StG44 vs AK-47

[Soren]

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]

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]

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

 

[lesofprimus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).