Senate The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology

The creator of the AK swears that his design is not based at all on the German MP40. He says that while it might have a couple of similarities in appearence, but that's only due to the operation of the gun, and the similar mechanics.

So he says anyway.




Anata Baka?!

 

He said that during an interview on the History Channel a couple of years back, correct?

Could be, but he did seem rather defensive at the thought that a heroic Soviet weapon would somehow be based off a Nazi design.. (BTW, JFT, I think you mean the 44, the Mp40 was a 9mm submachine gun)

It's hard not to credit the Mp44 as being the inspiration for all modern assault rifles.

After all, it was the first successful design to use the "intermmediate" round.(yes, I know there were earlier ones, but those were mostly prototypes)

You see, after experiences early in the war with their full size rifles being too bulky and powerful, the Soviets' designed a smaller, intermmediate round of their own, the 7.62mmS ('S' in English, meaning short)..

Both Kalashnikov and Simonov (who were rivals) designed new weapons based around this smaller round.

Simonov's SKS was actually produced early enough in 1945 to be used against the Nazis.(as his design was more of a traditional, semi-auto carbine)

Here where things start to get muddled..

Even though the concept of the AK-47 existed concurrently with the Mp-44, the actual execution came well after samples of the Nazi gun were avaliable..

Did Kalashnikov completely ignore the Mp44 for production? I find that hard to believe, because there are many simularities between the two.

But the AK-47 concept existed independently, so its not like he completely stole the design, maybe he refined it using the Nazi design?

However, 2 things are certain:

the PPsh-41 fired a different round, using a simple blowback system which was completely different from the AK.

The SVT family fired the full sized Soviet round, and was basically an upgrade of of the Mosin bolt action.. No AK simularities here either..

Of course, even though rival Simonv made his weapon sooner, Kalashnikov ended up with the last laugh, as his AK series has been produced in the millions..

Saint: regarding the FAL/G3.. My statement was more of a joking nature, than a serious comparison..

Post-war, the German military wanted the FAL..They had to settle for the CETME..

Updating the design to make it more like the FAL, they developed the G3.. The G3 is a great weapon in its own right..

I just think it funny that post war Germany had to license wartime German technology from the Spanish in order to develop a Belgian rifle..

 

I'm more or less with you, Mr44 on the AK47's origins. Despite claims to the contrary, I don't know of any Soviet weapon(s) that Kalashnikov could have based the Akie's operating system off of...

And while he emphatically states that the AK47's operating system is "nothing at all like the StG44," he does openly admit that the concept for the rifle is decidedly in response to the superiroty of German firepower... To which I'm certain he was referring to the MP40, G43, and presumably the StG44.

 

Just to add, the Mp44 and the Stg44 are the same weapon.

Mp=MachinenPistole

Stg=SturmGevehr (assault rifle)

Appearently, Hitler was suspicious about new rifle designs, so the high command called this new weapon an Mp, so Hitler would approve it.. Much like he was obsessed with bombers, so the first Nazi jet fighter was offically termed a jet bomber

Mp and Stg are interchangable when refering to this weapon.

 

I got a wacky idea.

How practical would an SMG in .357 magnum be?

 

Well,
There are lever-action carbines chambered in .357 or .44 here

The MP5 was, for awhile available in 10mm, which is similar in performance to the .357 magnum..

Really, there would be no practical use for it, as Brett would say "an answer without a question.."

I know, for instance, there is a police carbine produced by Ruger in .45..

Its main purpose is to provide a greater "oompf" than a pistol when it is neccessary to shoot through car doors or similar, but it isn't really wide-spread..

Basically, if a handgun isn't enough, most militaries/law enforcement agencies would upgrade to a rifle caliber..

If you have an M4 available, it would be pointless to use a weapon which fires a pistol caliber, but only faster..

The idea could be successful if over-penetration is a concern.. Maybe a "door busting" SMG in .357...?

You could use hollowpoints and take advantage of the .357's high velocity/high expansion, but again, such a weapon would be highly specialized, and not widespread..

What would you want it to do?

