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

Deleted member 1487

I don't want to derail the thread but I'm curious now about how the FG-42 might have preformed chambered in 6,5mm?
What type of 6.5mm?

As it was it actually did pretty well in 7.92:
 

Deleted member 1487

Better than 8mm Mauser, unless you have the need to shoot at 1000M for some reason
With enough barrel length I'd better you could hit and kill someone at 1000m just as well with a 6.5mm Arisaka round as a 7.92mm Mauser. Potentially better in fact depending on the ballistics of the bullet itself.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
The 7mm Mauser will not do it in a hand-held automatic wepon because it is much more powerful than 6.5 Arisaka or other intermediate rounds - bullet weigthing 9g was propelled at 900 m/s, vs. 770 m/s of the 6.5 Arisaka when fired from long barrel of the Japanese rifle, or 654 m/s when fired from Fedorov's gun.
That Japanese failed to introduce automatic, or at least semi-auto rifle in the 6.5mm Arisaka was their mistake, especially since they probably knew that was done 20 years before they pushed from Manchuria to China.

Not the point. If they'd bought Spanish mausers instead of Japanese Arisakas, the Federov WOULD be in 7mm Mauser.

Seems like you are to judge who is stupid and who is not, and if someone is found to be stupid, the mud throwing begins:

Any attempt to attach knowledge and intent to historical events where the actors do not expressly make know their intent and knowledge is inherently stupid.

This is where most of human error is introduced, and is based on a false equivalence of historical and contemporary events.



Overpowered round?? 6.5mm Arisaka from Fedorov's gun develops slightly less muzzle energy than the AK-47, much less than EM-2 with .280 British, and same as the StG-44. There was no simple automatic hand-held weapon before ww2 so we can jump to the conclusion that Fedorov's gun was complicated, while being a far better and more realistic proposal than the Chauchat, G-41 or FG-42.
Oh, I've forgot that any gun made by Germans = sexy.
What kind of automatic wepon have you developed that makes you decide what designer gets the mud bath?
I see I missed them down-loading the 6.5mm Arisaka.

However this raises the point that you could down-load a .50 BMG to deliver less energy than a 7.62x39mm, but that doesn't make it an intermediate round.

I stand firmly by my position on the 6.5x50mm. They may have really scaled it back for the Federov, but that says nothing about the cartridge in general.

Additionally, the Federov was expensive, complex, and temperamental. None of which is desirable.

About the only good thing you could say about it is that it worked decent enough once they'd been bought, and built, and if it's crew could keep it running.

Additionally, the chauchat's biggest problem was its magazine and the round its chambered in (admittedly a bit difficult to change, given the French proclivity for bureaucratic inertia), the G41 was kind of a shit show because the Heer had some damn stupid requirements, and surprisingly the FG-42 isn't all that bad, actually. It's got a pretty effective muzzle brake and the in-line recoil impulse keeps the sights from bouncing around too much.

Also you don't have to be a master craftsman and designer to know when something doesn't work; that part is self evident.


So the niece can handle recoil of 5.56 in semiautomatic, ergo anything more powerful is missing a point? Seems like nobody said that to the designers of the AK-47, StG-44 or the (original) EM-2. Nobody was issuing 8-9 assault rifles + 1-2 plain-vanilla bolt-action rifles to a squad, the 1-2 weapons were (L)MGs, sometimes the sniper versions of bolt-action rifles were added.
Quirk also being that 6.5mm, with better L:D ratio, will be more accurate above 300m than the 7.62-8mm bullets that weight the same, with less drop and less wind drift.

Neice can handle 5.56, ergo its not too powerful for a full grown, trained, and practiced adult to handle on full automatic (and this is supported by decades of use by dozens of countries)

And the concept of just throwing everyone an assault rifle is flawed as well.

Frankly if I'm kitting a squad out in 1946, I want one MG 42, two M1's with a QD scope mount similar to some of the things the Germans had in WWII, and everybody else gets an Stg-44.

And 6.5mm is an excellent caliber, especially for longer ranged shooting. However 97% of the time it doesn't matter.

If you want to develop a new round for 3% of the time, that's fine. I'm going to take the same money you spent on R&D and new rifles, and I'm going to go update some older rifles in 7.62x51, and do 90% as well as you did, and buy twice as many.



Assault rifles issued on big scale were replacing both 'battle rifles' and SMGs. Thus being suited for ranges far greater than SMGs, while indeed touching, but not replicating the realistic ranges the battle rifle can reach.

