StG44 vs AK-47
- Thread starter Soren
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Didn't somebody post that the airborne back in WW2 turned some of their M1 Carbs into full auto?
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
There was an M2 carbine produced postwar that was full auto.
- Thread starter
- #124
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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
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
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
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.
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
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
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.
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
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
red admiral
Senior Airman
- 479
- Mar 24, 2005
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.
- Thread starter
- #134
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
Brigadier General
I cannot agree more Clay...
Soren, ur deflecting the balance of horizontal and vertical data... Look at both sides of the coin man....
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
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
Last edited:
red admiral
Senior Airman
- 479
- Mar 24, 2005
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
Major General
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #139
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.
Last edited:
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
