# StG44 vs AK-47



## Soren (Nov 27, 2009)

StG44 AK-47 assessed as weapons: StG44 deemed better than the AK-47

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1eIr9KTKeA_

Doesn't surprise me much, but I would point out that the AK-47 probably is more rugged than the StG44, infact I'm quite sure about that.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 27, 2009)

I disagree with their assessment of the StG44 over the AK47... There are subtle differences that eeek the AK over the StG, both are great assault rifles in their own right...


----------



## Soren (Nov 27, 2009)

Not sure, I mean they both have their positive and negative sides. 

Power = Equal
Accuracy = StG44
Reliability = AK-47
Controllability = StG44

Here's another vid on the StG44 from the same series:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jrlCPq5stE_


----------



## Amsel (Nov 27, 2009)

Thanks for pointing out that series on Youtube. It is pretty entertaining.

I have never fired an STG 44 before but have owned a couple AK varients. I am a big fan of the AK mostly due to its reliability and ability to put out a high volume of man stopping rounds down range without having to worry much about stoppages. The AK in my opinion is one of the best rifles ever mass produced for the 200 meter or less firefights.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 27, 2009)

Wow, the StG44 was a much better weapon them I was aware of. Great post!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 27, 2009)

The StG weighs more than the AK, by about 2 pounds, and that makes a difference...

The effective range of the StG is 300m with some pretty weak sights, the AK is 100-1000m with sight adjustments...


The AK also has a higher muzzle velocity than the StG, a slightly higher rate of fire and is a smaller, more compact weapon...


----------



## parsifal (Nov 28, 2009)

Yeah, the appraisal that I saw was that the sights on the STG were very poor. I guess the rifle finish for the STG may make it a better proposition, but if the sights are crude, what do you do???


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 28, 2009)

Field replacement or alteration....


----------



## davebender (Nov 28, 2009)

The StG44 was an interim design. It was to be superceded by the StG45 during May 1945. If Germany had survived WWII intact the Cold War would see NATO armed with the StG45 plus the original 7.92mm Kurz FN FAL vs the Warsaw Pact armed with the AK-47.

*Sturmgewehr 45 *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_45(M)
Type Assault rifle 
Place of origin Nazi Germany 

Service history 
In service May 1945 
Used by Nazi Germany 

Production history 
Designed 1944 
Produced 1945 
Number built 30 

Specifications 
Weight 5.22 kg (11.5 lb) 
Length 940 mm (37 in) 
Barrel length 419 mm (16.5 in) 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cartridge 7.92x33mm Kurz 
Action Roller-delayed blowback 
Rate of fire 350-450 rounds/min 
Muzzle velocity 685 m/s (2,247 ft/s) 
Effective range 300 m 
Feed system 10 or 30-round detachable box magazine 
Sights Rear: V-notch; front: hooded post


----------



## timshatz (Nov 28, 2009)

The Stug 45 seems a litte on the heavy side. 11.5lbs is pretty heavy for an infantryman to be carrying around as a standard weapon.


----------



## davebender (Nov 28, 2009)

The StG44 and StG45 were both heavy compared to modern assault rifles. I suspect the StG45 auf A would see a weight reduction. Either that or the StG45 would be superceded by the G3, which traces it's development back to the StG45.

In either case I think the 7.92mm Kurz cartridge was just fine for a post-WWII infantry rifle. A much better choice then the historical NATO standard 7.62 x 51mm.


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> The effective range of the StG is 300m with some pretty weak sights, the AK is 100-1000m with sight adjustments...



Effective range is the same for both weapons, the StG44 shoots a heavier bullet abit slower and the AK47 shoots a lighter one a bit faster, both bullets are FMJBT's. The StG44's sights are fully adjustable out to a range of 800m.

Also I'd say the sights on the StG44 are just as good as those on the AK-47, both are crude sights, but actually prefer the V sight on the StG44 because of the the fact that you can shoot more accurately with a sharper front sight. 




> The AK also has a higher muzzle velocity than the StG, a slightly higher rate of fire and is a smaller, more compact weapon...



The RoF is very similar, the StG44 having one ranging from 500 to 600 rpm (Different reciever weights caused fluctuations in RoF), while the AK-47 has one of 600 rpm. 

Here's are a couple of vids of StG44's firing at around 550 to 600 rpm (full power surplus ammo can also increase the RoF, reproduction ammo often decreasing the RoF):



_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySMyeQEO9Ug_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_XIN7VMUzc_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RnvbvpGzbY_

Notice in this vid how similar it is to the AK47 in RoF, it is really very much the same:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRYm11j3wwA_


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2009)

Davebender,

The StG44 wasn't going to be replaced by the StG45, it would be supplemented by it only. The StG45 was designed to be much cheaper and simple to manufacture than the StG44,


----------



## RabidAlien (Nov 28, 2009)

Also consider the timeframe these weapons were made, and the materials available. Not a lot of plastic weaponry being produced in '44 and '45. Had the StG-44 or -45 evolved over time, would it have been able to match the AK-47? If the makers of each weapon had the benefit of the exact same research and materials, how would they compare? Without that, its like saying that the P51 was a piece of crap because the F22 would eat it for lunch.


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 28, 2009)

Interesting thread fellas!


----------



## davebender (Nov 28, 2009)

> StG44 wasn't going to be replaced by the StG45, it would be supplemented by it only.


You are probably correct if we assume WWII continues into the late 1940s. However as soon as the war ends Germany would terminate production of the StG44 and MG-34. The newer StG45 and MG-42 designs would become post-WWII standard for the German armed forces.


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2009)

davebender said:


> You are probably correct if we assume WWII continues into the late 1940s. However as soon as the war ends Germany would terminate production of the StG44 and MG-34. The newer StG45 and MG-42 designs would become post-WWII standard for the German armed forces.



I'm actually quite certain that in the above event then the StG44 would be chosen instead for some time until a more refined weapon featuring some of the StG45's features was developed = a weapon like the G3.

I believe had the war ended with a draw because of Hitler somehow dying earlier than expected due to poor health or a plot against his life, then a weapon a lot like the HK33 (More wood, less plastic to begin with) chambered in the 7.92x33 kurz or a 6.5x43mm experimental round would be the std. issue rifle of the German armed forces from around 1950 onwards.

HK33:






One of my all time favorite designs, and the std. issue rifle for the indian army.


----------



## davebender (Nov 28, 2009)

Hmmm. The HK33 looks like a StG45 on a diet. Similiar performance but much lighter.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 28, 2009)

Soren said:


> Not sure, I mean they both have their positive and negative sides.
> 
> Power = Equal
> Accuracy = StG44
> ...



Cost: AK-47
Weight: AK-47
There is a reason that there are no armies currently armed with the StG-44


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 28, 2009)

Sure. No one wanted to adopt a calibre of a defeated hated super power.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 28, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Sure. No one wanted to adopt a calibre of a defeated hated super power.


on the other hand the 7.92x57 Mauser was used for the remainder of the decade with '98 Mauser knockoffs and even the FN-49 semi-auto rifles chambered for it. The 7.92x57 was adopted by more countries after the war (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Israel, among others) than any WWII rifle cartridge with the exception of the 7.62x54R (Soviet).


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> on the other hand the 7.92x57 Mauser was used for the remainder of the decade with '98 Mauser knockoffs and even the FN-49 semi-auto rifles chambered for it. The 7.92x57 was adopted by more countries after the war (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Israel, among others) than any WWII rifle cartridge with the exception of the 7.62x54R (Soviet).



Lets take a look at how many weapons in the world were chambered in the 7.92x57mm round and how many counrties had set up factories to produce that round by this time as compared to the 7.92x33mm Kurz which entered production first in 1943, and that exclusively in Germany, and then I think you'll find the answer for that difference 

Fact is the StG44 has some advantages over the Ak47 and vice versa. The StG44's advantages over the AK47 are that it is more accurate and controllable in automatic fire whilst at the same time featuring virtually the same RoF and power of the AK-47. It's disadvantages are its higher weight, larger size and more expensive manufacturing cost. (The AK is also more rugged, but that is a mood point since the AK is more rugged than any other weapon on earth pretty much) In short the StG44 was waay ahead of its time. The basic design is what you see in the G3, which is what the StG44 eventually evolved into.


----------



## davebender (Nov 28, 2009)

The AK-47 design is about 5 years newer then the StG44. It should surprise no one that it's superior. 

The real question is why newer weapons like the M-14 and original model M-16 are inferior to the AK-47 as standard infantry rifles.


----------



## Amsel (Nov 28, 2009)

I really can't see that the M-14 is inferior to the AK-47. I have both rifles and the M-14 is just as rugged, much more accurate, powerful, and much more versatile then the AK-47.

