Each of these small arms designs has its strengths and its weaknesses when compared to the designs of its contemporaries. No question.
Mean, you don't have to like these designs. It's ok. You don't have to like the system which built them either... It's hard to be an advocate for slave labor at gulags. One can point the finger at Soviet "thievery" of German capital and talent at war's end, (where did I read about the Germans stealing all of that artwork from occupied France..., or the US "employing" German rocket scientists), trying to detract from the design or the qualities of these weapons of iron and wood.
Nonetheless, these rifles are pretty slick. Some are very accurate. Most have been through the grinder. For those who appreciate these firearms, they are enough.
I wasn't trying to imply that the plunder of Nazi technology and capital at the end of the war was a bad thing. To the victor go the spoils, and the Soviets had more to do with defeating the Third Reich than anybody else. I was only implying that it had a big hand in the design of later weapons such as the AK.
I guess you missed the little notice that the USSR made more SVT-40's then the US made of the "technologically superior" M1 Garand.
The Soviet and Russian philosophy in general is to concentrate technology where it will make the greatest impact. On the battlefield, the two pieces of equipment that gets you the most results are Tanks and Artillery. Soviet designs excelled in both. Rifles and small arms were not given as much emphasis because they weren't what was consistently getting the biggest results.
Plus, the AK-47 was the first mass issued assault rifle. It wasn't untill the 1960's that the US caught up and started issuing an analogous weapon. M14 is a good rifle, but its also little more then a product-improved M1 Garand, whose design specifications were driven by the Revolutionary War concept of the marksman turning the battle from long range versus the reality of the short range firefights where the side with the most volume wins.
Again, which is why the USSR also manufactured over 6 million PPSh-41 sub machine guns.
The SVT has never been respected for reliability or durability. A neat design, but nowhere near the rugged main battle rifle that the Garand was for the US. The Garand did have a few shortcomings, and most of them were fixed in the M14. Sure, its a heavier rifle than the AK. It also speaks with a lot more authority.
I believe that the title of first mass-issued assault rifle would go to the Sturmgewehr series of rifles. They made nearly half a million of them during WWII. Not really what you would call a limited production assault rifle, and it beat the AK into service by a long shot. The only reason the Germans didn't make more is because the war ended before they could (not to mention what the allied bombing campaign did to production before that). The AK may not have copied its internal design, but it certainly copied the layout and concept.
Don't even get me started on the "spray-and-pray" mentality. There's a reason why US Marines are universally feared in combat. A lot of it has to do with the combination of excellent rifles and fine marksmanship that have historically been utilized by the individual Marine. Just ask some of the Iraqi insurgents how well spraying large volumes of fire with their AKs in short-range firefights worked out for them...
Smoother bolt than an M39? Surely you gist, sir.
Higher capacity...yup. Enfield has that down pat.
But one need only use M39 sights to experience superiority. 10 rounds doesn't amount to a thing if the other chap has hit you first. I don't know about you, but a Mosin bolt is quite fast, and doesn't operate on the "cock on close" principle. If I didn't love my M/38 Swede mauser so much, I'd be tempted to modify it.
Easier to wield? Jungle Carbine maybe? How's about an M44!
Thank you for the history lesson, but alas, we are talking Soviet rifles vs the World. The superiority of the Finnish refurbs must take a back seat on this one.
P.s: I do love me a K31. Talk about fast and accurate!
The Mosin has decent sights for what they are, barrel mounted tangent sights. The Finns are even better, maybe the best of that design of sight. In my opinion, neither of them hold a candle to the receiver mounted aperture sights found on the 03A3, Garand, Model 1914/1917 Enfield, or Enfield No 4 series. They are faster to use, more accurate, and obscure much less of what you are shooting at. They also don't require crawling up on the rifle to adjust the range.
The Finns, just like their Swedish cousins, were very, very good at making accurate rifles. I think the Finn M39 rifles really are something, but they're still a Mosin at heart. Like the AK, it's a clunky and awkward weapon compared to its western contemporaries. The Mosins made for mediocre battle rifles and poor sporting rifles. Cock-on-opening or not, the bolt is smooth but awkward to operate, and nowhere near as fast as the Enfield. Compared to any of the Mausers, it's so-so, and I think the speed of either would be a toss-up based on operator skill. I have found that the Mauser design is much easier to work from the shoulder than the Mosin, at least for a relatively short guy.
Barrel length plays a large role in how handy a rifle is in combat. It also plays a big hand in reducing recoil. The Enfield, Springfield, and K98k Mauser were all designed with a 24-25" long barrel. I've found that due to this, they handle quite a bit better than the 91/30 (which used the same ridiculous 29" barrel length of most of the WWI era Mausers) in any kind of non-static use. I've also always thought that the Soviets went too far when they cut down the Mosin to make the M38/M44. A 20" barrel in that light of a rifle with that powerful of a cartridge makes for very punishing recoil. Maybe acceptable if you're only firing a box of ammo at the range, but I couldn't even imagine shooting and fighting with one all day long for months on end.
As has already been mentioned before, if they weren't so cheap, and they didn't shoot readily available and cheap ammo, Russian/Soviet rifles wouldn't be nearly as popular as they are with American shooters today. The Finns are the exception, and their price certainly reflects that.
