There isn't a massive reason to trade a bolt gun with a dedicated supply chain for a bolt gun with no real supply chain. There is a massive reason to trade a bolt gun for a semi-auto. It might seem simplistic, but would you trade one very similar weapon for another with less support if you were betting your backside on it? To make that type of change, you'd want to have a very good reason to switch - like increased rate of fire.
Why didn't the Germans used captured Lee-Enfields?
- Thread starter steelgray
- Start date
As has been authouratively stated on another web site the hole in the lhs of the charger guide on the SMLE was to allow the front of the striker to be snapped off before surrender. Therefore the captured arms were useless and even Numrich would not ship parts. And those know nothings at Enfield thought it was to run a miller in to finish the bottom of the charger guide slot.
Yes authouratively stated. LOL LOL LOL
Yes authouratively stated. LOL LOL LOL
Hi green, referring to the breaking of the firing pin, do you have any particular service manual for reference ?
Or what was the web site that authoritatively stated the firing pin comment.
Sounds like a collectors myth to me.
Or what was the web site that authoritatively stated the firing pin comment.
Sounds like a collectors myth to me.
Doesn't it seem kinda weird to you that the Russian army would create a complete 80 page illustrated filed manual for a gun where "there are no (known to collectors) carbines outside of museum and museums".
SKT-40 Russian Army manual of 1940
Guess what. There is one known to a collector - i.e. me - and it is residing in my collection.
Don't you also think that it is weird that the gun is also described in the German Soliders book - produced during WW2 - for use by German troops - where it was introduced to the Wermacht under the index SiGewehr 259/2(r) which is stand for the "Shortened SVT-40".
see D50/1 Kennblätter Fremden Geräts" 1 Handwaffen
Oh yeah, and here is a video of a guy shooting a gun that "doesn't exist outside of museums"
Last edited:
I gave you all opportunities to learn, pointed to authors and resources and what you're doing is creating some crazy mix of documents and theories from all over the places just to justify your "unicorn" which is in fact just a Bubba carbine.
You haven't looked past the name, haven't you? Well, look inside and see how similar it is to what you have or to the one from German manual. Manual is dated 1938 and for carbine developed by Tokarev in 1936. Kind of even pre-SVT-38. And yes, manual was created, and no that carbine was not accepted. Yours in not the one anyway. You're welcome.
Maybe it's time to apply logic to your carbine and explain how it got barreled receiver from 1940-1941 rifle, stock from 1942 or later and exhibit all the features of Soviet 1960x refurb? This is of course if you don't trust documents and pictures of known variations. Just a hint of logic could lead you to the right conclusion.
You haven't looked past the name, haven't you? Well, look inside and see how similar it is to what you have or to the one from German manual. Manual is dated 1938 and for carbine developed by Tokarev in 1936. Kind of even pre-SVT-38. And yes, manual was created, and no that carbine was not accepted. Yours in not the one anyway. You're welcome.
You have Bubba carbine. World is cruel. No matter how you want to believe you got unicorn, it's still Bubba. You're welcome.
I'm well aware about SiGewehr 259/2(r) nomenclature, so what? Again, have you even looked at the picture from German manual? It's not one of the carbines designed by Tokarev. Moreover with upper heat shield like that (twice! longer then on regular rifle) and cleaning rod that will not stay in place and handguard band that is not complete I would incline to say photo montage. Germans encountered some rifles that were shortened but did not even have one on hands to make a good drawing of it. Instead they montaged some fantasy piece that won't even hold it's cleaning rod in place.
Carbines do exist, carbines in NA and Europe are Bubba, but still carbines. I also handled two carbines in ON and of course I passed, so what? Authentic ones are not mass production, but experimental, development or trial models and exist only in museums. I don't know what is hard to comprehend here.
Maybe it's time to apply logic to your carbine and explain how it got barreled receiver from 1940-1941 rifle, stock from 1942 or later and exhibit all the features of Soviet 1960x refurb? This is of course if you don't trust documents and pictures of known variations. Just a hint of logic could lead you to the right conclusion.
Last edited:
First of all, where is this stuff coming from about "my carbine"? I haven't posted a picture of mine.
The fact that the SKT-40 is in the German Soldiers book says it all.
As for the picture in the German Soldiers book, some SKT-40 guns were factory-produced (a bit less than 3,000) and perhaps that number - or more - were created as wartime "field cuts" - converted from standard SVT-40's.
There will be pattern variations within the latter group (i.e., wartime "field cuts). That accounts for some of the variations of the gun shown in the German Soldiers' book, relative to the approved factory pattern.
You seem to be a fan of Chumak. Great, I think he can be considered an authority.
Ever looked at his book?
See
http://www.kalashnikov.ru/medialibrary/2a0/v-raznyh-variantah.pdf
How about page 27? That's a Russian soldier holding an SKT-40 - in a photo dating to 1942.
You might have passed up a chance to buy a real WW2 field cut (twice) because you are so sure that these guns don't exist.
Last edited:
Sweet Baby Jebub. Are you Boris Badinov by chance? I took it was your carbine in post #15. Not yours? Feel free to open new topic with your carbine pics, better on GunBoards.