But when comparing the AK to the M-14 one needs to note that the AK is an assault rifle while the M-14 is whats called a Main Battle Rifle.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 28, 2009)

> It's disadvantages are its higher weight, larger size and more expensive manufacturing cost. (The AK is also more rugged, but that is a mood point since the AK is more rugged than any other weapon on earth pretty much)



There you go. The advantages of the Stg44 are fairly meaningless considering that the assault rifle concept for 40 years was to use assault rifles to get useful firepower into the hands of masses of conscripted soldiers. No country is going to adopt an expensive, complicated, heavy, semi-reliable weapon as an assault rifle.

M-14s, G3s, FALs and Dragunovs were made to provide power and accuracy. IMO the G3 is the best of the battle rifles, and if the actions are related, that's where the Stg44 really shines.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 28, 2009)

davebender said:


> The StG44 was an interim design. It was to be superceded by the StG45 during May 1945. If Germany had survived WWII intact the Cold War would see NATO armed with the StG45 plus the original 7.92mm Kurz FN FAL vs the Warsaw Pact armed with the AK-47.
> 
> *Sturmgewehr 45 *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_45(M)
> ...


Interesting that you mention the StG 45. When I saw this thread that is also what I was going to mention.

I however disagree about the weight: the StG 45 was going to be lighter than the StG 44 ! Empty the gun probably weighs around 4 kg.

I once read that the StG 45 was rejected because of how it ejected the bullets... dunno.

Kris


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 29, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> on the other hand the 7.92x57 Mauser was used for the remainder of the decade with '98 Mauser knockoffs and even the FN-49 semi-auto rifles chambered for it. The 7.92x57 was adopted by more countries after the war (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Israel, among others) than any WWII rifle cartridge with the exception of the 7.62x54R (Soviet).



(I'll answer to the question in a more specific way then Soren did)
7,92 x 57 (as well as the Austro-Hungarian 8mm) were THE rifle rounds in Central Europe for almost 100 years. Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia simlply continued to use what was on hand, and their inter-war rifles were chambered to a 'natural' choice. After the WW2 they just carried on*, with Czech rifles ending in Mid East. 

7,92 Kurz was produced by Nazi Germany, and there were only captured examples of StG-44 that were used in hands of other armies past WW2. There were small series produced in Czechoslovakia Argentina, but those are exceptions to the rule (Czechs simply continued to use the machines from WW2).

*Post-WW2 Yougoslavia produced the MG-42 as M-53 machine gun, then they used MP-40and PPSH to produce their MP, the M-48 rifle was a copy of German Kar-98 etc.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 29, 2009)

Forgot to add that 7,92 x 57 was the caliber of coax MGs for British tanks during the WW2.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 29, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> (I'll answer to the question in a more specific way then Soren did)
> 7,92 x 57 (as well as the Austro-Hungarian 8mm) were THE rifle rounds in Central Europe for almost 100 years. Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia simlply continued to use what was on hand, and their inter-war rifles were chambered to a 'natural' choice. After the WW2 they just carried on*, with Czech rifles ending in Mid East.
> 
> 7,92 Kurz was produced by Nazi Germany, and there were only captured examples of StG-44 that were used in hands of other armies past WW2. There were small series produced in Czechoslovakia Argentina, but those are exceptions to the rule (Czechs simply continued to use the machines from WW2).
> ...


My point was that the 7.92 Kurtz being a "dirty Nazi caliber" had nothing to do with why the Stg44 was not more directly copied. 

The reason is that NATO still wanted a battle rifle and the Soviets were adopting the AK47 and SKS (being cheaper and more reliable weapons).


----------



## Soren (Nov 29, 2009)

The reason was that it was a lot easier to stick with the 7.62 caliber and build a new weapon around it than to reequip the whole industry to produce a more advanced and complex design with a different caliber round. It was all about money, nothing about weapon performance. And it paid off well enough as-well, as the AK-47 is undoubtedly while a very crude and simple weapon, one of the best ever produced.


----------



## davebender (Nov 29, 2009)

1919. 
German Rifle Testing Commission advocates adoption of a short cased cartridge and new rifle. The Versallies Treaty puts this project on hold.

1927.
DWM conducts tests of short cased rifle cartridges. With French troops occupying the Saar and Ruhr I assume this project went nowhere. 

1938.
Polte Patronenfabrik awarded contract to develop a short cased infantry cartridge. By this point in time Germany has re-established defenses along the border with France. Hence this program can be pushed to completion.

1939. 
HWaA issues a contract for development of a "machine carbine". It will be chambered for the new 7.92mm Kurz cartridge.

1942. Walther MKb.43(W). The first German assault rifle. Prototypes only.

1944. StG44. The second German assault rifle. 400,000+ produced.

May 1945. StG45. The third German assault rifle. Prototypes only. However it was intended for mass production.

1950s. CETME assault Rifle.
Designed by Ludwig Vorgrimler who had previously designed the StG45. If Germany remains intact after WWII then this will probably be their equivalent to the Soviet AK-47. It would remain chambered for the 7.92mm Kurz. At least that's my best wild guess.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 29, 2009)

Soren said:


> The reason was that it was a lot easier to stick with the 7.62 caliber and build a new weapon around it than to reequip the whole industry to produce a more advanced and complex design with a different caliber round. It was all about money, nothing about weapon performance. And it paid off well enough as-well, as the AK-47 is undoubtedly while a very crude and simple weapon, one of the best ever produced.


The caliber isn't important. If the Stg44 was that awesome it could have been chambered in a new 7.62, or even in .30 Remington. As it was it was an expensive rifle that fit a niche the West wasn't interested in yet.


----------



## Soren (Nov 29, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> The caliber isn't important. If the Stg44 was that awesome it could have been chambered in a new 7.62, or even in .30 Remington. As it was it was an expensive rifle that fit a niche the West wasn't interested in yet.



Well it was awesome, it's just that some didn't realize this whilst others weren't willing to pay the money to produce it and would rather choose a cheaper way at achieving something roughly similar.


----------



## davebender (Nov 29, 2009)

That isn't true. The StG44 was dirt cheap compared to the M1 Garand used by the American Army. The StG45 would have been cheaper still. Let's look at a few small arm prices. I have assumed an American dollar = 2.5 German marks.

$24. MP40 SMG.
$26. StG44 Assault Rifle.
$28. 7.92mm Mauser 98k rifle.
$70. Thompson SMG. Spring 1942 price.
$83. M1 Garand rifle. July 1942 Winchester.
$100. MG42 Machinegun.
$131. MG34 Machinegun. Tripod costs an additional $160.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 29, 2009)

Do you have unit costs for the M1 Carbine?


----------



## davebender (Nov 29, 2009)

WWIIReenacting.co.uk Forums • View topic - U.S. Carbine Cal. 30 M1....


> Inland Division of General Motors average manufacturing cost: $39.60 per M-1 Carbine
> Winchester Repeating Arms Co. average manufacturing cost: $37.75 per M-1 Carbine
> Underwood-Elliot-Fisher average manufacturing cost: $47.82 per M-1 Carbine
> Rock-Ola average manufacturing cost: $58.00 per M-1 Carbine
> ...



Looks like about $40 per M1 carbine. About half the price of an M1 Garand rifle.




> the M1 Carbine gas system was developed by a convicted murderer while in prison


And I thought prisoners were only good for making license plates.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 29, 2009)

I don't trust 1944-45 cost estimates. Desperation makes people work whether they are paid or not.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 30, 2009)

Is there any difference in the production costs of the two weapons......I have read that the STG made extensive use of stampings to minimize expensive machining costs. The AK wins this in spades over most modern western design, which from a procurement cost point of view appear to have lost the plot in many ways (IMO)


----------



## davebender (Nov 30, 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_45(M)


> Compared to the StG44's cost of 70 Reichsmarks, the StG45(M)'s calculated cost was 45 Reichsmarks.



If we assume 2.5 marks per American dollar.....
$28. StG44.
$18. StG45.

I doubt the AK-47 cost less to produce then the StG45. Heck the StG45 only costs $3 more then an American M1911 .45 cal pistol. 

Like the Me-109 fighter aircraft, StG44 and StG45 assault rifles were dirt cheap mass production marvels.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 30, 2009)

AK-47 version using metal stampings was the AKM-47. So the StG-44 holds some 20 years advantage over AK in that area.


----------



## timshatz (Nov 30, 2009)

Anybody have a picture of the Stg 45? Does it look like the Cetme? Own one and am pretty impressed by it (even though it's a Century Arms knockoff).


----------



## davebender (Nov 30, 2009)

Modern Firearms - Mauser Gerat 06H / Stg.45(M) assault rifle


----------



## timshatz (Nov 30, 2009)

You can see the family resemblence.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 30, 2009)

I seriously doubt these 11th hour wartime cost estimates are likely to produce an apples to apples comparison.


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2009)

I gotta agree with Clay regarding the costs. They can't be compared from country to country since like Clay pointed out desperation or a patriotic feeling of responsibility for your own country can drive many to work for a lot less.