 

fire big bullets really fast

Actually I don't know. I was sorta half asleep when I thought of it. I was just thinking that one of those old skool SIG SMG's with the folding magazines would be nice to have, but 9mm smg's are so common, I thought it might be cool to have something different. So I though "what's a pistol round that's common and readily available, but isn't commonly seen in smg's?", and .357 magnum came to mind. So I have now decided that a SIG MKPO rechambered for .357 magnum will be the ultimate goal of my gun collection

Basically I was just wondering if it would be practical to fire that round at full auto, considering the muzzle blast, recoil, and the rim that might cause feeding troubles.

But you gave me an idea. Could it be useful if one wants more power than a 9mm, but not more penetration that you might get with a rifle round? Or would an M4 loaded with hollowpoints serve the same purpose?

 

Wouldn't the recoil be an issue though in an SMG? I haven't fired any .44 or .50AE rounds (whilst we're talking uber-pistol calibres), but I have fired an old Colt Python in .357 and the recoil then was pretty intense; both on my wrists and the time it took to be ready for a second shot.

Mostly, SMG's are for police and military use, right? And in those cases, you want accuracy for your 3 round burst. My point is that IMO, the .357 magnum round (I assume you meant that round, S_o_K, and not the .357SIG?) would produce too great a recoil to be effective in that capacity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't H&K made a .45 calibre varient of the MP5 in the UMP45?

E_S

 

(BTW, JFT, I think you mean the 44, the Mp40 was a 9mm submachine gun)

D'oh!




Anata Baka?!

 

Just another link that may interest some of you guys RE: British Military Equipment:

Armed Forces

 

Mr44:
Yep, that's pretty much exactly what I'd say.


One of the more entertaining phrases one picks up over the years.

Overall, pistol-caliber carbines (and their close cousins, sub-machineguns) are all well and dandy, but the true carbine is rapidly becoming a more attractive option. Increases in range, firepower, and relative accuracy are all trademarks of the regular carbine that, to the best of my knowledge, the pistol-caliber carbines/SMGs just haven't been able to keep up with.

The one real benefit to such a platform (perhaps epitomized by the upbiquitous H&K MP5) is the relative ease with which they can be suppressed without drastic decreases in performance, but this is rather a niche aspect of the weapons, speaking generally.

Saint:
.357 Magnum? Can't say as that I've heard of one of those commercially manufactured... There was an outfit that made a .357 SIG Colt SMG, though. As I recall, it didn't fare all that well on the open market.

Ender:
I've heard that the UMP--while not a bad weapon by any means, isn't actually much of an improvement over the MP5... Apparently, the polymer reciever's light weight is something of a drawback, as the cycling of the bolt during firing shifts the center of mass of the weapon and increases muzzle climb.

 

I don't think recoil would be an issue, but it would have to fit the weapon..

In other words, a mini-Uzi chambered in .357 mag isn't going to be made anytime soon...

However, something like the Sterling, or the full size MP5 would probably be pretty effective..

Basically, the strong point of this type of weapon would be the wide availability of ammo choices/customality..

An SMG loaded with .357 Glaser Safety slugs would be effective on an aircraft, because they would have "knock down power," but they wouldn't penetrate the aircraft skin..

(Glaser safety slugs are lead bullets that has small shot fused into the body..Upon impact, the bullet disentegrates, releasing the shot like a small shotgun. They have very little penetration)

Using higher power solid slugs might be good to disable a vehicle/take out an engine block or tires..

Although, we then start blurring the line between rifle/pistol calibers again..

And Saint, .357's in an auto weapon wouldn't have the rim.

However, such a weapon would still be specialized in nature..

 

If they weren't rimmed, they'd have to be called something other than .357 magnum, cause the prescence or absence of a rim is a pretty important thing. And having it fire a rimless version of the round would sorta negate the easy availability of ammo.

 

nah..The wide bullet availability would still be available, just the case would change..

I mean "magnum" is just a descriptor..

A .357 mag is just a .38 with a longer case..

A 10mm is basically just a .40 magnum

A .44 mag is a .44 special with a longer case.

There are some special rifle-magnum calibers that do not fit the above..

Like the old Russian "belted magnums" ("belt" here being a section of solid metal reinforcing around the case)

But generally this holds true.

You could easily make a SMG in .357 mag, you would just have to change the base, in order for the extractor to grab onto it..

Such a cartridge would be labelled something different:

.357 automag or something, so people wouldn't fire them out of revolvers, but it could basically be the same..