Exactly, 5-600m was supposed to be the realistic upper limit on effective range, and it's gotten the job done since 1942.

Luckly, you understand what an assult rifle is.

Well in a thread about assault rifles, somebody ought to.
 

Thank you.
Is there a comparsion of those rifles, with regard to simplicity, reliability, performance, suitability for firing from shoulder, weight?
The Cei-Rigotti and Ribeyrolles seem like major missed opportunities.

The FG-42 was actually less complicated than the Avtomat, especially the later stamped metal versions. The Federov rifle was very intricate and needed to be dramatically simplified to be mass produceable; as it was it was a swiss watch.

FG-42 might've as well been less complicated, but I don't think it it was as well suited for firing from the shoulder. We also have a thing that FG-42 was 25 years later design, that should've given it's constructors some advantage.
The people on the video made the workshop strip, not the field strip. We can try to disassemble the M1 Garand or the SKS in that way, removing metal from wood and see how finicky that gets.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Japanese Ariska.
Certainly easier to shoot due to lessened recoil. I'd imagine they redesign the bullet to be more aerodynamic and lighter, which would further boost performance in the way that would matter to the accuracy of such a platform. Perhaps they might approach the CETME 7.92x40mm performance with it?
 

Deleted member 1487

Frankly if I'm kitting a squad out in 1946, I want one MG 42, two M1's with a QD scope mount similar to some of the things the Germans had in WWII, and everybody else gets an Stg-44.
The Germans themselves wanted StG only squads, with the MGs left to a weapons squad within the platoon to provide fire support from a distance, same with the rifle grenadiers and scoped riflemen (I've even seen some suggestion that the marksmen would better left to the company level). They wanted two all StG squads per platoon backed up by one weapons squad with 2x MG42s for the attack, with an additional MG42 kept in company reserve for a defensive situation. The 3x rifle grenadiers would be directly under the platoon leader's command to provide concentrated 'light mortar' support as needed.
 

Deleted member 1487

Thank you.
Is there a comparsion of those rifles, with regard to simplicity, reliability, performance, suitability for firing from shoulder, weight?
The Cei-Rigotti and Ribeyrolles seem like major missed opportunities.
Simple blowback is hard to beat for simplicity and reliability. The problem with the Ribeyrolles was the accuracy due to the bolt recoil and the heavy caliber with low muzzle velocity and heavy, flat based round.
The Cei Rigotti was too heavy of a round (full battle rifle) for full auto; it was the M14 before the M14.

FG-42 might've as well been less complicated, but I don't think it it was as well suited for firing from the shoulder.
Single shot it was fine; full auto was meant to be from prone with a bipod except at close ranges. The muzzle break made it viable for that.

We also have a thing that FG-42 was 25 years later design, that should've given it's constructors some advantage.
Indeed. Nevertheless Fydorov did have knowledge of the much simpler designs of the era like the ENT and Winchester, which were FAR less complex and indeed less complex than the FG-42 (but less accurate due to their construction).

The people on the video made the workshop strip, not the field strip. We can try to disassemble the M1 Garand or the SKS in that way, removing metal from wood and see how finicky that gets.
Given the relative lack of moving parts it still would demonstrate the simplicity of the SKS and Garand relative to the Avtomat. The Soviets had access to the Federov and the Garand; they chose to copy the Garand (and M1 Carbine) for the AK-47 and SKS, while shit canning Federov production in the 1920s for being too complex and finnicky in service, despite Fydorov himself working to design weapons for the Soviets and refine his systems. Technically the DP28 with it's flaws was the product of his developments, as his student, who he worked with in the 1910s-30s, including on the Avtomat was Degtyarev:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дегтярёв,_Василий_Алексеевич

He seemed to love complexity, something German designers are often accused of, producing things like the PPD 40:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPD-40
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 1487

The Japanese Ariska.
I got one better for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.240_Apex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.250-3000_Savage

FG-42 in 6mm Apex or .250 Savage. Nearly a 7.92mm case necked down to 6mm. Pushes a 100 grain bullet to nearly 880 m/s at the muzzle. Pretty close the the modern concept of the '6mm Optimium'
http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/magazine/issues/1999/SEP-DEC/pdfs/SEP-DEC99.pdf
Crist's specifications were that "6mm Optimum" ammunition achieve, with a 100 grain bullet:
  • velocity: 2,900fps (muzzle), 1149fps (1,200m)
  • energy: 1,867ft-lbs (muzzle), 293ft-lbs (1,200m)
  • flight-time to 1,200m: 2.21 seconds
  • deflection @ 1,200m in 10mph crosswind: 151 inches
  • maximum trajectory: 244 inches
...of which he noted, "...even with a conservative estimate for the muzzle velocity of the 6mm Optimum cartridge, computed data for 1200-meter velocity, flight-time, wind-deflection, and trajectory height are all greatly superior to both 5.56 and 7.62 NATO rounds."[1]
 
Carp and moan all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you simply misunderstand the concept, and the relevant factors and principles behind the concept.
And you can conclude all that from me asking you to clarify what you draw such authority from? I think you may be a bit over-defensive.