----------



## timshatz (Nov 30, 2009)

I was amazed to see the Stg 44 weighted in at 11lbs while the Stg 45 came in at close 8lbs. I am going on the assumption they were quoting loaded weight. The Stg 44 was heavy.


----------



## davebender (Nov 30, 2009)

Can you point to an example where this happened historically? Everything I have read suggests factory wages tend to go up during wartime.


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2009)

Dave,

As the war went on the salary of the average German worker stayed the same, but taxes increased substantially at the same time and the German government issued strict price controls on wartime products so they could buy them a lot cheaper. 

So in terms of material man hours used, I'll bet my best hat on that the StG44 was a lot more expensive to make than what a random price comparison from different countries would let you to believe.


----------



## timshatz (Nov 30, 2009)

The progression of the Stg.44 to Stg 45 seems to mirror that of the MG34 to MG42. The second on both items tended to be more stamped and spot welded than the machined parts of the earlier version. In that case, I could see that costs would be held down in the second version as it is specifically redesigned for ease of manufacture. 

Did the same thing happen with the MP38/MP40?


----------



## davebender (Nov 30, 2009)

I guess that depends on how you define "minor". The StG44 action is gas operated. The StG45 action is operated by roller-delayed blowback.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 1, 2009)

davebender said:


> I guess that depends on how you define "minor". The StG44 action is gas operated. The StG45 action is operated by roller-delayed blowback.


He said MIRROR.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 1, 2009)

Was thinking the German arms seemed to be refined in later generations of the weapons. First the concept weapon is made. It tends to be over engineered and expensive to make (MG34, Stg44, Luger), the design is then studied for improvement possibilities (in some cases, evidently a complete departure from the operating system occurs) in both operation and manufacture. Then, a second generation comes out (MG42, Stg45, P38) which is generally an improvement on the whole concept.

It seems a different philosophy than other countries. US, for example, tends to stick with the same design but might refine the design. Rarely do they depart. Same with most of the other countries out there. Germany seemed willing to supplant a design if study came up with a better option. Right in the middle of a war too.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 1, 2009)

I wouldn't link the P-38 with the Luger. I doubt Walther was even thinking about Lugers when they designed it.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 1, 2009)

To tell the truth, I'm not very familiar with either the P38 or the Luger. Only know that it succeeded the Luger and was generally thought to be a better pistol, but not a "cooler" one. Seemed to handle dirt better and was a double action. Thought it was designed to replace the Luger as the Luger had problems with dirt and was pretty complex.

I'm sure others on this board know more about it.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 1, 2009)

timshatz said:


> I was amazed to see the Stg 44 weighted in at 11lbs while the Stg 45 came in at close 8lbs. I am going on the assumption they were quoting loaded weight. The Stg 44 was heavy.



Weight does make a difference, as Dan pointed out. However, the German assault rifles, whilst heavy, are not that heavy. The STG-44 weighed 5.1 kg unloaded, compared to the lee enfields 3.71 kg . The 98K weighs 3.9 kg, the FG 42 (not the MG 42) 4.5 kg, arisaka weigh4.31. The Garand weighs 4.37 kg

So while it is heavy, this was an acceptable price to pay for a fully operational assault rifle


----------



## Soren (Dec 1, 2009)

The weight of the StG44 is 5.22 kg fully loaded, which isn't heavy at all. Unless you're a real wimp ofcourse..

A modern assault rifle weighs in at about 3.5 to 4 kg. Although the British L85 actually weighs 5 kg, and I've walked around with this baby and it aint heavy at all.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 1, 2009)

I'm thinking in terms of the infantry carrying them. And an 11lb/5.5kg weapon (approximate) is a very heavy personal weapon. Not thinking of being a wimp or not, just the capacity of a solider to carry this thing and ammo. 

The guys I knew (and I was ex-Navy so I never had to carry anything heavy for more than a mile- tops) would always pick up a rifle and say something like "That's not too bad" or "That thing will way a ton after ten miles" simply because of the weight of the thing mattered that much when you carried it. 

Back to it, 11lbs for a standard infantry rifle is heavy. 8lbs is not too bad, acceptable would be my guess. But like I said, I never had to carry them more than up a few decks (and it was an M14 which was probably in the 8-9lb range).


----------



## Soren (Dec 1, 2009)

Timshatz, didn't you guys lift weights or performed any cardio exercises?? When not on the shooting range we pretty much lifted weights and ran all the time. I've also often witnessed men walking 30 km (roughly 18 miles) with an LMG swung over the shoulder (Now that I will testify is a pain in the butt!)

Anyway an M14 weighs 5.2 kg empty, so abit heavier than the StG44 which weighed 4.22 kg empty, which is still light enough to be carried around for miles without any trouble at all - if you're a fit soldier that is 

Didn't know you Navy guys were such wimps, haha, no just joking


----------



## timshatz (Dec 1, 2009)

No worries Soren, I don't think of myself as a REAL wimp, gotta join the Air Force for that (joke, just a small joke, can hear the AF guys gumbling now). 

Thought the M14 was lighter than 5.2 kilos. Didn't seem that heavy. Then again, I was younger and all that. 

Back to the thread (and keeping in mind your point on Infantry constantly training or just getting in field shape as a ongoing process), I was thinking of the amount of wear and tear that happens to a guy in the field for extended periods. Have yet to meet a guy who spent time in the field and didn't lose weight or muscle mass. Knew a Capt in Iraq who dropped 30lbs in the invasion. That sort of thing is going to wear down your ability to carry any load for an extended period. Then weight would matter. 

On a side note, I knew a guy who was ex-UDT and said they used to give the LMG to the "Slab of Beef", otherwise known as the guy who was all brawn and no brains. That ain't you is it buddy?


----------



## Soren (Dec 1, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Back to the thread (and keeping in mind your point on Infantry constantly training or just getting in field shape as a ongoing process), I was thinking of the amount of wear and tear that happens to a guy in the field for extended periods. Have yet to meet a guy who spent time in the field and didn't lose weight or muscle mass. Knew a Capt in Iraq who dropped 30lbs in the invasion. That sort of thing is going to wear down your ability to carry any load for an extended period. Then weight would matter.



You're absolutely right about the loss of weight, but it is mostly fat which is burned away, some muscle is lost as-well eventually but you're constantly using them so they adapt. Furthermore a 5 kg weapon is not heavy at all, not even after hauling it around for a loong time. 



> On a side note, I knew a guy who was ex-UDT and said they used to give the LMG to the "Slab of Beef", otherwise known as the guy who was all brawn and no brains. That ain't you is it buddy?



 No no! Like I said carrying an LMG was a pain in the butt and thankfully I complained enough when'ever I had to lift any of the heavy stuff that they never even thought of assigning me that duty, haha 

Now on a more serious note I did carry an MG3 for about 5 km (ca. 2.8 miles) once, and that over some pretty rough terrain. The MG3 weighes about 11 kg (24.5 lbs), and that was pretty tough as far as I can remember. (Remember that I was carrying about 25 kg of gear on top of this)


----------



## Civettone (Dec 1, 2009)

davebender said:


> I guess that depends on how you define "minor". The StG44 action is gas operated. The StG45 action is operated by roller-delayed blowback.


Quite right. The same can be said about the MG 45. All in all, the StG 44 was already dirt cheap with all these stamped parts and plastic. The StG 45 even more but the main difference was this simple roller-delay. 


But again ... according to Handrichs "Sturmgewehr!" the fact that the StG 45 ejected the cartridges top right was one of the reasons why the weapon was rejected: gunners position was too easy to recognize.

Kris


----------



## davebender (Dec 2, 2009)

That's pretty easy to change.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 2, 2009)

Soren said:


> Now on a more serious note I did carry an MG3 for about 5 km (ca. 2.8 miles) once, and that over some pretty rough terrain. The MG3 weighes about 11 kg (24.5 lbs), and that was pretty tough as far as I can remember. (Remember that I was carrying about 25 kg of gear on top of this)



It adds up. One of the reasons I stayed out of the Army was all that walking with 80lbs on my back. That, and rain (it always seems to be raining). And mud. And crapping in a hole. And MREs. And....

There were more than enough reasons to pick a nice ship over a wet foxhole. Honestly, how they get you guys do to that....


----------



## davebender (Dec 2, 2009)

I served 6 years in the USN followed by 14 years in the full time Army National Guard (AGR program). Overall I liked the Army better then the Navy. Both had a few good points and plenty of bad points. But the military retirement package is nice. 8)


----------



## Soren (Dec 2, 2009)

timshatz said:


> It adds up. One of the reasons I stayed out of the Army was all that walking with 80lbs on my back. That, and rain (it always seems to be raining). And mud. And crapping in a hole. And MREs. And....
> 
> There were more than enough reasons to pick a nice ship over a wet foxhole. Honestly, how they get you guys do to that....



