AHC: spin-offs from the StG-44 as main players in the Cold war

The StG44 had a 30 round mag with 7.92mm bullets. I'd imagine the 7.7mm intermediate would be slightly wider and shorter than the 7.62x39 rounds.
Wait are you saying full sized 7.7mm or 6.5mm? Why would they rather than using an intermediate caliber? Otherwise they'd be better off just making their knock off Garand.
I was talking about an intermediate round but thought you were talking about the full size round which didn't make sense which is why I suggested the 6.5 Ariska round. The Ariska was used in the Federov automat so I thought it might work with the STG-44.
 

Deleted member 1487

I was talking about an intermediate round but thought you were talking about the full size round which didn't make sense which is why I suggested the 6.5 Ariska round. The Ariska was used in the Federov automat so I thought it might work with the STG-44.
The Federov was not an assault rifle, it was an automatic rifle like the BAR, just with a low end 'full power battle rifle round'. If they use that for the STG, then it ceases to be a real STG and is just a battle rifle like the FN FAL, M14, or G3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wtw
Not really inferior if it already did what the EM-2 did 6-7 years earlier with all the kinks worked out.
The StG45 probably would have been the model adopted, as it was the continued development that the Germans themselves were replacing the StG44 with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_45(M)
Simplest option is for Britain to get their hands on the STG-43 and decide to produce their own version using the same Production methods as the Sten to get it into the hands of the Paras by D-Day. They end up with something very similar to the StG-45.

Barrels are no problem as Britain is already using 7.92 caliber machineguns in tanks. They can probably have 7.92 Kurtz or similar in production fairly quickly by utilising one of the 7.92 ammunition production lines for the Kurtz round.
 
Last edited:
The Federov was not an assault rifle, it was an automatic rifle like the BAR, just with a low end 'full power battle rifle round'. If they use that for the STG, then it ceases to be a real STG and is just a battle rifle like the FN FAL, M14, or G3.
Just thought it would be better than the full size 7.7mm that I thought you were talking about.
So a shortened version of the Japanese 7.7 would be similar to the German 7.92 kurtz but wider. Would it be more powerful?
 

Deleted member 1487

Just thought it would be better than the full size 7.7mm that I thought you were talking about.
So a shortened version of the Japanese 7.7 would be similar to the German 7.92 kurtz but wider. Would it be more powerful?
Not wider, somewhat slimmer. Wider than the 7.62. It would probably be about the same.
 
The Federov was not an assault rifle, it was an automatic rifle like the BAR, just with a low end 'full power battle rifle round'. If they use that for the STG, then it ceases to be a real STG and is just a battle rifle like the FN FAL, M14, or G3.

What institution proved, beyond shadow of the doubt, that Fedorov's gun was not assault rifle?
 

Deleted member 1487

What institution proved, beyond shadow of the doubt, that Fedorov's gun was not assault rifle?
What institution proved it was? We've had this argument before, the Russian word Avtomat was stretched to mean assault rifle after WW2, but during WW1 it mean automatic rifle. The Russians too used it as a SAW with assistant gunner and bipod, which was very similar to the doctrine of use for the BAR in both WWs (and the Chauchat). Despite it's low weight, like the FG-42, it was perhaps too light for it's role and cartridge power and there were issues with accuracy in automatic fire mode, which is something assault rifles are actually designed to prevent and be able to be used on the assault, rather than a weapon that hangs back and provides the squad it's base of fire from a distance.

In any case the power of the cartridge would be the proof, as it was a full power battle rifle round, albeit probably the least powerful.
A popular hand reloader site says it is a battle rifle cartridge
http://www.chuckhawks.com/6-5x50.htm
The 6.5x50 turned out to be an excellent battle cartridge; flat shooting with mild recoil, it was easy to shoot accurately.

Frankly if the Czechs had made something like the VZ. 52 machine gun with that cartridge, they'd have had a pretty superb auto-rifle/LMG.