Your shortcomings are not that you are necessarily wrong (except with the Avtomat and 6.5mm Japanese, you're just wrong as hell there), but that you simply don't see the common ideas and underlying concepts behind everything you talk about.

You have a lot of superficial knowledge, but you're just not connecting the dots for some reason.
Amusingly enough I have little interest in either the Avtomat or its round, which are both interesting but impractical curiosities in the WW2 timeframe. The primary obsession with those seems to be yours. I just wanted to check if you really were just an arrogant prick who has unilaterally appointed himself as the internet’s chief decider on all things rifle-related, and now I know the answer to that question.
 
Just a thought. A hypothetical one. The US having been impressed with the tactical performance of the Stg-44 decides to up the power of the M1 carbine round to something in the 7.62x39 range. Could the basic paction of the M1 carbine handle it? Would it becontrolable? And how long before we see "burst" settings instead of or in addition to auto and semi?
 

Deleted member 1487

Just a thought. A hypothetical one. The US having been impressed with the tactical performance of the Stg-44 decides to up the power of the M1 carbine round to something in the 7.62x39 range. Could the basic paction of the M1 carbine handle it? Would it becontrolable? And how long before we see "burst" settings instead of or in addition to auto and semi?
The French actually did something like that (not really 7.62x39) with their 7.65x35 that they ended up not adopting IIRC for NATO reasons.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...tm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
So have the US lengthen the .30 Carbine a bit, had a spitzer bullet and you're good to go.

The M1 Carbine was the platform they used for it initially while they used captured Mauser engineers to developed the delayed roller blowback system before abandoning it and letting the engineers head to Spain and form CETME.

Burst would take a while to show up, probably the 1970s, but it is largely a dead end and is being abandoned AFAIK.
 
Just a thought. A hypothetical one. The US having been impressed with the tactical performance of the Stg-44 decides to up the power of the M1 carbine round to something in the 7.62x39 range. Could the basic paction of the M1 carbine handle it? Would it becontrolable? And how long before we see "burst" settings instead of or in addition to auto and semi?

the 30 carbine cartridge(7.62x33mm) with 38,500psi pressure has 1300J of energy, 5.56x45mm is 1800J for many loadings, and 7.62x39mm is 1500J, but those run at 55,000 and 45,000 psi pressure

The slightly upscaled Ruger Mini-14 has no problem with those two cartridges.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
And you can conclude all that from me asking you to clarify what you draw such authority from? I think you may be a bit over-defensive.

You never asked "what I draw such authority from". You asked for numbers, and I explained why any numbers I could give you would be largely meaningless.

About the only thing that might have any useful information would be recoil impulse, but this would vary between loadings and rifles, and would only be relevant for a specific loading from a specific rifle, and thus one would need to compile a list of every factory loading of cartridge in every rifle the round is chambered in, and sort all of these by their felt recoil impulse in order to even begin to build your list of what would qualify as an intermediate round.

And as I said before, I'm not touching that. That's some serious, headache inducing work, involving a LOT of time, math, digging and research.


But short answer, I draw this conclusion from your insistence on hard a hard definition for an intermediate round.

This demonstrates that you either don't know or don't care about the technical and practical factors that go into making an intermediate round "intermediate", and are either unaware of or unconcerned with the fact that the cartridge does not stand in isolation.

Amusingly enough I have little interest in either the Avtomat or its round, which are both interesting but impractical curiosities in the WW2 timeframe. The primary obsession with those seems to be yours. I just wanted to check if you really were just an arrogant prick who has unilaterally appointed himself as the internet’s chief decider on all things rifle-related, and now I know the answer to that question.

Could have sworn you were one of the people arguing for the Federov in 6.5x50 as an assault rifle...

Well regardless, call me an arrogant prick all you want, you've still yet to come up with a cogent response to anything, unless one considers wibbling and quibbling about a hard numerical definition for intermediate rounds to be cogent.
 
Top