Haha, well to be honest I'd just end up boring my ass off on any ship, plus the thought of having to clean those latrines! I've heard wild stories about those things flushing in the wrong direction! Yikes!  Then a wet foxhole seems a lot nicer


----------



## timshatz (Dec 2, 2009)

Less BS in the Army than in the Navy, grant you that. Especially these days. 

Dave, What was the AGR Program? Never heard of it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2009)

timshatz said:


> It adds up. One of the reasons I stayed out of the Army was all that walking with 80lbs on my back. That, and rain (it always seems to be raining). And mud. And crapping in a hole. And MREs. And....
> 
> There were more than enough reasons to pick a nice ship over a wet foxhole. Honestly, how they get you guys do to that....



I was in the Army, I never did any of that. I had a nice 6x6 Gator to ferry me and the rest of the crew out to my helicopter. The most I carried was a flight bag, a 9 mm, an M-4 an M-60 and 1000 rounds of ammo. I carried that about 4 feet from the Gator to my helicopter. 



Oh wait I did carry some heavy stuff and rucked it in Basic though...


----------



## timshatz (Dec 2, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I was in the Army, I never did any of that. I had a nice 6x6 Gator to ferry me and the rest of the crew out to my helicopter. The most I carried was a flight bag, a 9 mm, an M-4 an M-60 and 1000 rounds of ammo. I carried that about 4 feet from the Gator to my helicopter.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait I did carry some heavy stuff and rucked it in Basic though...



Come on man, Army Aviation doesn't count. After basic, the longest hike you took was from the barracks to the chow hall! I'm talking nuts and bolts, heavy, straight leg infantry. The guys who look up at the sky when it's raining and say something like "This is real infantry weather". 8) 

To my mind, those guys really earn their pay. 

Not that Army Air doesn't. Way I look at THAT, they might just as well paint a bullseye on the side of your chopper. Everybody in range takes a pop and you are very obvious. Nah, that to me is a different deal. The golden BB, fugitive from the laws of averages and all that. On the ground, you can duck, dodge or just plain hide. Camo works. Never seen a helicopter that was convincingly painted to mimic a cloud. 

Plus, people put a lot of thought into killing infantry. But they really go to work when it comes to wrecking the equipment (aka, the helicopter). Take a helicopter for instance (as long as we're on the subject and the thread has drifted). You have all the stuff that ruin your day that the ground pounders do, PLUS, all sorts of other little goodies that are made just for you. AAA, SAMs, Heat Seekers, ect. It's enough to make you feel special. 

Not like being in a tank. Tanks are like Mongo from "Blazing Saddles". "Don't shoot him, you'll only make him mad". Very tough to kill and very, very powerful. Helicopters, just as dangerous (if not more so 'cause they get rather bent when you take pot shots at their own and tend to have faster moving family members hanging around) but easier to "get at". Plus, they are usually in a hurry to go somewhere. Occasionally, they are hanging around where you are. Then, it's best to be cool. 'Cause when they're interested, it is not a good idea to spike their curiosity. 

If I had done Army time, something mechanical like a Helicopter or Tank would've been my gig (most likely a helicopter, given my love of aviation). Anything but walking and humping a load. Even given the stuff I wrote above, I just don't dig the 80lb ruck.

Ok, I'm done. Long day, and I'm rambling.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 2, 2009)

Ive humped and jumped with alot of sh!t strapped to my body in my days with the Teams, and I can tell u this, from a Special Operations point of view, the weight of ur main weapon matters....

Also, the ease in which it breaks down is especially important, cause a clean weapon will save ur life one day....

To get back to the topic, Im not quite sure how resistant the StG was to dirt/filth/mud/water, but I know the AK would fire everytime I needed it to.... I cant say that of many weapons Ive used...

Question regarding barrel life, I wonder what the steel tolerances for the StG vs. the AK are...


----------



## davebender (Dec 2, 2009)

Army Regulation 135-18
The Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program.
http://www.calguard.ca.gov/cahr/Documents/Pubs/agr/r135_18 10Dec03.pdf

In a nutshell....
Most members of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve are part time soldiers. They train one weekend per month plus a two week period during the summer.

Each company size National Guard unit has a handful of full time solders. Typically
.....1 x unit clerk. Normally E-4 or E-5.
.....1 x supply sergeant. Normally E-6.
.....1 x training NCO. Normally E-6.
.....1 x readiness NCO. Normally E-7. 
These personnel are full time soldiers with the same pay and benefits as other full time solders. However they are permanently attached to a state national guard HQ (Michigan in my case). I started as an E-5 assistant training NCO and retired as an E-7 readiness NCO.

As a training NCO I rarely got to work in my MOS (Military Occupation Specialty). I wrote training schedules, prepared mobilization plans, processed security clearance applications, submitted school applications, coordinated the loan of equipment for training, prepared unit status reports etc.


----------



## Soren (Dec 2, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> Ive humped and jumped with alot of sh!t strapped to my body in my days with the Teams, and I can tell u this, from a Special Operations point of view, the weight of ur main weapon matters....



I absolutely agree, but a 5 kg weapon is more than acceptable. The std. AK-47, which is a small weapon, weighs 4.3 kg empty compared to the 4.62 kg of the StG44. The std. British service rifle L85 weighes ca. 5.5 kg loaded.



> Also, the ease in which it breaks down is especially important, cause a clean weapon will save ur life one day....



Very true, and the StG44 scores high marks here.



> To get back to the topic, Im not quite sure how resistant the StG was to dirt/filth/mud/water, but I know the AK would fire everytime I needed it to.... I cant say that of many weapons Ive used...



The StG44 was/is very reliable, esp. if properly maintained. But the StG44 was built to tighter tolerances than the AK-47 ever has been, and this affects reliability not in a positive way. I simply don't think anything has the reputation the AK-47 has within this field, I mean you can do just about anything to that weapon and it'll still fire.



> Question regarding barrel life, I wonder what the steel tolerances for the StG vs. the AK are...



The same for both I'd say, although MP43/1's no doubt have a longer barrel life than both.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 3, 2009)

well, having had a few shots fired at me over the years, during Boarding and search operations, my number one priority was not running out of ammunition at the wrong moment. It never happened to me, but I could think of nothing worse that having your weapon go click, when you wanted it to go bang


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 3, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> Question regarding barrel life, I wonder what the steel tolerances for the StG vs. the AK are...



It depends if the inner part of the barrel received chrome treatment or not. Most of ex-Yu copies (M-70 was the name) didn't have chromium-treated barrels, so the throughout cleaning was necessary. OTOH, the Russian pieces I've received back in 1990's war had chromium, so I was thrilled 

Don't know about StG-44 OTOH...


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 3, 2009)

StG44 5.22 kg = 11.5 lbs
AK47 4.3kg = 9.47 lbs with empty mag

2 pounds makes a difference Soren when ur humpin 75 lbs on ur back...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 3, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Come on man, Army Aviation doesn't count. After basic, the longest hike you took was from the barracks to the chow hall! I'm talking nuts and bolts, heavy, straight leg infantry. The guys who look up at the sky when it's raining and say something like "This is real infantry weather". 8)



Oh I hear you, I was only poking some fun at you.  



timshatz said:


> To my mind, those guys really earn their pay.
> 
> Not that Army Air doesn't.



Oh we earn our pay too. Every time we carry the wounded out so they may live another day, every time we pick up the infantry up out of the LZ and fly him home (then we are his best friend), every time we give air support when they are in a fire fight (the infantry buys us beer afterwards).

Besides Aviation gets all the girls anyhow. Women can not resist the two foot zipper!

You are correct on one thing though, we are way off topic...


----------



## timshatz (Dec 3, 2009)

davebender said:


> Army Regulation 135-18
> The Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program.
> http://www.calguard.ca.gov/cahr/Documents/Pubs/agr/r135_18 10Dec03.pdf
> 
> ...



Essentially gives you the opportunity to move into the ANG from the Regular forces? Seems pretty smart as the program allows the ANG to attract guys who are USN, USA, USMC and USMC and USAF. Did it work witht he reserve components of those services or was it just Regulars?


----------



## Soren (Dec 3, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> StG44 5.22 kg = 11.5 lbs
> AK47 4.3kg = 9.47 lbs with empty mag
> 
> 2 pounds makes a difference Soren when ur humpin 75 lbs on ur back...



While I agree that 2 pounds matters, I will have to point out that the StG44 weighes just 300 grams more than the AK-47 fully loaded Les, that's not even 1 pound. Fully loaded the AK-47 weighes 4.93 kg (full mag) where'as the StG44 weighes 5.22 kg (full mag). 

I've been carrying the L85 with 30 kg on my back, and I've also carried the G3 with 30 kg on my back. No difference felt by me at all. And the British L85 weighes 5.5 kg fully loaded. I remember we had a 40 mile or so march to make in 20 hours with this kind of packing. Not easy, but do'able.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 3, 2009)

I wasnt aware that the 5.22kg was fully loaded.... Changes the game slightly....