 

But I'm saying that the standard .357 magnum round that is so common and easily available, is rimmed. If you had to get a special rimless version, it would kinda negate that.

 

Sure, speaking strictly off-the shelf..

You are correct.

However, the case is the easy part.. You would still the dozens of actual production bullets available..Which represent proven technology..

The problem that new systems face is the lack of production technology..

For instance, the .40 cal was a new case design, but it used the same bullet as the proven, but "hotter" 10mm..

Any of the existing 10mm bullets could simply be "plugged" into a .40cal case..

As a result, the .40 is the most popular law enforcement caliber..

However, the .357SIG was a completely new design..(The SIG is actually .35 in diameter, while the true .357/.38 is slightly larger)

As a result, no existing bullets would work..Any ammo had to be completely designed from stratch..

As a result, even if it is effective, there is a reluctance to use the .357SIG..

Why buy a 357SIG with 3 ammo choices, when a .40 is available with 20 choices?

If you were to design a new .357MAG SMG, you could use any existing bullets out there, you would just have to slightly modify the case..

 

Well I wasn't really thinking of actually designing the gun for production. I was thinking more of a 'personal' gun, a custom job, modified from an existing design, that can use an easily available off-the-shelf round, without any need for handloading a special round.

But now you got me thinking.

 

Unless SIG-Sauer or SIGArms makes the .357SIG SMG...

E_S

 

Hey, here's a question, not really military but guns in general. Why the hell are double guns so expensive? I've seen break action double shotguns costing alot more than pump or autoloaders.

Why? Are they harder to make? Do they offer some advantage over other types? I can't see how they'd be harder to make, it's just two tubes and a trigger mechanism. I can't see any advantage they'd over over repeaters either.

I know some double guns, especially those Italian ones, are very lavishly made, with engravings and gold leaf and such, but even normal double guns seem to be pretty high priced. what's up with that?

 

Even normal doubles, like low grade Browning Citoris are much higher quality than something like a Remington 870 express. People who buy doubles are willing to pay more, often a lot more, for a beautiful, high quality gun. People who want a cheap or practical gun won't buy a double, since they aren't cheap or practical compared to pumps/autoloaders.

And I believe you are wrong about them being simple to make, modern doubles have various and complicated locks and ejector systems. I'd wager that they have more moving parts than a pump gun.

 

But surely they could be made simpler? I wouldn't think that a double break action would have to be very complex. Seems like a case of overcomplication.

 

I just saw a top ten of infantry weapons in the History Channel.The M1 comes in 7th.The AK-47 comes in 6th.The Mauser comes in 5th.The Colt 1911 .45 pistol comes in 3rd.The revolver Colt Peterson comes in 2nd and the 1st weapon is the Maxim Machine Gun-the first automatic machine gun(used in WW1).

What do you think of the top ten?

 

I would agree with most of the weapons on the list..

I assume they are basing this off of a general sense of "impact" the weapon had during its time?

I would do some rearranging, of course..

The M1 was 7th?

Given that it was the first semi-auto used in standard quantities, and changed the entire view of the firepower available to the average front line soldier, I would put it third..

I could see the AK..

Not that it stood out as a shinning example of a weapon, but it did become the symbol of revolution, and allow the average person the effective means to "fight the power"

I would say that this was more as a result of the Soviet policy of flooding it in world markets, rather than any capabilities of the weapon.

The Mauser 5th?!? (I assume they mean the M98?)

Why? I can't think of any reason for its high ranking..Sure, the Mauser bolt-action is still used as the baseline standard for weapons to copy, but what impact did this rifle specifically have?

For bolt actions, I would put the British Enfield WAY above the Mauser, just based on the impact the Enfield had during the Imperial system..

Same with the Colt .45..Sure, it was an excellent pistol, but other nations had sidearms that were just as effective..

What about the Kentucky long-rifle?

or the 1861 rifled musket, which reinvented the hundreds of year old "static fire" line military drill?

I would agree with the Maxium..It simply changed the nature of warfare.

 

I'm rather sad not to see the M2HB on the list. Been around nearly as long as the M1911.

 

Here are the other places:

10-the browning machine gun(used in WW1 and then by gangsters and FBI)
9-the Kentucky long-rifle
8-some type of mosket that was imporved by the english.
4-the mosquet(the first one)