The Germans certainly missed out by not having a modified ZB 26 made in 6.5x54mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer with a more aerodynamic bullet. They should have had a fair bit of 6.5mm barrel making equipment on hand after annexing Austria and Czecho, plus later the Netherlands and Greece (both used 6.5mm rifles). They would have bought some from the Swedes, Romanians, and Portuguese, who used the same caliber too, especially as they made 6.5mm barreled LMGs for the Swedes. It was made at Steyr's arsenal in Austria.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What institution proved it was? We've had this argument before, the Russian word Avtomat was stretched to mean assault rifle after WW2, but during WW1 it mean automatic rifle. The Russians too used it as a SAW with assistant gunner and bipod, which was very similar to the doctrine of use for the BAR in both WWs (and the Chauchat). Despite it's low weight, like the FG-42, it was perhaps too light for it's role and cartridge power and there were issues with accuracy in automatic fire mode, which is something assault rifles are actually designed to prevent and be able to be used on the assault, rather than a weapon that hangs back and provides the squad it's base of fire from a distance.

The AK-47 was also inaccurate in automatic fire mode, yet it is considered assault rifle. I don't think that Fedorov's was too light for the cartridge.
The weapon that provides fire support from distance was/is a machine gun.
Had the equivalent of the Fedorov's Automat been developed in 1916 in Germany, or the UK, let alone in the USA, it would've been hailed today as the 1st viable assaut rifle (= available mode of use), and 1st viable automatic rifle (= type of weapon). Unfortunately for it's reputation, it was designed in Russia.

In any case the power of the cartridge would be the proof, as it was a full power battle rifle round, albeit probably the least powerful.
A popular hand reloader site says it is a battle rifle cartridge
http://www.chuckhawks.com/6-5x50.htm

The 6.5mm Arisaka was making same muzzle energy as the 6.5 Grendel. Should we 'delete' 6.5 Grendel from the list of intermediate cartridges, too?
6.5mm Arisaka was certainly not a full power rifle round, if 'full' = 100%.
 

Deleted member 1487

The AK-47 was also inaccurate in automatic fire mode, yet it is considered assault rifle. I don't think that Fedorov's was too light for the cartridge.
Not as inaccurate, plus the US claims about AK-47/AKM inaccuracy tend to be a bit overblown. The Federov was more inaccurate on full automatic.

The weapon that provides fire support from distance was/is a machine gun.
We agree then.

Had the equivalent of the Fedorov's Automat been developed in 1916 in Germany, or the UK, let alone in the USA, it would've been hailed today as the 1st viable assaut rifle (= available mode of use), and 1st viable automatic rifle (= type of weapon). Unfortunately for it's reputation, it was designed in Russia.
Doubtful. The FG-42 is not considered an assault rifle, nor was the Swedish BAR in 6.5mm. Nor the Italians MGs in 6.5mm nor the Japanese LMGs in 6.5 Arisaka.
There is some confusion about it's role because it's weight seemingly puts it into StG44 territory, but the issue is the power of the cartridge, which is far less powerful and more controllable on automatic and useable without a weapons team servicing it.