----------



## parsifal (Dec 3, 2009)

I have to admit that my source, which is not that great, so i bow to your source if you can confirm it, says the STG was 5.1 kg unloaded, although it does say that the weapon was lightened up later on....Perhaps your figure relates to these later, lightened versions, whilst the figure quoted in my reference is for the earlier heavier version?????


----------



## davebender (Dec 3, 2009)

> opportunity to move into the ANG from the Regular forces?


Probably half or more of National Guard solders have active duty military service. In my case I joined the National Guard as a "weekend warrior" after being discharged from the Navy. 17 months later I was accepted into the full time AGR program.


----------



## Soren (Dec 3, 2009)

The original StG44 manual is my source Parsifal:







Translation:

_*4. Firing distance:*
Aimed fire: 100 to 800 m. Adjustable in 100 m increments.
Effective range: In singleshot mode 600 m 
......................In automatic mode 300 m_

_*5. Firing rate:*
9 rounds/sec_ (540 rpm)

_*6. Mass and weight:*
Caliber: 7.92mm
Lenght: 930mm
Weight with sling magazine: 4.62 kg
Weight of 30 round full magazine: 0.92 kg _

Each 7.92x33mm Kurz round weighs 16.5 grams (8.1 g projectile 8.4 g cartridge filling), and there's 30 of them in the mag, which equals 495 grams. Add that to the 4.62 kg and you've got the full weight = 5.11 kg. So your source got one thing wrong Parsifal, the weight of 5.1 kg wasn't unloaded but instead fully loaded.


----------



## Soren (Dec 3, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> I wasnt aware that the 5.22kg was fully loaded.... Changes the game slightly....



Actually I misremembered, its 5.11 kg and not 5.22 kg, my mistake. 

So the difference between the AK47 StG44 is infact very small, a mere 200 grams, or half a pound.


----------



## Soren (Dec 3, 2009)

Btw, the StG45(M) only weighed in at 3.7 kg, so it was a very light firearm.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 3, 2009)

Well Soren, I gotta hand it to u, myth crushed....

I was religiously convinced that the heavier looking StG weighed alot more than the AK...


----------



## Soren (Dec 3, 2009)

A cool little detail about the manual is that it was rolled up and stored in the buttstock along with the "Lösedorn", a small tool to disassemble the weapon with:


----------



## davebender (Dec 4, 2009)

I suspect the StG45 was a fine weapon, at least as good as the AK-47 and superior to the early model M-16. And it was dirt cheap to mass produce. If not for the stigma of being associated with NAZI Germany it would have become the NATO standard.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 4, 2009)

davebender said:


> I suspect the StG45 was a fine weapon, at least as good as the AK-47 and superior to the early model M-16. And it was dirt cheap to mass produce. If not for the stigma of being associated with NAZI Germany it would have become the NATO standard.



Did such a thing ever exist....you had the frogs with a certain weapon, the yanks with another, some people using the FN, others adopting the M-16.....there was not even comonality in ammunition......


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 4, 2009)

The high caliber round still did not fit later NATO philosophy (they were and still are flat-trajectory fans), and the recoil action certainly would not have earned many supporters. 

There was a considerable period of time during which we were looking to get together a cheap, export weapon to get guns into the hands of Pro-Western types around the world. The AR-18 was one result of this. I think that if West Germany had dug up the tooling and proposed an Stg-45 at that time, it might have been accepted for that role.


----------



## davebender (Dec 4, 2009)

The FN FAL was originally chambered for the 7.92mm kurz. That makes the decision even easier. Everyone except France and the USA would use either the StG45 or FN FAL chambered for the 7.92mm kurz. 

The USA would get on board with 7.92mm kurz when they adopt the M-16 series during the mid 1960s. Eventually France would come around also.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 4, 2009)

I don't think the USA would have adopted a .32 caliber cartridge, the small bullet and high velocity of the .223 was the reason we didn't go with a .30 like the AK-47. You may disagree with that idea, but the US military liked it and probably would not have gone with a high caliber.


----------



## red admiral (Dec 4, 2009)

I don't see why the 7.92x33 would be adopted. The ballistics aren't that great and it's not in production anywhere. Really you want something like the 7x43 British which has much better ballistics but still the low recoil for automatic fire. There are plenty of other alternatives in the 6.5-7mm range. FAL in 7x43 as historically adopted by the BA is a better way to go than 7.92x33 (though EM-2 instead of FAL would be nicer).


----------



## parsifal (Dec 4, 2009)

I dont have a problem with the 7.92 mm round, but the theory goes like this......full power rounds are thought to have a bigger kick, making it harder to train proficieny into people. They generally require heavier mechanisms to withstand recooil pressures, which in turn makes the design for heavier designs. The cut down 7.92 seems to have been fairly successful in addressing that, but OTOH it was a wartime expedient.

Having larger calibre ammunition is thought to cut down on the ammunition supply that can be carried in the magazine....might only be one or two rounds, but that can be enough to save your life.

The larger calibre 7.92 and 7.62 rounds are thought to have better stopping power and accuracy over distance. The 5.56 mm round is said to have a greater chance of wounding, which a force management point of view can be more devastating than a straight up lethal shot. A squad trying to deal with a wounded squad member is not likley to maintain an attack or firefight as vigorously as a squad that has lost a guy outright


Thats the theory at least


----------



## racerguy00 (Dec 4, 2009)

Guys, I heard from an Iraq war veteran that his unit found a warehouse with cases of StG44's and literally hundreds of thousands of rounds. Any captured weapons were sent to a supply depot for examination to see if they were suitable for resupply to Iraqi security forces or stripped for parts. Since there was no supply pipeline to support the odd caliber and weapon they were "Demilitarized" (cut up for scrap). Here are a few pics I found from Iraq and one from Somalia. 
As a side note, my cousin saw a MG-34 with German markings on it that was captured in Afghanistan but he doesn't know what happened to it.


----------



## davebender (Dec 4, 2009)

The German rifle testing commission recommended a short case rifle cartridge. That eliminates long case cartridges like the 6.5 x 55mm (i.e. Swedish Mauser) and the current NATO 5.56 x 45mm.

I assume there must be weapon design advantages when the ammunition has such a short case.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2009)

red admiral said:


> I don't see why the 7.92x33 would be adopted. The ballistics aren't that great



And this is based on what? It aint fact I can tell you that.

The std. 7.92x33mm Kurz round features a 8.1 grain FMJ-BT projectile with great ballistics and a lot more penetration power than the 5.56 NATO. In short the 7.92x33mm Kurz is very comparable to the 7.62x39mm.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 4, 2009)

Recently I read an article stating that it is a myth that the 5.56 is less accurate over longer distance than the 7.92. It makes sense that a heavier object holds power longer but for some reason this does not apply to these bullets, or at least it is not all there is to it.

Kris


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2009)

Don't you mean the 7.62 bullet?

The problem with comparing those two rounds is that when'ever it is done it is in the form of an AK47 vs an M-16, and the AK47 is no accurate weapon at all. But this has nothing to do with the round it fires, it's the weapon which is inaccurate, not the round. The AK47 is made to rather loose tolerances, which means everything doesn't fit 100%, which is also what makes it so reliable. The problem with these loose tolerances however is that they cause the recycling mechanism to create a lot of vibrations when in operation, causing the barrel to wobble, decreasing accuracy.

Fire the 7.62x39 through any western made assault rifle and it will prove just as accurate as the 5.56 NATO.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 5, 2009)

> I don't see why the 7.92x33 would be adopted. The ballistics aren't that great and it's not in production anywhere. Really you want something like the 7x43 British which has much better ballistics but still the low recoil for automatic fire. There are plenty of other alternatives in the 6.5-7mm range. FAL in 7x43 as historically adopted by the BA is a better way to go than 7.92x33 (though EM-2 instead of FAL would be nicer).


 The 7x43 was indeed an excellent cartridge. Very sad that it was tied to a bullpup rifle that the British government didn't want yet.



> The 5.56 mm round is said to have a greater chance of wounding, which a force management point of view can be more devastating than a straight up lethal shot. A squad trying to deal with a wounded squad member is not likley to maintain an attack or firefight as vigorously as a squad that has lost a guy outright



One of the worst theories we've ever hatched. Since WWII we haven't fought an enemy that places higher value on the lives of their soldiers than they place on killing the enemy. Al Qaeda terrorists don't see to their wounded first and deal with Americans after, neither did the VC or North Koreans.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 5, 2009)

The 5.56 mm and the M-16 was conceived in another time, against an enemy likley to behave like a human being and not an animal. 

For all that I am unsure that the 5.56 lacks stopping power. It has more stopping power than a 9mm cartridge, and that has stopping power a plenty


----------



## red admiral (Dec 5, 2009)

> And this is based on what?



Ballistically it's not as good as the 7.62x51. It fires a bullet with fairly low Cb at medium velocity. The 7.62x51 fires a bullet with higher Cb at higher velocity. The 5.56x45 has a lower Cb bullet, but much higher velocity, which corresponds to greater accuracy (except at 500m+) than the 7.62x51. There are plenty of intermediate cartridges which have bullets with high Cb and high velocity which have better ballistics and stopping power. One of those is the 7x43 British, firing a 9g round at 770m/s. The problem is getting a high power round to be controllable in automatic fire. The 7x43 British manages this.



> I assume there must be weapon design advantages when the ammunition has such a short case



Reduced cartridge weight. Reduction in the length of the action allowing a higher rate of fire and a possible reduction in weapon weight.



> The 7x43 was indeed an excellent cartridge. Very sad that it was tied to a bullpup rifle that the British government didn't want yet.



That's not true. The British Army (and government) wanted the rifle and cartridge, hence that's why they adopted it (along with Belgium and Canada). The US wanted the 7.62x51 so everyone else changed over.



> For all that I am unsure that the 5.56 lacks stopping power.



The best thing to say is that the 5.56 lacks reliable stopping power, especially at range. Sometimes it yaws and produces a massive wound cavity. Other times it doesn't. The 7.62x51 on the other hand produces a bigger wound cavity whether it yaws or not (a feature of the larger and more energetic bullet).


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2009)

Parsifal,

The problem with the 5.56 NATO is not that it lacks stopping power, far from it infact as it's one of the most devastating rounds in use when it comes to the effect it has upon entering a human body. It litterally explodes inside you. 

No, the problem with the 5.56 NATO is and always has been its' lack of penetration power. Even a thin tree will provide effective cover against it, whilst rounds such as the 7.62x39mm 7.92x33mm Kurz both will go straight through with plenty of lethal energy to spare. This was an issue in Vietnam, but could be lived with because its great wounding effect when a hit was scored. However today where most soldiers wear body armour the 5.56 NATO has reached the end of its usefullness. It wont go through much in the form of cover, and when it does it is often without much energy to spare and in pieces. Against armoured opponents that doesn't work at all, esp. not if your opponent is punching rounds straight through to you with ease.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 5, 2009)

Soren said:


> Parsifal,
> 
> *The problem with the 5.56 NATO is not that it lacks stopping power, far from it infact as it's one of the most devastating rounds in use when it comes to the effect it has upon entering a human body. It litterally explodes inside you. *
> 
> No, the problem with the 5.56 NATO is and always has been its' lack of penetration power. Even a thin tree will provide effective cover against it, whilst rounds such as the 7.62x39mm 7.92x33mm Kurz both will go straight through with plenty of lethal energy to spare. This was an issue in Vietnam, but could be lived with because its great wounding effect when a hit was scored. However today where most soldiers wear body armour the 5.56 NATO has reached the end of its usefullness. It wont go through much in the form of cover, and when it does it is often without much energy to spare and in pieces. Against armoured opponents that doesn't work at all, esp. not if your opponent is punching rounds straight through to you with ease.



Only at 2400 fps at wound entry. Below that threshold it lacks the energy to destabilize and fragment. That limits the M16-A2 to +/- 250 meters of high stopping power and the M4 to less than 100M. Beyond those critical ranges, it punches .22 inch holes and beyond that does no damage. That is one of the main reasons we've been seeing our troops carrying scoped M14s for stopping power on long shots. I've heard reports of soldiers using captured Dragunov sniper rifles for the same purpose.


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2009)

red admiral said:


> Ballistically it's not as good as the 7.62x51. It fires a bullet with fairly low Cb at medium velocity. The 7.62x51 fires a bullet with higher Cb at higher velocity. The 5.56x45 has a lower Cb bullet, but much higher velocity, which corresponds to greater accuracy (except at 500m+) than the 7.62x51. There are plenty of intermediate cartridges which have bullets with high Cb and high velocity which have better ballistics and stopping power. One of those is the 7x43 British, firing a 9g round at 770m/s. The problem is getting a high power round to be controllable in automatic fire. The 7x43 British manages this



red admiral, it doesn't seem like you know much in this area. The 7.62x51 NATO is a full powered rifle round, no'one ever compared the 7.92x33 Kurz to that round. The 7.92x33 Kurz, 7.62x39 M43 5.56x45 NATO are all intermidiate rifle rounds meant to be fired by assault rifles with an effective range of about 400m, they were never meant to be as powerful as a full powered rifle round as such round are uncontrollable in full automatic fire. 

So I will repeat, the 5.56 NATO is no more accurate than either the German 7.92x33 Kurz or the Russian 7.62x39. You claim otherwise but have nothing to base it on at all.

For long range work all nations during WW2 had their own std. round: 

Germany: 7.92x57mm IS firing a 198 gr sS FMJ-BT with a BC of .584 at 760 m/s (V1000 = Mach 1.07)
USA: 7.62x63mm M1 firing a 150 gr FMJ spitzer with a BC of .415 at 853 m/s (V1000 = Mach 0.94)
USSR: 7.62x54mm R firing a 148 gr FMJ spitzer with a BC of .410 at 860 m/s (V1000 = Mach 0.94)
Britain: 7.7x56mm R firing a 174 gr FMJ spitzer with a BC of .458 at 744 m/s (V1000 = Mach 0.91)


----------



## red admiral (Dec 6, 2009)

> red admiral, it doesn't seem like you know much in this area etc...



You obviously didn't read what I wrote given that I made exactly the same point. The issue is that there are intermediate rounds which offer high power, long range accuracy and controllability in automatic fire. e.g. 7x43, 6.5x39, 6.8x43



> So I will repeat, the 5.56 NATO is no more accurate than either the German 7.92x33 Kurz or the Russian 7.62x39. You claim otherwise but have nothing to base it on at all.



How about basing it on a cursory look at ballistics? The bullet is going to be displaced in two axes from the aim point. Vertically because of the bullet falling under gravity and horizontally due mostly to wind. The much higher velocity of the 5.56mm gives a flatter trajectory resulting in less bullet drop (about half the 7.92x33 at 200m). Horizontally the heavier 7.92 projectile works to minimise wind drift yet the 5.56 projectile has a much smaller side area giving less area for the wind to act over, again resulting in less displacement from the target. There's a couple of free ballistics programs for small arms on the net which can use to calculate your own results.


----------



## Amsel (Dec 6, 2009)

Soren said:


> No, the problem with the 5.56 NATO is and always has been its' lack of penetration power.



One of the main issues with the 5.56 is the inability to engage soft skinned vehicles. The 5.56 cannot consistantly penetrate a car door and neutralize the occupants. Even the windshield shots are deflected much more. There have been numerous complaints about the mujahadeen in Iraq being able to absorb several rounds of 5.56 and still being a threat. After being tested extensively in combat for 40 years it has proved to be unreliable. 

In my opinion one of the main factors in the adoption of the 5.56 has been debunked. The ability to carry enough ammo to 'pray and spray'. The military still holds personal marksmanship as a core skill.

I still see a need for the 5.56 but mostly for the SAW role. The M249 is a flipping chainsaw and the small round enables the squad gunner to carry more ammo.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 6, 2009)

whay wouldnt the ability to carry more ammo be useful for everyone???

The question like all military hardware questions is whether the tradeoffs of the small calibre round are offset by the additional ammunition and magazine capacities of the 5.56 ammunition.

I really dont know....all I know is that bigger bullets mean less carried, and less in the magazine


----------



## Soren (Dec 6, 2009)

red admiral said:


> You obviously didn't read what I wrote given that I made exactly the same point. The issue is that there are intermediate rounds which offer high power, long range accuracy and controllability in automatic fire. e.g. 7x43, 6.5x39, 6.8x43
> 
> How about basing it on a cursory look at ballistics? The bullet is going to be displaced in two axes from the aim point. Vertically because of the bullet falling under gravity and horizontally due mostly to wind. The much higher velocity of the 5.56mm gives a flatter trajectory resulting in less bullet drop (about half the 7.92x33 at 200m). Horizontally the heavier 7.92 projectile works to minimise wind drift yet the 5.56 projectile has a much smaller side area giving less area for the wind to act over, again resulting in less displacement from the target. There's a couple of free ballistics programs for small arms on the net which can use to calculate your own results.



It's called sectional density (SD) red admiral, and the higher it is the less wind affects the bullet and the better it penetrates a solid medium, and the 7.92mm projectile is less affected by wind than the 5.56mm projectile. The 5.56mm only has a flatter trajectory, that's it.

*5.56mm NATO:*
55 grain FMJ-BT, 915 m/s, BC .267, winddrift at 1000m = 20 MOA
*7.92x33mm Kurz *
125 grain FMJ-BT, 685 m/s, BC .370, winddrift at 1000m = 17 MOA

JBM - Calculations - Trajectory


----------



## red admiral (Dec 6, 2009)

> The 5.56mm only has a flatter trajectory, that's it.



You can't simply discard that fact and only compare ballistic coefficients.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 6, 2009)

Amsel said:


> One of the main issues with the 5.56 is the inability to engage soft skinned vehicles. The 5.56 cannot consistantly penetrate a car door and neutralize the occupants. Even the windshield shots are deflected much more. There have been numerous complaints about the mujahadeen in Iraq being able to absorb several rounds of 5.56 and still being a threat. After being tested extensively in combat for 40 years it has proved to be unreliable.
> 
> In my opinion one of the main factors in the adoption of the 5.56 has been debunked. The ability to carry enough ammo to 'pray and spray'. *The military still holds personal marksmanship as a core skill.*
> 
> I still see a need for the 5.56 but mostly for the SAW role. The M249 is a flipping chainsaw and the small round enables the squad gunner to carry more ammo.



You say that but all of my buddies that have gone into the army complain that they work out plenty but aren't allowed enough (or in some cases any) target practice. Some pencil pushing accountant always decides to eliminate having expensive ammo "wasted" on practice when they start budgeting.


----------



## Soren (Dec 7, 2009)

red admiral said:


> You can't simply discard that fact and only compare ballistic coefficients.



What fact red admiral? So far you haven't posted any.

And I'm not just comparing ballistic coefficients, I plugged in caliber, weight, BC, drag function, pressure, MV etc etc. And there you have the wind drift of both bullets, one is 17 minute of angle at 1000m the other is 20 minute of angle.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 7, 2009)

Quite a difference actually Soren....


----------



## Soren (Dec 7, 2009)

Yeah, over long range the heavier 7.92mm bullet holds its' path better than the much lighter 5.56mm bullet. This is assuming a 10 mph side wind.


----------



## davebender (Dec 7, 2009)

> The question like all military hardware questions is whether the tradeoffs of the small calibre round are offset by the additional ammunition and magazine capacities of the 5.56 ammunition.


This is an argument for the 1960s and later.

During 1945 the StG45 chambered for 7.92mm kurz was the best infantry rifle in the world. It was far superior to what the American and British armies were using during the late 1940s. On top of performance advantages it was also much less expensive then the competition.


----------



## red admiral (Dec 7, 2009)

> And I'm not just comparing ballistic coefficients, I plugged in caliber, weight, BC, drag function, pressure, MV etc etc. And there you have the wind drift of both bullets, one is 17 minute of angle at 1000m the other is 20 minute of angle.



Well it doesn't help that you've used the wrong loading for 5.56mm Nato or made the comparison at the least favourable point.The 5.56mm isn't particularly good at long range, but very good over normal battle ranges.

62gr SS109 at 3100fps with ballistic coeffient of 0.304

At 1000m 15 MOA from the windage and -43 MOA in the vertical

For the 7.92x33 at 1000m

16 MOA from windage and -69 MOA in the vertical

For the more reasonable range of 300m
3.0 / -3.7 for the 5.56x45
3.9 / -7.7 for the 7.92x33

For another intermediate cartridge, the 6.5mm Grendel the following values can be found;
2.1 / -4.7 at 300m
9.2 / -37 at 1000m

Hence you've got an intermediate round that is controllable in automatic fire and accurate at long range.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 7, 2009)

davebender said:


> ...
> 
> During 1945 the StG45 chambered for 7.92mm kurz was the best infantry rifle in the world. It was far superior to what the American and British armies were using during the late 1940s. On top of performance advantages it was also much less expensive then the competition.



Agree.

Russkies used 7,62 x 25 for most of their rifle divisions iin WW2. The 7,92 x 33, with triple the muzzle energy, despite much more powerful cartridge, allowed for a controllable automatic fire. And the production experience with MP-40 was simply put to a good use for StG-44 production.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 7, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Agree.
> 
> Russkies used 7,62 x 25 for most of their rifle divisions iin WW2. The 7,92 x 33, with triple the muzzle energy, despite much more powerful cartridge, allowed for a controllable automatic fire. And the production experience with MP-40 was simply put to a good use for StG-44 production.



why are you comparing the submachine gun to the assault rifle? The Russian RIFLE cartridge was a 7.62x54R, ballistically equivalent to the postwar 7.62x51 (7.62 NATO), more than twice the energy of the 7.62x33.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 8, 2009)

7,62 x 54R was a full-power cart ridge, and 7,62 x 25 was SMG cartridge. German 7,92 Kurz was intermediate type, so the comparison with SMG cartridge is as valid as the comparison with full-power one.

Since the Germans managed to create the weapon that was much more powerful then PPSh-41, yet with same weight and with controlable automatic fire, I'd say they made a damn good job. Whatever we call the cartridge.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 8, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> 7,62 x 54R was a full-power cart ridge, and 7,62 x 25 was SMG cartridge. German 7,92 Kurz was intermediate type, so the comparison with SMG cartridge is as valid as the comparison with full-power one.
> 
> Since the Germans managed to create the weapon that was much more powerful then PPSh-41, yet with same weight and with controlable automatic fire, I'd say they made a damn good job. Whatever we call the cartridge.





> Russkies used 7,62 x 25 for most of their *rifle *divisions iin WW2.



When you said this it sounded like you were claiming they put a pistol cartridge in the Mosin Nagant 91/30


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 8, 2009)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, the 'rifle divisions' is just a name for usual (Russian in this case) infantry divisions.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 8, 2009)

While it wasn't in the same echelon as the Stg44, it is interesting to note that the M1 Carbine was halfway to the assault rifle concept. If the US had made a bigger M1 carbine chambered in .30 Remington (slightly more powerful than the 7.62x39) then they'd have had an assault rifle 20 years before the M-16.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 8, 2009)

Yep, it would be interesting even if US Army fielded a full auto M1 Carbine on regular, mass-issue basis during WW2. While not being as powerful as 7,92 Kurz, the muzzle energy was 50-200% greater then PPSh-41.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 8, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Yep, it would be interesting even if US Army fielded a full auto M1 Carbine on regular, mass-issue basis during WW2. While not being as powerful as 7,92 Kurz, the muzzle energy was 50-200% greater then PPSh-41.



Didn't somebody post that the airborne back in WW2 turned some of their M1 Carbs into full auto?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 8, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Didn't somebody post that the airborne back in WW2 turned some of their M1 Carbs into full auto?


There was an M2 carbine produced postwar that was full auto.


----------



## Soren (Dec 8, 2009)

Ok, here's the std.5.56mm NATO round:

5.56mm M855:
Weight: 61.7 gr
BC: .283 (Checked at Winchester.com and found the true BC of the M855 bullet there)
MV: 922 m/s
Winddrift in 10 mph wind:
300m MOA = 3.8
600m MOA = 9.6
800m MOA = 14.4
1000m MOA = 19.0

7.92mm Patr.43:
Weight: 125 gr
BC: .387 (Checked in a ballistics program and its probably even higher seeing this is a G1 approximate for the G7 model)
MV: 685 m/s
Winddrift in 10 mph wind:
300m MOA = 4.1
600m MOA = 9.5
800m MOA = 11.5
1000m MOA = 16.9


Based on this how could anyone conclude that the 5.56mm NATO is a more accurate round? Fact is that it isn't. And in terms of winddrift it's about the same for both at close range and an advantage for the heavier 7.92mm round at long ranges.

PS: The addition of a boat tail alone to the 5.56mm bullet increases the BC by a factor of .058, from .225 to .283. On larger caliber rounds the increase is even more noticable.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 9, 2009)

davebender said:


> The StG44 was an interim design. It was to be superceded by the StG45 during May 1945. If Germany had survived WWII intact the Cold War would see NATO armed with the StG45 plus the original 7.92mm Kurz FN FAL vs the Warsaw Pact armed with the AK-47.
> 
> *Sturmgewehr 45 *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_45(M)
> ...


I have my doubts about those statistics as they seem to be copy pasted from the StG 44. The StG 45 consists of fewer moving parts, so it should be a tad lighter (or at least I'd be surprised if they had identical weight). As for any late war German prototypes, there is very little first hand information available.

Btw, nearly all the pictures of this weapon you find in the literature and on websites are from British captured prototypes and feature a metal handguard. The production version was to have a very ugly bakelite handguard that should make it somewhat lighter as well. There are some examples of this in private collectors hands and pics are on the web.


----------



## Juha (Dec 10, 2009)

Hello Soren
Quote:"Based on this how could anyone conclude that the 5.56mm NATO is a more accurate round?"

As shown 5.56mm Nato had flatter flight path and with assaul rifle firing at targets over 600m away is rare, IMHO normal ranges are under 400m and important is normal use not exceptions.

Juha


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 10, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Soren
> Quote:"Based on this how could anyone conclude that the 5.56mm NATO is a more accurate round?"
> 
> As shown 5.56mm Nato had flatter flight path and with assaul rifle firing at targets over 600m away is rare, IMHO normal ranges are under 400m and important is normal use not exceptions.
> ...


Flatter trajectories make for easier training at normal exchange ranges. U.S. troops are allowed to have very little weapons training and most of it is at 100m.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 10, 2009)

How many times a soldier finds himself in a shooting range? Back in ex-Yu army we had 4 'combat shootings' (for 12 month service), with pretty decent results at 100 and 250m with our AK-47 Yu copies. The 2 of shooting were against lightly illuminated targets during night. And my unit was air-defence battery, not an ordinary infantry.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 10, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> How many times a soldier finds himself in a shooting range? Back in ex-Yu army we had 4 'combat shootings' (for 12 month service), with pretty decent results at 100 and 250m with our AK-47 Yu copies. The 2 of shooting were against lightly illuminated targets during night. And my unit was air-defence battery, not an ordinary infantry.


If it was up to me they'd be training with weapons (real or simulated) all the time. Day, night, moving, stationary, open wilderness, "Shoot Houses". Americans aren't born with a rifle in hand like they used to be. The amount of familiarity the average recruit has with weapons has gone down and IMO we need more target practice to compensate.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 10, 2009)

If one want to have proper infantry, he ought to train 'em to shoot. Having the infantry and Hoping they won't shoot from rifles is ludicrous.


----------



## Juha (Dec 10, 2009)

Hello Tomo
I cannot remember any more how many times, but with assault rifle, see Rk 62 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, we shot from 150m, head and shoulder target and from 300m, full body target..

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 10, 2009)

At 100m we had upper-half body silhouette, and at 250m there was a 'crew-serwed MG' target, perhaps twice as wide as that at 100m and of same height.

Yes, I know the 'Valmet' rifle, wasn't the Galil based upon it?


----------



## red admiral (Dec 10, 2009)

Soren said:


> Based on this how could anyone conclude that the 5.56mm NATO is a more accurate round? Fact is that it isn't.



Strange how you're still completely ignoring the vertical axis. Maybe because in that direction the 5.56mm is much superior?

Compared to other intermediate cartridges (e.g. the 6.5mm Grendel as posted) the 7.92x33 is much worse.


----------



## Soren (Dec 10, 2009)

Some people here seem to believe that a flatter trajectory equals better accuracy. Well sorry to disappoint you but it doesn't. Accuracy depends much more on the weapon and bullet type used, and if fired through identical weapons systems the 7.92x33mm Kurz is just as accurate as the 5.56mm NATO and most likely even more accurate as the heavier projectile is less affected by winds from any direction. Furthermore the 7.92mm Kurz will actually go through a wall and still be perfectly capable of killing a person behind it, something the 5.56mm NATO in most circumstances is completely incapable of.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 11, 2009)

> If it was up to me they'd be training with weapons (real or simulated) all the time. Day, night, moving, stationary, open wilderness, "Shoot Houses". Americans aren't born with a rifle in hand like they used to be. The amount of familiarity the average recruit has with weapons has gone down and IMO we need more target practice to compensate.



I cannot agree more Clay... 

Soren, ur deflecting the balance of horizontal and vertical data... Look at both sides of the coin man....


----------



## Juha (Dec 11, 2009)

Hello Tomo
Quote:”wasn't the Galil based upon it?”

Wiki claimed that it was. I don’t have any other info on that, but still in 70s Israeli mortars, trade name Soltam or so something like that, were developed or at least based on mortars developed by a Finnish firm Tampella. The co-operation had begun maybe in 50s and idea was, besides co-operation between Tampella and Israelis, to circumvent strict Finnish weapon export regulations and to make it possible to sell mortars cheaper to the Finnish Army, development cost being divided between much more end products. That worked well until the co-operation became a public info and because of growing protests from Finnish left and diplomatic problems that followed Tampella sold all its rights to Israelis sometimes IIRC in mid 70s.

A bit more on our shooting training, I served as combat engineer squad leader, RK 62 had/has rudimentary twilight sight, I didn’t like it because IIRC it concealed more of target than the normal sight. I recall only one dusk firing, there might have been one more, but I remember the one because during it my duty was to direct MG fire and the LMG was using tracker ammo and one could see how far ricochets flew, the area was stony with many boulders around.
At 300m range we shot while laying down and at 150m range shooting was done from standing and kneeling positions.

Hello Soren
flatter trajectory means that range estimation errors means less and that has some importance, even if AR firing distances are usually rather short, but in combat your sight may be set at 150m when you suddenly see an hostile at 350m away, even if you thing that he is 300m away. 

We were told that max practical range with RK 62 was 400m, and it used 7,62x39.

Juha


----------



## red admiral (Dec 11, 2009)

> Some people here seem to believe that a flatter trajectory equals better accuracy.



I don't know many footsoldiers who carry rangefinders and ballistic computers. Errors in ranging are much more problematic than errors in wind estimation. Adopting a high velocity round means that you can realistically just point at the target and fire as the bullet drop is small over reasonable ranges.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 11, 2009)

you have the mechanical accuracy of the gun/ammunition. Like what the spread of the rounds is at a given distance as in 10 shot group within 3 min of angle at range XXX. Or some other similar measure. 

You also have practical accuracy which is the ability of the user to hit targets at various distances.
You could have two gun/ammo combinations both with the same ability to put 10 (or what ever number ) rounds in the same sized circle at a given distance but one gun/ammo has got twice the initial velocity of the other. 
This Gun/Ammo combintion will require less elevation changes at close range and might even have less wind drift at closer ranges than a heavier slower moving bullet. This will allow the shooter to more easily put bullets on target as range estimation is much less critical and even wind estimation is less critical.
You will always have the range issue while the wind may or may not be blowing or it may be blowing at less that right angles to the flight path of the bullet and have less effect.


----------



## Soren (Dec 11, 2009)

A flatter trajectory has its uses by making quick shots on target at close ranges easier providing the weapon system is accurate, I never denied that. But I will tell you that a 7.62mm M43 round has no problem hitting a man first try at 300m with sights sets for 150m if the weapon system is accurate. But we were talking about the actual accuracy of the rounds used here, and the all out accuracy of a round is determined more by the design of the projectile it fires and the weapon in which it is fired. Just like shortround correctly explained it. And taking this into consideration I can tell you that the 7.92mm Kurz 7.62mm M43 are both just as accurate as the 5.56mm NATO, infact even more so if range is known.


----------



## azubarev (Feb 22, 2010)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb9ZET3tV9Q_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVfB3uxtB4w_

I love the Military Channel's left-wing stance, they place both AK-47 and T-34 as #1 assault rifles and tanks respectively! Stg.44 gets #9, although IMO it should get #2, above the M-16.
AK-47 loaded weight 4.8kg; Stg-44 is 5.22kg
Accuracy's better on the Stg (although according to these two videos it's shown better on AK)
Reliability's better on AK (mentioned in the forum)
Cost is better for AK (mentioned in the forum)
Controllability for Stg-44 (mentioned in the forum)
handling is better on AK--it's very easy to train conscripts with it; that's why in the Soviet Army almost everybody had an AK-47 but in Hitler's Germany it was issued only to more veteran troops and it clearly wasn't an assault rifle for an average man.
Innovation's better for Stg-44
Combat effectiveness's better for AK
Service length is also better for AK (there are Stg's used in Lebanon, but not produced since 1945)
--To conclude, AK is lighter, cheaper, more reliable and easier to use for an average and inexperienced infantryman than an Stg.44; but innovation, accuracy and controllability is better for Stg-44. Overall the AK-47 wins


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 23, 2010)

> Service length is also better for AK (there are Stg's used in Lebanon, but not produced since 1945)


Machine shops in the middle east can also make you a gun from a pattern so long as it's a simple, easy to produce pattern. A lot of the guns in the 3rd world don't have serial numbers. I'm betting a lot of the parts at least for the Stg. 44s in Lebanon were tuned out by hand on a lathe.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 26, 2010)

azubarev said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb9ZET3tV9Q_
> 
> I love the Military Channel's left-wing stance, they place both AK-47 and T-34 as #1 assault rifles and tanks respectively!




There are quite a few experienced ex-servicemen who have used the AK, and are anything but trendy lefties who agree the AK is probably the best all round service rifle of its time, and is still an easy and effective weapon. I fail to see why it is necessary to be left wing to call a spade a spade.......


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 26, 2010)

parsifal said:


> There are quite a few experienced ex-servicemen who have used the AK, and are anything but trendy lefties who agree the AK is probably the best all round service rifle of its time, and is still an easy and effective weapon. I fail to see why it is necessary to be left wing to call a spade a spade.......


a joke, hence the smilie.


----------