Quoting 7.62x54R or MosinNagant,Net (both have absolutely outdated and in many parts absolutely incorrect information) is kind of like teaching today's students about flat earth theory. I pointed that to you already, if you don't understand the sources then don't use them. It's considered absolutely not acceptable these days when there's better source for SVT knowledge.
Even when you try to use my write up on SVT and referring to it in your for sale post, you still managing to get it all wrong! Your rifle for sale is typical Soviet refurb, not Bulgarian. The only special thing about her is "special" MK prefix which is unique for Dec 1941 production at Mednogork, and that's it. Otherwise - run of the mill refurb.
BTW - do you understand that you're arguing with the same guy that created that write up and visual guide on SVT where you posted "This is an amazing resource."? Not like you to argue is bad, but more like you're sure my knowledge on subject is not good enough to convince you?
I'm not a fan of someone, but I have deep respect for Chumak research. There are topics I disagree with Chumak, though it's never on facts he found in documents, but on conclusions and suggestions and timing. Still I have both first and second edition of his book.
Have I ever looked in his book? There's my name with "thanks" in this book, for god's sake, I helped and had access to parts of both books before they were published!
You really think I can't tell war time cut down from post-war marked Soviet and Finnish refurb that was cut here or in Europe? Well, I can. Your suggestion on number of cut down is not based on anything, go ahead and say there were millions, same thing.
P.S. factory does not approve patterns, I don't even know where to start with.. It is always like this I try to explain and end up arguing with person who's not willing even to research for very basics in firearm manufacturing, in this case Soviet. I gotta quit. We all have right to bring some imagination into this world.
Last edited:
As noted, the gun in #15 isn't mine - and I have no idea who Boris Badinov is (is that a good thing or a bad thing?). Mine was in pieces at the time I was posting and it was easier to post a picture that I found on the web that illustrated the differences - for the benefit of folks who would know far less about these things than you.
The special thing about the Mednogork 1941 production SVT-40 which I'm selling (which has nothing to do with this thread) is its relative scarcity (one of such 9,930 guns) and the fact that it is all matching - and in really good shape. Gun prices are subjective but people seem to jump at paying $2,000 for a common Garand - what is that?
I might PM you some pictures of my SKT-40 to get your advice. Based on my limited research I think it is a WW2 field cut.
I know you will freak out at the suggestion but I think that production records of the real factory SKT-40 guns are hiding in plain sight. What do you think is the meaning of the reference to 2270 "training SVT rifled produced at Mednogork in 1941. That would square-up with the story that the gun was put into production - but production was cut short by the advances of the Germans.
Is this one of your posts?
What is a training SVT-40 anyway? Maybe somebody conflated these shorter guns as being intended for use by cadets, small persons etc (women?). That part might even be true. Remember the guy shown on page 27 of Chumak's book - holding an SKT is a smaller guy.
Maybe training use was given as an excused to convince a reluctant Military to allow these guns to be made.
I doubt that Fed Tokarev had to be convinced of the merits of a carbine version of his gun. He seems to have been all-in from day-one
It is clear that most/ all of Federov Tokarev's prototypes, for these rifles, envisaged a handy carbine length rifle. Link
Anyway thanks for you comments. I can tell you know your stuff. As noted, I might even consult with you via PM
Last edited:
I'm sure that Horilka knows this but in addition to being listed in the German Soldiers book of 1941 it is listed and reviewed (briefly) in a 1954 US Ordnance Corp publication, and posted on the Forgotten Weapons web site. LINK. See page 35 which reads:
"d. The Tokarev ‘7.62-mm semiautomatic carbine Ml940 was made only in.small numbers. Its weaknesses, with regard to durability, repair, and maintenance, were the same as those of the Tokarev rifles. This carbine is not a standard weapon, and is unlikely to be found in the field"
Pretty weird for the US Ordnance Corp to test a gun that doesn't exist.
"d. The Tokarev ‘7.62-mm semiautomatic carbine Ml940 was made only in.small numbers. Its weaknesses, with regard to durability, repair, and maintenance, were the same as those of the Tokarev rifles. This carbine is not a standard weapon, and is unlikely to be found in the field"
Pretty weird for the US Ordnance Corp to test a gun that doesn't exist.
Last edited:
gewehr76
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rocky and Bullwinkle show
Last edited:
The German on the left has a No.4 sniper. What about Alec Baldwin on the right. What's he got?
I didn't answer my own question. The picture was provided by rempel429 in his post LINK. IMO, people need to read threads more fully and not contrive opportunities to make personal attacks.
Just like most things in war its all about logistics. They would have had little ability to support via spare parts and ammo and the Nazis/Germans already had a horribly organized and prioritized supply chain. Re-tooling or re-prioritizing any of its constantly diminishing industrial capability was even a bridge to far for the krauts.
Sure they pressed lots of stuff, LEs included, into use; but that was battlefield expediency with no real military logistical sustainability in hand. Once broken down, no matter how minor, or out of ammo they would probably discarded.
Sure they pressed lots of stuff, LEs included, into use; but that was battlefield expediency with no real military logistical sustainability in hand. Once broken down, no matter how minor, or out of ammo they would probably discarded.
