was lighter, smaller, troops could carry more ammo, etc.
3) Yes a true problem if you lost them..
4) See item 2)
5) "Extended external magazine (can be lost and increases the profile of a prone soldier)"
i) They had two mag issued or more and the mag lock in wit the mag lever.
ii) Be mindful many rifles like the M14, M16, FAL, G3, Galil, AK47, etc... all have mags that "increases the profile".
 
Lots of people out there don't get the purpose of the gas regulator. Some feel that it should just be set at the top end and it will work under any condition. One wouldn't apply the same idea to your car. Keep it in low gear and rev the crap out of it. It will wear out sooner. I think it was well ahead of it's time in that Tokarev saw the need for the adustable regulator. It would have been a bit better if the damned thing was a whole lot bigger. Can you imagine stripping that thing down in the dirt and losing the regulator that's the size of a grain of rice? But hell, it was wartime and really still under developement. Any weapon if kept in service will go through several MKs.
I built a gas regulator for my SKSs out of a spare gas tube that can fit any Russian SKS. At the lowest setting it throws the casing just a couple of feet and you can feel a lot of difference in the recoil. very smooth, thus prolongs the life of the unit.
 
points said:
Lots of people out there don't get the purpose of the gas regulator. Some feel that it should just be set at the top end and it will work under any condition. One wouldn't apply the same idea to your car. Keep it in low gear and rev the crap out of it. It will wear out sooner. I think it was well ahead of it's time in that Tokarev saw the need for the adustable regulator. It would have been a bit better if the damned thing was a whole lot bigger. Can you imagine stripping that thing down in the dirt and losing the regulator that's the size of a grain of rice? But hell, it was wartime and really still under developement. Any weapon if kept in service will go through several MKs.
I built a gas regulator for my SKSs out of a spare gas tube that can fit any Russian SKS. At the lowest setting it throws the casing just a couple of feet and you can feel a lot of difference in the recoil. very smooth, thus prolongs the life of the unit.
Click to expand...

I would like to see pics of that. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom