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

[tiriaq]

Shorter gas systems were understood and used successfully prior to the First World 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 t 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 take 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 the 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.

 

[Hitzy]

Shorter gas systems were understood and used successfully prior to the First World War.

Even today, the Benelli line if semi shotguns and rifles have the ports very close to the action. They claim the system runs cleaner as the gas is hotter/higher pressure closer to the chamber, and burns cleaner opposed to closer to the muzzle.

 

[Horilka]

.. the gas trap was dropped before mass production.

IIRC in 1939, right? By that time "18,000 rifles had been completed and parts were made for an additional 33,000" and those additional were completed too. I would say it was mass production. That's number one. Number two is that by 1939 USSR had AVS-36 introduced and battle tested and SVT-38 accepted and battle tested, both with gas ports. SVT-40 was in development, it makes two designs and second generation for latter design. And Americans were still with gas trap.

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.

You can't be more wrong. Soldiers were issued SVTs with 3 magazines. Loading from stripper clips was an option if there's no chance to fill up used magazines. Clips were secondary option, it was part of original army requirement.

If they were into mags, why was the SKS put into full production for almost a decade post war?

You know well that SKS was the stepping stone to crank something fast as they were waiting for intermediate cartridge assault rifle project completed, later known as AK-47. SKS-45 and AK-47 have only two years difference and and modern firearms have detachable magazines, something Soviets firearm development recognized and used years before Americans.

 

[cyclone]

IIRC in 1939, right? By that time "18,000 rifles had been completed and parts were made for an additional 33,000" and those additional were completed too. I would say it was mass production. That's number one. Number two is that by 1939 USSR had AVS-36 introduced and battle tested and SVT-38 accepted and battle tested, both with gas ports. SVT-40 was in development, it makes two designs and second generation for latter design. And Americans were still with gas trap.



You can't be more wrong. Soldiers were issued SVTs with 3 magazines. Loading from stripper clips was an option if there's no chance to fill up used magazines. Clips were secondary option, it was part of original army requirement.


You know well that SKS was the stepping stone to crank something fast as they were waiting for intermediate cartridge assault rifle project completed, later known as AK-47. SKS-45 and AK-47 have only two years difference and and modern firearms have detachable magazines, something Soviets firearm development recognized and used years before Americans.

I never really thought of the SKS as being "comfortably reloadable from the shoulder" (I sort of view the FN-49 the same way), whereas the AK & of course the AR most certainly were...

 

[Hitzy]

IIRC in 1939, right? By that time "18,000 rifles had been completed and parts were made for an additional 33,000" and those additional were completed too. I would say it was mass production. That's number one. Number two is that by 1939 USSR had AVS-36 introduced and battle tested and SVT-38 accepted and battle tested, both with gas ports. SVT-40 was in development, it makes two designs and second generation for latter design. And Americans were still with gas trap.



You can't be more wrong. Soldiers were issued SVTs with 3 magazines. Loading from stripper clips was an option if there's no chance to fill up used magazines. Clips were secondary option, it was part of original army requirement.


You know well that SKS was the stepping stone to crank something fast as they were waiting for intermediate cartridge assault rifle project completed, later known as AK-47. SKS-45 and AK-47 have only two years difference and and modern firearms have detachable magazines, something Soviets firearm development recognized and used years before Americans.

There were only 18,000 gas traps made, the 33,000 remaining on the order were gas port variants as the gas trap was ditched. 5.5 million gas port rifles made vs 18,000....full production you say...

Issued 3 mags.... obviously mags were not intended to be disposed, which makes detachable mags moot. Take a time out during battle to load mags? I guess that's why so many USSR peasants met their doom in WWII.
Also a soldier can carry a lot more enblocs, load them faster then clunking around with SVT mags and strippers. Better sights and better accuracy with the M1 as well. Really not much of a comparison.

For the "Russians knew mags were better" idea...dont lose your mags SVT, fixed mag SKS, back to mags with the AK. Not a lot of logic there.
Anyway it was ZEE GERMANS that were running high cap detachable mags, gas port/piston rifkes well before the Russians came up with the AK.

Plus the US M1 Carbine... remember that one, gas port, detachable high cap mags, 6 million+ made during WWII.

 

[steelgray]

The fact that the designer's opinion or advice gets over-run by Army demands shows up as well with regards to the barrel and gas system lengths in the final SVT-38 and 40 patterns. It is clear that most/ all of Federov Tokarev's prototypes, for these rifles, envisaged a handy carbine length rifle. See http://www.kalashnikov.ru/medialibrary/2a0/v-raznyh-variantah.pdf.

However, I believe that the Army ended-up saying (in Russian) - "decent design you got there Fed, but we will only accept it if you give it a really goofy long barrel". The thinking could have been were paying for that propellant - let's go with a barrel that will use all of it. Besides, Russia is a wide country - with lots of open spaces. Why not do everything possible to maximize the range of the firearm?

Those arguments had their day but didn't account for the firearm's eventual use in close quarters fighting in Stalingrad, Leningrad and ... finally Berlin. By late 41, the need for a carbine-length SVT-40 had been established and an APPROVED SKT-40 design had been authorized by the Army for production (as had been an early carbine version of the SVT-38) Some FACTORY SKT-40 guns were produced before German advances required that factory 318 be relocated (IIRC). Subsequent field cuts also can be seen as an attempt to undo the impracticalities of the crazy long barreled SVT-40 - as mandate by the Army.

I believe that his earlier prototypes for the SVT family of guns show that Tokarev had better instincts - than his "customer" - regarding the appropriate barrel lengths for these guns - but he simply got pushed around by the Army.

< snip> . 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?

 

[cantom]

Same deal with the Ross Rifle. Ross wanted to make a rifle with approx 26" barrel (IIRC) and using the high powered .280 round...he was overruled by the army boffins.

 

[steelgray]

Here's a picture of a Soviet soldier holding an SKT-40 (A.K.A SVT-40 carbine) in 1942 (source http://www.kalashnikov.ru/medialibrary/2a0/v-raznyh-variantah.pdf)

Got any photographic evidence of an SKS in use in WW2?

 

[Horilka]

Myth of SKS in the WW2 was debunked by Russian researcher R. Chumak whose pictures you're reposting here.

 

[steelgray]

Agreed. The SKS didn't get approved for production or issued until well after WW2. In fact it saw only limited use in the Korean War. It hit its stride in the early part of the Vietnam war.

However, a great M43 caliber carbine could have made it to the party in WW2 if events and gone differently.

Specifically Fedor Tokarev's AT-44 was ready for field testing in early May 1944. The AT-44 utilized a gas regulator mounted to an integrated unit providing the gas block, front sight, muzzle brake, and bayonet lug. Versus the SVT-40, it had a shorter receiver, smaller bolt face, relocated trigger (to accommodate a pistol grip), and a selector lever located on the lower rear portion of the trigger guard. The automatic fire mechanism of the AT-44 was very simple, with the position of the trigger itself determining semi- or fully-automatic fire.

It shared enough parts with the SVT-40 (which had been phased out of production by this time) that it probably wouldn't have been much of a stretch to put it into production using existing jigs, tooling etc.). That didn't happen. Fedor Tokarev was in his seventies and may not have had the energy left to promote his design.

Politics would have also been a factor.

Instead, the second gun to use the M43 round (after the RPD) would be the SKS - a good gun but never destined to be what a further-refined AT-44 could have been.

IMO the AT-44 could have given the STG44 a run for its money.

Myth of SKS in the WW2 was debunked by Russian researcher R. Chumak whose pictures you're reposting here.

 

[tiriaq]

Not surprising that the AT-44 used a unitized muzzle unit, with gas block, front sight assembly, bayonet lug and muzzle brake, given that the SVT also used such an assembly.