The 6.5mm Arisaka was making same muzzle energy as the 6.5 Grendel. Should we 'delete' 6.5 Grendel from the list of intermediate cartridges, too?
6.5mm Arisaka was certainly not a full power rifle round, if 'full' = 100%.
The Grendel is more powerful than a 7.62x39 round and is probably more like a battle rifle round than a true intermediate (though it should be noted that it only achieves that power out of a 24 inch barrel, not a standard assault rifle weapon). Which is why it cracks the bolt in the AR-15 and was not adopted. It, like the 6.5 Arisaka, probably are close to the border of what might be possibly considered an intermediate cartridge, but are more like an intermediate-'intermediate' cartridge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5mm_Grendel
Proponents assert that the Grendel is a middle ground between the 5.56×45mm NATO and the 7.62×51mm NATO.
It retains greater terminal energy at extended ranges than either of these cartridges due to its higher ballistic coefficient.[2]
The second sentence puts it outside the range of the intermediate cartridge, as it outperforms the actual current battle rifle cartridge (which itself was marketed as the 'intermediate' version of the .30-06).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_cartridge
Full-powered
A full-powered cartridge is a military service rifle cartridge with a minimum effective range of 1000 metres. Most full-powered cartridges have their origin in the turn of the 19th century with the advent of smokeless powder. Examples include 7.62×51mm NATO, .30-06 Springfield, 7.62×54mmR, .303 British, 7.92×57mm Mauser, 7×57mm Mauser or 8mm Lebel. Today they are primarily used only in medium machine guns, battle rifles, and marksman/sniper rifles.
As the Grendel (and Arisaka 6.5) meet the above requirement it is actually a full power cartridge, as intermediates have an effective range of only 300-600m:
Intermediate
An intermediate cartridge is a military rifle cartridge that is less powerful than typical full power battle rifle cartridges such as the 7.92mm Mauser or US .30-06, but still significantly more powerful than pistol cartridges.[1] As their recoil is significantly reduced compared to high power rifle cartridges, fully automatic rifles firing intermediate cartridges are relatively easy to control. However, even though less powerful than a traditional rifle cartridge, the ballistics are still sufficient for an effective range of 300–600 metres (980–1,970 ft), which are the maximum typical engagement ranges in combat.

Even Wikipedia lists the Federov as a battle rifle rather than an assault rifle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battle_rifles
Fedorov Avtomat Degtyarev plant 6.5×50mmSR Arisaka
23px-Flag_of_Russia_%281696-1917%29.svg.png
Russia 1915
 
Not as inaccurate, plus the US claims about AK-47/AKM inaccuracy tend to be a bit overblown. The Federov was more inaccurate on full automatic.

I don't base my claim on US experiences, but on my own.
The AK-47 (all of the versions used in war of 1991-95 here) were least accurate, the SKS/PAP and M-72 (=copy of RPK) were more accurate, the FAL, G3, M16 and Mausers were best.

We agree then.

We agree that wepon that stays behind is an MG.

Doubtful. The FG-42 is not considered an assault rifle, nor was the Swedish BAR in 6.5mm. Nor the Italians MGs in 6.5mm nor the Japanese LMGs in 6.5 Arisaka.
There is some confusion about it's role because it's weight seemingly puts it into StG44 territory, but the issue is the power of the cartridge, which is far less powerful and more controllable on automatic and useable without a weapons team servicing it.

I don't consider the FG 42 as assult rifle either. The 6.5mm Arisaka in the automatic rifle makes painfully sense as an assault rifle, it just took the world 100 years to figure it.

The Grendel is more powerful than a 7.62x39 round and is probably more like a battle rifle round than a true intermediate (though it should be noted that it only achieves that power out of a 24 inch barrel, not a standard assault rifle weapon). Which is why it cracks the bolt in the AR-15 and was not adopted. It, like the 6.5 Arisaka, probably are close to the border of what might be possibly considered an intermediate cartridge, but are more like an intermediate-'intermediate' cartridge:

That 6.5mm cracks the bolt of the AR-15 does not mean nothing (apart from signaling that bolt of AR-15 is too weak), since it does not crack the bolt of the AK-47. Or, if the American's have problem with that, it is not like all the world has problem.
Check out at youtube for Serbian AK clone in 6.5 Grendel.

The second sentence puts it outside the range of the intermediate cartridge, as it outperforms the actual current battle rifle cartridge (which itself was marketed as the 'intermediate' version of the .30-06).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_cartridge

As the Grendel (and Arisaka 6.5) meet the above requirement it is actually a full power cartridge, as intermediates have an effective range of only 300-600m:

Nope. Intermediate cartridge is between pistol cartridge and full-power cartridges. If we accept the .30-06 or .303 as having 100% of the power (=full), the 6.5 Arisaka and Grendel with ~70% power are not full power cartridges.

Even Wikipedia lists the Federov as a battle rifle rather than an assault rifle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battle_rifles

That's Wikipedia, disagreeing with itself:
Some consider it to be an "early predecessor" or "ancestor" to the modern assault rifle,[4][22][23][24] while others believe that the Fedorov Avtomat was the world's first assault rifle, based on the argument that it was chambered in "one of the least powerful rifle-caliber cartridges then in use".
 

