SVT40 and combat
- Thread starter ricohman
- Start date
I would say there is a very good change they all saw combat. Especially judging by the bores of many SVT-40's.
Even some of 1944 dated ones have "fair" bores and were refurbished, they definitely saw use. Heck, even the 4 known 1945's were issued and likely saw combat.
Even some of 1944 dated ones have "fair" bores and were refurbished, they definitely saw use. Heck, even the 4 known 1945's were issued and likely saw combat.
- Location
- Algoma, ON
I would agree. During peak SVT production I would imagine rifles of any kind were hard to come by in the Soviet Union so I can't imagine them not seeing service. Especially when you consider how much more effective a semiauto is when compare to a bolt action like the mosin. I currently own 2 SVTs, one is my shooter and the other is collector still full of cosmo, the bore on my shooter was never great 5-6/10 to begin with and it shoots fine, although I have see one with a pretty good looking bore before, maybe 8/10. They're out there, just hard to find. I think it just adds to the history of these wonderful rifles.
I agree with everything that has been said so far 
these rifles are packed full of history (and cosmoline) and definitely saw use.
The Soviet SVT-40 cost 713 rubles to manufacture in 1940... The Mosin model 1891/30 cost as low as 90 rubles to make (in 1936) and as high as 170 rubles (in 1940).
Horilka is right about the Bulgarian ones, they likely were not even fired since factory or refurbishment by Bulgaria. Those have (mostly) excellent bores, 10+/10. That being said, they are not common rifles to find.
However, you can see how much more SVT-40's cost than 91/30's, so it seems clear to me that the soviets would have put them to use, after all they paid much more to make them, I doubt they would have sat around.
(Price in rubles of various rifles can be found in Alex Yuschenko's book, "M91/30 Rifles.")
these rifles are packed full of history (and cosmoline) and definitely saw use.The Soviet SVT-40 cost 713 rubles to manufacture in 1940... The Mosin model 1891/30 cost as low as 90 rubles to make (in 1936) and as high as 170 rubles (in 1940).
Horilka is right about the Bulgarian ones, they likely were not even fired since factory or refurbishment by Bulgaria. Those have (mostly) excellent bores, 10+/10. That being said, they are not common rifles to find.
However, you can see how much more SVT-40's cost than 91/30's, so it seems clear to me that the soviets would have put them to use, after all they paid much more to make them, I doubt they would have sat around.
(Price in rubles of various rifles can be found in Alex Yuschenko's book, "M91/30 Rifles.")
Its a pretty cool thing when you have friends over for a history lesson and hand them a rifle that likely was used in the battle for Stalingrad or the Defence of Moscow etc... My jaw drops at much as theirs that we can actually hold such pieces of history.
Yes that's the real fascination for me, that goes far beyond their shooting ability, with some of these old milsurps.
Dr van Nostran
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Lower Mainland, B.C.
The Russians were always short of rifles, often issuing captured and lend lease weapons to try and make up for the shortfall.
Even so, there were never enough rifles to go around. Some Red Army troops went into combat without them.
It probably doesn't have the same parts it had when it left the factory, but if you own an SVT 40 - it saw combat.
Even so, there were never enough rifles to go around. Some Red Army troops went into combat without them.
It probably doesn't have the same parts it had when it left the factory, but if you own an SVT 40 - it saw combat.
I agree with everything that has been said so far
The Soviet SVT-40 cost 713 rubles to manufacture in 1940... The Mosin model 1891/30 cost as low as 90 rubles to make (in 1936) and as high as 170 rubles (in 1940).
Horilka is right about the Bulgarian ones, they likely were not even fired since factory or refurbishment by Bulgaria. Those have (mostly) excellent bores, 10+/10. That being said, they are not common rifles to find.
However, you can see how much more SVT-40's cost than 91/30's, so it seems clear to me that the soviets would have put them to use, after all they paid much more to make them, I doubt they would have sat around.
(Price in rubles of various rifles can be found in Alex Yuschenko's book, "M91/30 Rifles.")
If they were not fired, why would they need to be refurbed?
Or is it more correct to say the refurb mark is an inspection mark?
Last edited:
Probably most of those rifles or parts that got refurbed saw action at one point. One of my favorite rifles to shoot at the range or friend's farm but I wouldn't rely on one in front line combat to be honest. I guess things were different back in those days.
It was that or immediately the Bullet. contradict not accepted in those days. Some had only bullets
I am not sure how common the movie/video game scenario of "One man shoots, the next man picks up the rifle and shoots" was for real. It does not make the greatest amount of sense to send unarmed troops at the enemy unless they are penalty battalion troops trampling mine fields etc... or as a first wave to reveal fixed positions. Otherwise it's rather wasteful in life unless that was the goal too, sometimes it's cheaper logistically to bring troops to the slaughter than feed them cause there are more than enough reserves too.
The Germans were very fond of them - mind you "gun with ammo" beats "gun without ammo" every time.
I agree. I think it did not happen a lot. The soviets traded land for time to train and arm several hundred thousand troops in Siberia. Every book I have read does not mention 2 men sharing a rifle. Especially in the massive battles of Stalingrad and Kursk. After the factories were moved over the Urals the entire society was geared to producing food, weapons, and equipment for the Soviet forces.
Eaglelord17
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sault Ste. Marie
The whole lack of rifles thing was a WWI condition more than WWII. At some points in WWI there was only one rifle for every ten soldiers (conscripts). I imagine most people just carry the thinking over to WWII as they might be getting confused between wars (and if something gets repeated enough eventually people believe it).