 

[milsurpo]

Reading Chumaks book on the SVT it's pretty clear the Soviets put a lot of actual engineering effort into making the rifle a success. There is a fine line between driving the moving parts at an adequate velocity for reliable functioning and pounding them too hard. Anyone who actually shoots SVT's knows that there is still quite a bit of gas pressure in the chamber when the bolt opens, even with the gas port way out in front. I suspect the carbine length versions were an engineering nightmare with the powerful 7.62x54 round (hence never really making it into service in a significant way). As far as the rifle being too long- I've use one in 3-gun on a couple of occasions and found it just fine. They may look unwieldy but the lightness makes up for it. Magazine changes are fast and easy and ,were it not for the 5 round limit, they'd be at no disadvantage to the modern stuff. The SVT 40 can also be as accurate as an M1 but don't expect it out of every run of the mill refurb.

milsurpo

 

[gewehr76]

Agreed. The SKS didn't get approved for production or issued until well after WW2. In fact it saw only limited use in the Korean War.

SKS was never issued nor it ever saw any action in Korean war. It never saw Korean conflict and in fact there was no SKS's available even in soviet army at 1949-50 year date as its production only started to be rammed up.
Korean war was fought only with WW2 small arms. SVT had more chances to be found in Korea than SKS ever would have been. Even that never happened.

 

[steelgray]

I don't know much about any use of the SKS in the Korean war but that reference I found that says this was the case was the Wikipedia page on the SKS at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS

See this part at the end:

"Conflicts
In the more than 70 years of use worldwide, the SKS has seen use in conflicts all over the world.

World War II: used for testing purposes during the last battles of the war[21]
Korean War: limited issue[22]" ...

Any comments? If this is wrong, it is Wikipedia so you can correct it

SKS was never issued nor it ever saw any action in Korean war. It never saw Korean conflict and in fact there was no SKS's available even in soviet army at 1949-50 year date as its production only started to be rammed up.
Korean war was fought only with WW2 small arms. SVT had more chances to be found in Korea than SKS ever would have been. Even that never happened.

 

[gewehr76]

Yeah right, like Wikipedia is pretty reliable source of information.
Wikipedia also states that SKS was rendered obsolete by AK47. What a total nonsense bs statement. Its like stating AK47 was made obsolete by adoption of PKM.
Each weapon has its own purpose. SKS was never adopted as frontline weapon in USSR in fact as you like to say SKS, was issued to troops that don't do actual fighting. AK47 and RPD49 were adopted for that purpose.

Wikipedia: "Almost as soon as the SKS was brought into service in 1949, it was rendered obsolete for Soviet purposes by the new AK-47"

Go ahead you can correct it.

I don't know much about any use of the SKS in the Korean war but that reference I found that says this was the case was the Wikipedia page on the SKS at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS

See this part at the end:

"Conflicts
In the more than 70 years of use worldwide, the SKS has seen use in conflicts all over the world.

World War II: used for testing purposes during the last battles of the war[21]
Korean War: limited issue[22]" ...

Any comments? If this is wrong, it is Wikipedia so you can correct it

 

[steelgray]

Assuming that this is true, I don't know why the Russians didn't use the SKS as a front line weapon. The North Vietnamese did and it certainly did the job well for them.

Otherwise, the M1 carbine wasn't developed to be a front line weapon but certainly ended-up being used as such in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

And in spite of my love of the M1 Carbine, I have to acknowledge that the SKS is a gun with more going for it as a battlefield weapon - as opposed to the M1 Carbine; which was originally designed as a "pistol substitute" for non combat service members.

Further in the hands of less-trained soldiers the SKS is probably a better front-line gun than the AK47. Less wasteful of ammo, easier to handle, a bit more accurate, has a bolt hold-open, has an accessible safety switch, no magazine to loose, etc

Yeah right, like Wikipedia is pretty reliable source of information.
Wikipedia also states that SKS was rendered obsolete by AK47. What a total nonsense bs statement. Its like stating AK47 was made obsolete by adoption of PKM.
Each weapon has its own purpose. SKS was never adopted as frontline weapon in USSR in fact as you like to say SKS, was issued to troops that don't do actual fighting. AK47 and RPD49 were adopted for that purpose.