Deleted member 1487

I don't base my claim on US experiences, but on my own.
The AK-47 (all of the versions used in war of 1991-95 here) were least accurate, the SKS/PAP and M-72 (=copy of RPK) were more accurate, the FAL, G3, M16 and Mausers were best.
The AK47 was also the least powerful (relative to the weight of the round), lightest, and had the shortest barrel of the above, so hardly surprising that of those options it is the least accurate.

I don't consider the FG 42 as assult rifle either. The 6.5mm Arisaka in the automatic rifle makes painfully sense as an assault rifle, it just took the world 100 years to figure it.
Based on...?

That 6.5mm cracks the bolt of the AR-15 does not mean nothing (apart from signaling that bolt of AR-15 is too weak), since it does not crack the bolt of the AK-47. Or, if the American's have problem with that, it is not like all the world has problem.
The Grendel was supposedly developed for the AR-15, but it simply too powerful a round for the intermediate round designed weapons platform. How extensively has the AK-47 been testing with the Grendel? The Serbian version was likely purpose redesigned for the Grendel, as it is only used by the spec ops units AFAIK.

Nope. Intermediate cartridge is between pistol cartridge and full-power cartridges. If we accept the .30-06 or .303 as having 100% of the power (=full), the 6.5 Arisaka and Grendel with ~70% power are not full power cartridges.
Sounds like you're making an arbitrary declination there. How much power is say the 9mm parabellum in comparison to the .303? Seems like the range performance would be a better indicator of where it stands than a muzzle energy calculation.

That's Wikipedia, disagreeing with itself:
Some consider it to be an "early predecessor" or "ancestor" to the modern assault rifle,[4][22][23][24] while others believe that the Fedorov Avtomat was the world's first assault rifle, based on the argument that it was chambered in "one of the least powerful rifle-caliber cartridges then in use".
All it says is that 'some' believe that the Avtomat is an assault rifle simply based on using one of the least powerful battle rifle rounds, not that that opinion is correct.
 
One idea I've had for the Mers el Kebir Resolution is a 3 way split in NATO and the Allies.

The US, China, and later entrants to NATO adopt the 7.62

The Commonwealth adopts the 7.2/.280 British.

The rest of Western Europe adopts the 7.92 Kurz.
 
The AK47 was also the least powerful (relative to the weight of the round), lightest, and had the shortest barrel of the above, so hardly surprising that of those options it is the least accurate.

The M16 was lighter, so was the SKS/PAP, while all non-wester guns I've mentioned (3 main types) used same cartridge.

Based on...?

...desire of, predominatly American, military to have something more powerful than 5.56 and yet less powerful than 7.62 NATO, that resulted with not just 6.5 Grendel, but also with 6.8 SPC.

The Grendel was supposedly developed for the AR-15, but it simply too powerful a round for the intermediate round designed weapons platform. How extensively has the AK-47 been testing with the Grendel? The Serbian version was likely purpose redesigned for the Grendel, as it is only used by the spec ops units AFAIK.

The bolded part is a sweeping statement. AR-15 was designed for one of the least powerful intermediate cartridges, not for all intermediate cartridges.
Serbs are testing the AK-47/Grendel for about a year or two.

Sounds like you're making an arbitrary declination there. How much power is say the 9mm parabellum in comparison to the .303? Seems like the range performance would be a better indicator of where it stands than a muzzle energy calculation.

if you have better metrics, please post about it.

All it says is that 'some' believe that the Avtomat is an assault rifle simply based on using one of the least powerful battle rifle rounds, not that that opinion is correct.

As above - post your metric, and then we can take a look where the Fedorov's gun can be classified.
 

