Ak47 vs Stg 44

[Billy Shears]

jason41987:
i honestly dont believe the STG.44 would have made much of a difference even if hitler had accepted the concept of an assault rifle early enough for these to be designed using better metals for a lighter, more durable, more refined rifle because the M1 carbine used by many people filled the same role very nicely..

No it didn't. Not even remotely. You cannot engage enemies effectively with an M1 carbine at 300 meters. You can with an StG44. The M1 carbine was also infamous for being rather deficient in stopping power -- that's what happens when you attempt to use a weapon firing a pistol cartridge as a rifle. The StG44, with a true intermediate cartridge, didn't have this problem.

The M1 carbine was never intended to be a front line arm for infantry. It was always envisioned as a replacement for the pistol -- a personal defense weapon for vehicle drivers, radio operators, mortarmen, etc. who might need something better than a pistol, but for whom a full size battle rifle was too large and cumbersome. The Sturmgewehr, on the other hand, was intended to be a front line arm for the infantry. If you think for an instant that that the M1 carbine was just as effective in that role, you only show that you don't know nearly as much as you think you do.

jason41987
...and as we've all come to understand is select fire isnt really worth it, that even in a crowded room youre deadlier with single fire and calculated shots...

Who says "we've all come to understand" this? If it's so self-evident now, why do militaries the world over still issue select fire arms? Why do units that routinely have to undertake CQB missions all use select fire weapons, and make use of that feature? Again, you are revealing your ignorance here.

jason41987
i would have taken an M1 garand over an STG.44, and i would have taken an M1 carbine over that..

Then you really are revealing your lack of knowledge. I've talked to veterans of WWII. My dad lives next door to one who served as a paratrooper. When asked if he would have carried the M1 carbine, his answer was an emphatic "Hell no." He pointed out that if you had a German soldier shooting at you from a few hundred yards away, you couldn't effectively return fire with that little carbine.

jason41987
...theres just something to be said about the m1 carbine, highly underrated, but would have been just as lethal close range as an STG-44...

The marines at Chosin reservoir in Korea would dispute that. They found that the .30 caliber carbine round would not penetrate the heavy, quilted winter uniforms of the Chinese troops effectively. If it made it all the way through, it still lost enough energy that it often failed to penetrate deeply enough into the body to inflict lethal wounds. Again, the M1 carbine fired what was essentially a pistol cartridge. If you would seriously opt for something that fired a pistol cartridge over something firing a rifle cartridge, whether intermediate or full power, as your primary weapon, with which you would have to cope with whatever threat comes your way, this again indicates your lack of knowledge and experience.

jason41987
weighing in at less than half the weight... you could literally carry two M1 carbines for the weight of one STG44

and ultimately, having 12lbs of rifle weighing you down is going to reduce the amount of ammunition and supplies you could carry with you, decrease your mobility, and ive handled rifles this heavy... its not long before your arm feels like its on fire holding that weight up... it was then, and definitely is now a proof of concept, sure, but a very poor design overall

You were dead wrong about what causes bullets to yaw. Suffice it to say you're just as wrong about this.

CraigC:
That's exactly what it means! I don't think you quite understand the meaning of the word "obsolete". We use the M14 to this day so no, it is not obsolete.

Yes it is, as a general issue arm, and we don't use it for that role anymore. As HS pointed out, it was superseded in that role almost the instant it faced a real assault rifle on the battlefield.

 

[kingkeoni]

Here's what makes the AK47 better...

* it is still in production.

* it's still used in numerous countries as their primary battle rifle.

* it's one of the most copied rifle designs ever designed.

* you can still buy ammo for it.

* ammo is one of the least expensive rifle ammo available.

 

[CraigC]

Yes it is, as a general issue arm, and we don't use it for that role anymore. As HS pointed out, it was superseded in that role almost the instant it faced a real assault rifle on the battlefield.

That important stipulation was NOT made in the post I quoted, thank you very much. Try reading the posts before you start blasting.


ob·so·lete

adjective
1. no longer in general use; fallen into disuse: an obsolete expression.
2. of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date: an obsolete battleship.

 

[Billy Shears]

That important stipulation was NOT made in the post I quoted, thank you very much. Try reading the posts before you start blasting.

I've been reading the thread from the beginning. You're nitpicking. It's been understood all along that we are comparing two infantry rifles -- that general issue arms. That's what an assault rifle is; it's not a niche weapon. We're talking about which one was a better rifle for the front line soldier.

ob·so·lete

adjective
1. no longer in general use; fallen into disuse: an obsolete expression.

I know you're intent here is to be snide, but you end up proving my point for me. The M14 is, indeed, no longer in general use. It's been relegated to specialist use, like the designated marksman role, line throwing for the navy, and ceremonial use with the Old Guard, and although, in specialist use, the M14 has remained in service with the US military longer than any other rifle except the '03 Springfield; it served as the standard infantry rifle of the U.S. Army for a shorter span of time than any other weapon -- even the Krag. This is because, as a battle rifle in a world where the assault rifle was now preeminent, it was obsolete in its intended role from the moment it entered service. This became too evident to ignore the moment US troops actually faced opponents armed with assault rifles, and the army quickly had to switch to an assault rifle (the M16) to correct the mistake.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Well, the M14 is no longer in general use, and it is of an outmoded type. "Obsolete" seems appropriate.

Even in the DMR role, there are better and more modern designs out there. The M14 doesn't soldier on because it's optimal, it soldiers on because money hasn't been set aside to field a modern DMR, at least not in the quantities the wars in Iraq and A'stan called for.

 

[Ian]

I do not know if any StG45s were issued and used in combat

No, they were never issued or used in combat. Only a handful were ever built, and all of them were captured in the Mauser facilities at the end of the war.

As to the original question, I really like both guns, but would rate the AK as the better one. The AK is lighter and more compact, and uses much more durable magazines (all important qualities for the intended purpose of the designs).

 

[CraigC]

You're nitpicking.

No, I'm pointing out a very contradictory statement.

Just because we kept using it doesn't mean that it wasn't obsolete.

Because if we're still using it, then it is NOT obsolete.

...it is of an outmoded type. "Obsolete" seems appropriate.

And yet the M16 was designed in the 1950's but is considered state of the art?

The M14 is, indeed, no longer in general use.

I suppose the bolt action rifle is also "obsolete" because it's not "in general use", rather only issued to specialists??? I suppose by that logic the 1911 is also obsolete. Seeing as how it is not standard issue for all. Even though the Marine Corps just ordered another $22million worth of them from Colt.


My issue is with the constant, incorrect use of the term "obsolete" by those who obviously do not know what it means. "Lemon" is another. I'm not trying to be the grammar police either but folks throw around words incorrectly until we're calling magazines "clips".

 

[Tommygunn]

...

theres just something to be said about the m1 carbine, highly underrated, but would have been just as lethal close range as an STG-44...

The marines at Chosin reservoir in Korea would dispute that. They found that the .30 caliber carbine round would not penetrate the heavy, quilted winter uniforms of the Chinese troops effectively. If it made it all the way through, it still lost enough energy that it often failed to penetrate deeply enough into the body to inflict lethal wounds. Again, the M1 carbine fired what was essentially a pistol cartridge.

Notwitshtanding the argument that the M-1 Carbine fired, essentially, a "pistol cartridge," the myth that it wouldn't penetrate NorK's quilted winter coats was a story concocted and dispelled during the Korean War. One army cmdr, upon hearing this, sought out a local battlefield that hadn't yet been cleared of the dead, and found a bunch of dead North Koreans that had been engaged by American soldiers armed with carbines.
The rounds had easily penetrated the front layer, penetrated the body, and had also re-penetrated the same quilted layers upon exiting.
A lot of this "myth" was traced back to poor marksmanship, especially with men armed with the M-2 selective fire variant.
It is true the carbine does not have a very great range. Early flip sights were regulated to 150 and 300 yards, the later being ...."optimistic."
It proved pretty effective in close range engagements as often happened in the jungle environments on Pacific islands. One Marine officer refered to the carbine as "the ace weapon of the war."
The .30 carbine cartridge is, atleast in my opinion, not "essentially a handgun cartridge." It's a bit much for a handgun, though I've seen Rugers chambered in the cartridge as well as one type of Automag. I've also seem revolvers in .30-30 though, and I don't think anyone denies that is a rifle cartridge.
The ACE American rifle of WW2 was the Garand, since it fired the full power .30-'06 round. It would have been a better weapn had it been given a 20 round separate box magazine in a manner similar to the carbine's 15 rounder. Of course that was rectified with the M-14.

 

[barnbwt]

The .30 carbine cartridge is, atleast in my opinion, not "essentially a handgun cartridge."

+1, especially as far as handgun rounds of the day were considered. Nowadays, we have the joy of handgun rounds as powerful as formerly rifle-only cartridges. But today's standards have nothing to do with the classification of a round in the past. If we had handguns as powerful as '06's, you wouldn't go around calling the Garand a sub-gun.

the myth that it wouldn't penetrate NorK's quilted winter coats

Never gets old, does it? The Wiki article quoted (sources, right?) specifies a load of 110gr @ 1900ft/s. That's near if not above .357mag levels (with really light bullets). Unless these shots were all from hundreds of yards away it's nonsense that small-caliber FMJ's wouldn't be through-and-through. For reference, the too-pentrative 7.62x25Tokarev round is an 85gr (lighter) pill traveling at around 1700ft/s(slower).

FTR, the VZ-58 is better 'n all ya'll's guns

TCB

 

[Billy Shears]

No, I'm pointing out a very contradictory statement.

No, you really are nitpicking. It's been obvious all along what we're discussing, and what role these weapons fulfill.

Because if we're still using it, then it is NOT obsolete.

It most certainly is in its intended role, which is why we're NOT still using it in that role, and haven't been using it in that role for half a century.

And yet the M16 was designed in the 1950's but is considered state of the art?

Yes, at least close enough that it's not worth the cost of replacing. The M16, unlike the M14, is an assault rifle, a class of weapon that's not obsolete as a general service arm.

I suppose the bolt action rifle is also "obsolete" because it's not "in general use", rather only issued to specialists???

Yes, as the primary arm of the infantryman it absolutely is. Would you want to go into a line infantry company being deployed to Afghanistan carrying an '03 Springfield?

I suppose by that logic the 1911 is also obsolete. Seeing as how it is not standard issue for all. Even though the Marine Corps just ordered another $22million worth of them from Colt.

You're still missing it. The M1911 is a semi-auto handgun -- a class of weapon that is still general issue. Bolt action rifles and semi-auto battle rifles are classes of weapons that are not still general issue -- where they are still used, they are confined to limited, specialized roles. There's a reason for this. When the assault rifle appeared, it represented a significant advance in the evolution of small arms that rendered the old battle rifle obsolete as the infantryman's primary weapon.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

"The Germans never designed anything for cheap and easy manufacture.".............................Then what was the MP38/40?

 

[Billy Shears]

The .30 carbine cartridge is, atleast in my opinion, not "essentially a handgun cartridge." It's a bit much for a handgun...

It's performance still puts it well inside the handgun class. It's a bit hotter than the .357 magnum, but only by an extra 150-200 joules of energy, depending on the load. It's right in the same league with the 10mm and .41 magnum, and actually less potent than the .44magnum -- all handgun cartridges (pretty hot cartridges by handgun standards, but still handgun cartridges). By contrast, a 7.92mm kurz round has just short of twice the energy of the .30 cal carbine round, and over twice the energy of most .357 loads. The 7.62x39 round is a bit hotter still.

So while you might not consider the .30 caliber carbine to be technically a handgun cartridge, it's performance puts it in the upper end of that class. Certainly no one would consider it the equal of an intermediate rifle cartridge, much less a full power battle rifle cartridge. And this all means that it might be entirely adequate in its intended role as a personal defense weapons for troops not expected to engage in direct ground combat against enemy soldiers, it also means that it would not be at all ideal for soldiers who were expected to do so.

 

[Tommygunn]

Last I checked the .44 magnum was only more potent than the .30 carbine when fired out of a rifle, such as the B-92 Browning I have. Judging by felt recoil alone I would say the magnum was more powerful.
I'm not saying the carbine round was magic, it certainly wasn't, but it killed an awful lot of Germans and Japs when used in close ranges, such as jungle war and street-to-street war such as happened in Europe. It was completly adequate in those limited roles.
It only failed when it was used in places where the Garand or Springfield would have been needed. It was a "rear-echelon" weapon that found its way to the front lines.
Some Germans were even spotted using captured carbines during the Battle of the Bulge; apparantly they liked its handling characteristics well enough in their style of aggressive warfare.
Wouldn't want a carbine at Normandy......
Might have liked them while going house to house, clearing out the Krauts --- or a Thompson.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

"The Germans never designed anything for cheap and easy manufacture.".............................Then what was the MP38/40?

Are you kidding? Have you seen the prices for a MP40? They cost over a few thousand!

 

[Tommygunn]

Current costs of registered MP-40s reflect their value to collectors since they're probably fairly rare.
The MP-40 was stamped steel and phenolic, a simple trigger mechanism. It was designed to be easily and fairly cheaply produced, but as a SMG it was still pretty sophisticated in a lot of ways and was more modern than the Thompson. The MP-40's recoil spring was inside a telescoping tube and thus protected from dirt & grit.
The only thing really superior about the American Thompson was its .45ACP cartridge.

 

[CraigC]

Yes, as the primary arm of the infantryman it absolutely is.

Again, YOU are inserting stipulations after the fact.

You're still missing it. The M1911 is a semi-auto handgun -- a class of weapon that is still general issue.

Again, you're missing it. I'm just taking your rhetoric to its logical conclusion. So now we're talking about "class" of weapons.

When the assault rifle appeared, it represented a significant advance in the evolution of small arms that rendered the old battle rifle obsolete as the infantryman's primary weapon.

No one's arguing that, smart guy. There are those stipulations again.


Again, if the original post I responded to had made those stipulations, I would not have responded. Or maybe you have the ability to read his mind??? All I can do is go by the words on the screen. Either way, I'm over this unintelligent argument.

 

[Okiegunner]

Seems like I have seen .30 carbine made in a pistol form for hunting javalina (and possibly wild boar) in the state of Texas. For those who have never hunted these animals, they move quickly and are often (always) quite nasty to deal with.

I have never used the .30 cal carbine to hunt with (but would). I have used the 7.62. X 39 and the 30/30.

Some folks use handguns. I have heard of as small as a .38 cal. No thanks, not for me.

Gunner

 

[Okiegunner]

Please pardon me guys.

I did not mean to hi-jack this thread with my last post.

 

[-v-]

CraigC, so tracing it back, this was the original statement that sparked this:

It didn't make the Garand obsolete at all. The Garand became the M14, which was used up until the Vietnam War as the primary issue rifle, and nowadays it is still used in marksman roles as the M39 EMR (Marines) and MK-14 EBR (I believe).

(emphasis added).

As for the conclusion, yes, as soon as the MP-42 hit the battlefield, it DID in fact render all other general issue infantry small arms used by all other nations at that time obsolete, as it superseded them all in the general issue rifle/arm category (as the post that you were replying to was debating).

Sure, the MP44 didn't render 82mm mortars or Sherman tanks, sniper rifles, or even machine guns obsolete, but every full power rifle, bolt action or semi auto, and sub-machine gun became obsolete the moment 7.92x33 round hit the battlefield.

As HorseSoldier said, and he can say this with a fair bit more "insider knowledge" then the most of us, the M14 and variants is in use for lack of funds, and because that capability is needed. It is being replaced by the M110 system and others in the DMR role. As HS stated, we simply don't have the funding to issue every designated marksman a M110, so we make due with what we have in the inventory and scootch by.

As for the 7.62x33 round, I'll have to side with all the nay-sayers as well. While it might be at the upper spectrum of pistol rounds, its still basically a very hot pistol round, with a characteristics more in line with a pistol then a rifle round (muzzle energy, bullet shape, cartridge shape, somewhat muzzle velocity). For comparison the Finnish Suomi machine gun could hit out to 300 meters with the 9x19, but I would hardly say it was a rifle round based only on maximum "can hit something" range. Now if the .30 carbine was a bottle neck round with a 110-120 grain spitzer bullet in the 2200-2400fps range (coincidentally replicating the the ..300BLK round which is 7.62x35...), well I doubt the whole mess with the M16 would have happened .

 

[Kynoch]

I do not agree with the above.

The MP44 was so highly thought of because how advanced of a weapons system it was for the time, it has NOTHING to do with HK like hype.

We were thought to be ahead of the pack by being the first country to issue a semi-auto to all infantry, the Garand, well the MP44 was just a few years later, and it made the Garand obsolete (no offense, love the Garand).

The MP44 hardly made the Garand "obsolete."

 

[Kynoch]

The two guns are extremely different. I would say however that the designer of the Stg44 -- Hugo Schmeisser, was also the main designer of the AK-47 and not Mikhail Kalashnikov.

Schmeisser was a brilliant and educated man. He designed many firearms outright and participated in the design or many more. Even old Mikhail finally recognized Schmeisser's "assistance" with the AK. I've never heard much about Kalashnikov's other designs except (supposedly) for the AK series and I find that highly suspect.

I think the story of Mikhail Kalashnikov was fabricated for many reasons. First, I don't think it would have looked good to give credit to a former Nazi (Schmeisser) who was forced to live in the USSR to develop guns for the Soviets. Second I think the story of the tank-mechanic becoming a hero played well with the socialist smack of the era.

I wish Schmeisser had written his memoirs once he was finally allowed to return to his native Germany...

 

[Kynoch]

Here's what it comes down to, the ak was being designed during world war two while the stg44 was made during world war two, it was made to fit between an smg and a battle rifle neither where overly impressive, just mass produced, most everything dealing with ergonomic and ascetic was from the smgs of the day so what all that means is an ak is better, its simpler to build, meaning more can be made, and it used the same caliber as some of the other rifles such as the sks, keeping ammo availability fairly hig
an ak is not a modified sks, the sks was designed later

Naw. Hugo Schmeisser (as a Nazi) wasn't available to design the AK-47 until AFTER WWII...

 

[-v-]

Kynoch: Sure you have. He, or rather his design firm also designed the best GPMG of the latter half of the 20th century - the Pulyemyet Kalashnikova - The PK and and then the PKM machine gun.

The story with Herr Schmeisser was that he was brought in to rectify the problems with the stamped AK receiver. The Soviets were experiencing a greater then 50% rejection rate on their receivers. After the issues were resolved, the milled AK's were phased out and full scale manufacture of stamped receivers resumed. That was his biggest contribution to the AK - actually figuring out how to successfully stamp the receivers. As for other designs of Kalashnikov designs? Lets make this broader, how many other Soviet small arm designs do you know of existing between 1950-1985?

 

[Sam1911]

I think the story of Mikhail Kalashnikov was fabricated for many reasons. First, I don't think it would have looked good to give credit to a former Nazi (Schmeisser) who was forced to live in the USSR to develop guns for the Soviets. Second I think the story of the tank-mechanic becoming a hero played well with the socialist smack of the era.

If you are really curious what DID happen with Kalashnikov and the design team (and what role Schmeisser didn't have in it) read C.J. Chivver's The Gun. He lays the whole thing out with historical documentation.

Kind of an amazing cultural study of how the Soviet Union handled such needs. Suffice to say, Kalashnikov was an interesting guy, but he was in no way solely responsible for the development of the gun that bears his name.

 

[Dunkelheit]

There is a small armory in Germany that has specialized at german ww2 firearms.

http://hza-kulmbach.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=61&lang=en