Wikipedia: "Almost as soon as the SKS was brought into service in 1949, it was rendered obsolete for Soviet purposes by the new AK-47"

Go ahead you can correct it.

 

[gewehr76]

Look, you can assume what ever you want. USSR in 1950's was ahead of anyone else in small arms design and small weapon's doctrine for the army. They decided to use SKS in the support troops role, and that was it. Each branch of the army had its own use for SKS, AK and RPD. Later AK74 replaced AK47. RPD Got replaced by RPK and then 5.45 version RPK74. Only SKS stayed the same and in its role until this day.

When Soviets released SKS to Chinese and other Warsaw pact countries, they decided for themselves how to use it. As it comes to third world countries SKS and AK were sent to any regime that supported communist cause as aid. So when you get sks to use in the combat when before all you used was stones and spears, and later you get AK. You don't value AK as that much of improvement over SKS. This is what happened to Chinese. They are stil stuck in awe of SKS awesomeness.

US in that time had no direction or what they are going to use in next war. They had 3 different calibers for small arms while USSR standardized on single one already. And were sending their ww2 junk to support clandestine insurgences. So while US were still clinching to one shot one kill doctrine, USSR already knew that volume of fire will prevail in modern combat. So why issue same weapon to troops that aim nuclear missiles and troops that guard border along let's say Iran?

Anyway each weapon USSR/Russia ever adopted for military use, stays adopted. They don't designate particular weapon obsolete as per Wikipedia. So there are still somewhere in Siberia forestry rangers or fisheries inspectors that are still carrying M1895 revolvers or Mosin carbines as their day to day weapon. Or some railway officers on duty in military depots still use TT33 while regulars army use PM for over 50 years now.

My point is soldiers will use what their government issue to them, they take oath of allegiance to particular army they serve. But if in combat zone any particular weapon is found to be more useful than other they have at their disposal, then they will get what they need through their chain of supply.

Good example is PPS43 Since its adoption it was issued to recognizance units and tank crews only, while PPSh41 was issued to regular troops in WW2. So does it mean PPSh41 was made obsolete by PPS43? Is it? Both fire same cartridge. No each weapon has its purpose and used accordingly, same with SKS and AK47. Each has its own purpose and use.

Assuming that this is true, I don't know why the Russians didn't use the SKS as a front line weapon. The North Vietnamese did and it certainly did the job well for them.

Otherwise, the M1 carbine wasn't developed to be a front line weapon but certainly ended-up being used as such in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

And in spite of my love of the M1 Carbine, I have to acknowledge that the SKS is a gun with more going for it as a battlefield weapon - as opposed to the M1 Carbine; which was originally designed as a "pistol substitute" for non combat service members.

Further in the hands of less-trained soldiers the SKS is probably a better front-line gun than the AK47. Less wasteful of ammo, easier to handle, a bit more accurate, has a bolt hold-open, has an accessible safety switch, no magazine to loose, etc

 

[cyclone]

...


When Soviets released SKS to Chinese and other Warsaw pact countries, they decided for themselves how to use it. As it comes to third world countries SKS and AK were sent to any regime that supported communist cause as aid. So when you get sks to use in the combat when before all you used was stones and spears, and later you get AK. You don't value AK as that much of improvement over SKS. This is what happened to Chinese. They are stil stuck in awe of SKS awesomeness....

I read this in the same tone I read the Norinco literature for "maximum annihilating firepower"...

 

[gewehr76]

I read this in the same tone I read the Norinco literature for "maximum annihilating firepower"...

I'm glad you like it, If you ever read any technical manuals in Jinglish (Japanese to English), those are always fun to decipher.