Deleted member 1487

The M16 was lighter, so was the SKS/PAP, while all non-wester guns I've mentioned (3 main types) used same cartridge.
Not relative to the bullet weight, which was the major factor in recoil impulse, a major factor in accuracy (besides the relative merits of the long stroke gas piston vs. expanding gas system and multi-lug rotating bolt), while the SKS had a significantly longer barrel and greater weight, thus was able to achieve greater accuracy than the AK47. The Battle Rifles used longer barrels, with heavier rounds, with better ballistic coefficients, and greater power, which enhanced accuracy. Also if you're using Soviet made ammo vs. NATO ammo there is a serious quality difference.

...desire of, predominatly American, military to have something more powerful than 5.56 and yet less powerful than 7.62 NATO, that resulted with not just 6.5 Grendel, but also with 6.8 SPC.
Which is why they didn't adopt it because of it being too powerful for existing weapon systems and defeating the purpose of the light weight rifle system?

The bolded part is a sweeping statement. AR-15 was designed for one of the least powerful intermediate cartridges, not for all intermediate cartridges.
Sure, but the AK-47 was designed around a round that generated much less muzzle energy than the Grendel. Other than the Serbs, no one else has adopted the Grendel for their AK platforms either and the Soviets/Russians even abandoned their efforts in the 6mm/6.5mm area.

Serbs are testing the AK-47/Grendel for about a year or two.
And they are the only ones. Why?

if you have better metrics, please post about it.
I did: range performance, recoil impulse, controllability in full auto, weight of round.
 
Not relative to the bullet weight, which was the major factor in recoil impulse, a major factor in accuracy (besides the relative merits of the long stroke gas piston vs. expanding gas system and multi-lug rotating bolt), while the SKS had a significantly longer barrel and greater weight, thus was able to achieve greater accuracy than the AK47. The Battle Rifles used longer barrels, with heavier rounds, with better ballistic coefficients, and greater power, which enhanced accuracy. Also if you're using Soviet made ammo vs. NATO ammo there is a serious quality difference.

SKS was a battle rifle (semiautomatic rifle, too), that used intermediate cartridge, the same cartridge adopted later to the AK 47.
At any rate, the AK-47 was least accurate, and was still classified as assault rifle.

Which is why they didn't adopt it because of it being too powerful for existing weapon systems and defeating the purpose of the light weight rifle system?

Is that a question or the answer?

Sure, but the AK-47 was designed around a round that generated much less muzzle energy than the Grendel. Other than the Serbs, no one else has adopted the Grendel for their AK platforms either and the Soviets/Russians even abandoned their efforts in the 6mm/6.5mm area.
And they are the only ones. Why?

There you go. The AK platform can 'swallow' the more powerful round, the AR-15 can't.
Why no US or Russian 6-6.5mm in mainstream? Money, plus a surplus of millions of rifles and MGs in intermediate and full-power cartridge.

I did: range performance, recoil impulse, controllability in full auto, weight of round.

Okay. How does the Fedorov's gun rate in your metrics?
 

Deleted member 1487

SKS was a battle rifle (semiautomatic rifle, too), that used intermediate cartridge, the same cartridge adopted later to the AK 47.
At any rate, the AK-47 was least accurate, and was still classified as assault rifle.
The SKS was a carbine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbine#After_World_War_II
(It is interesting to note that the SKS – an interim, semi-automatic, weapon adopted a few years before the AK-47 was put into service – was designated a carbine, even though it's 20" barrel was significantly longer than the AK series' 16.3". This is because of the Kalashnikov's revolutionary nature, which altered the old paradigm. Compared to previous rifles, particularly the Soviets' initial attempts at semi-automatic rifles, such as the 24" SVT-40, the SKS was significantly shorter. The Kalashnikov altered traditional notions and ushered in a change in what was considered a "rifle" in military circles.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS
Its complete designation, SKS-45, is an initialism for Samozaryadny Karabin sistemy Simonova, 1945 (Russian: Самозарядный карабин системы Симонова, 1945; Self-loading Carbine of (the) Simonov system, 1945).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle
Battle rifle is a post-World War II term for military service rifles that are fed ammunition via detachable magazines and fire a full-powered rifle cartridge.[1]

The term "battle rifle" was created largely out of a need to better differentiate the intermediate-power assault rifles (e.g. StG-44, AK-47 and M16) from full-powered automatic rifles (e.g. FN FAL, M14 and H&K G3) as both classes of firearms have a similar appearance and share many of the same features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips, etc.[2]

This term may also describe older military full-powered semi-automatic rifles such as the M1 Garand, Gewehr 43, MAS-49, and the SVT-40.[3][4] Before the 1990s, the term was not well defined and was used as a general description for all types of military rifles.

Is that a question or the answer?
Both. The military didn't want it, some SF guys wanted a heavier round for close fighting and the Grendel did not meet their needs nor did it work with their existing platform; it was too powerful for their needs.

There you go. The AK platform can 'swallow' the more powerful round, the AR-15 can't.
Why no US or Russian 6-6.5mm in mainstream? Money, plus a surplus of millions of rifles and MGs in intermediate and full-power cartridge.
Can the AK system actually swallow it without significant modifications? You've asserted it, but haven't sourced that.
I'm not saying that 6-6.5mm weapons cannot be adopted if the caliber change was desirable enough, but it doesn't seem to have proved enough of an advantage to outweigh the drawbacks.

Okay. How does the Fedorov's gun rate in your metrics?
An automatic rifle with full powered ammo. Federov wanted an even more powerful round, but had to settle for the Arisaka due to the lack of ability to put his round into production:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/07/13/original-6-5mm-cartridge-fedorov-avtomat/

Though looking at the Russian language Wikipedia page, the Russians for some reason produced much lower powered Arisaka rounds:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Автомат_Фёдорова
There could be no question of the development and mass production of the new patron Fedorov, and the designer adapted his rifle to an even weaker Japanese cartridge of 6.5 × 50 mm Arisaka with muzzle energy of 2615 J.

Arisak's cartridge when firing from the Fyodorov Machine gun had a muzzle energy of 1960 J, and it was this value that was laid in the technical specification for a new intermediate cartridge for several variants of calibers - 5.6 mm, 6.5 mm and 7.62 mm, but for a shorter barrel. The Japanese cartridge was smaller than Fedorov's, and the rifles were fitted for it, inserting a special insert into the chamber.

With that muzzle energy then you are at the level of a STG or AK bullet, as the performance of the round will be substantially less than that of the full powered version of the cartridge. Technically speaking then the automatic rifle was in the realm of an assault rifle in terms of performance, but had the role of an RPK. So yeah, then I guess you're technically right, it could have qualified as an assault rifle in terms of performance, but was used as an automatic rifle and Fyderov himself wanted it to be much more powerful like a full powered automatic rifle:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/07/13/original-6-5mm-cartridge-fedorov-avtomat/
The final cartridge was headspaced on the shoulder and it was rimless.

Compared to modern cartridges, Fedorov’s #5 has a longer case and overall length than the .260 Remington, but ballistically (launching a 130gr bullet at 2820 fps) it is about identical to the .260 Rem.

The 130 grain (8.5 gram) bullet was easily reaching the set muzzle velocity requirement of 860 m/s (2820 fps).

Too bad for the Russians they didn't run with the system and develop it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not meaning to get between your robust chat but I feel obliged to weigh in regarding 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel

6.8 SPC was designed to increase the lethality of the M4/16 platform - particulalrly carbine length weapons (16" barrel) 'at' battlefield ranges - ie 0-300 meter over 5.56 Nato

6.5 Grendel was supposed to create a more effective longer ranged bullet with superior ballistics to 7.62 x 51 Nato for the same M4/16 platform (24" Barrel) out from 200 to 800 meters

Both are technically intermediate although for me the 6.5 is more specialised with the Six8 being what my idea of an intermediate round is.

That being said the latest Textron LSAT prototype LMG and Carbine are being developed for the US DOD in 6.5 Grendel CTA so what the hell do I know!!?
 

Deleted member 1487

Any thought that NATO, adopting either the 7.92 Kurz, their own 7.62 'kurz', or a 7mm caliber might have made an RPK-type weapon or belt fed RPD style version?
 
Top