Here.
Printable View
The SVT-40 does actually have a last round hold open and may be reloaded by either switching the magazine or the use of magazine chargers and the integral stripper clip guide.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF4683-1.jpg
Seems to me the bolt hold open could be manually engaged if you wanted to put your fumbly bits in there and lift the little catch.
There was still a number of "Opinionated" statements about the "Shortcomings"... Before that it was quite good.
You couldn't trade me all the G/K43 and SVT40 rifles in the world for one good M1 Rifle. Despite it's very few shortcomings, the design beats all the other gas operated semi auto weapons of it's era hands down. Plus a few modern ones too!
Honestly I wouldn't choose any of the three given a choice, and given the era, the early production SKS that was fielded in 1945 would be my choice. High volume of fire, low recoil impulse, light weight, shorter length, enough oomph to reach out to 400m and strike a man sized target with irons. It was probably the first rifle to lead us down the path of post WW2 combat rifle thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
It was all over then...not in standard use...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentryduty
"SKS that was fielded in 1945"
Yeah, right, the famous SKS... what, never heard of it? Can't imagine why, it was so much better than the Garand... NOT.
Interesting that the SVT 40 and K-43 were gone by the Korean War, doubt the SKS was used much
The 7.62x39 cartridge did not exist in 1945. The cartridge experimental production was 7.62x41mm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentryduty
The 7.62x39mm cartridge was type accepted in "mid" 1947.
The Russian sks45 was in production in 1949-1956.
So...RCS, reach into your pocket and show us a clip of five, would you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Enfield
I own all of them and trying to compare an SKS with an M1 Rifle to me is simply apples and oranges. Don't get me wrong, I like the SKS better than the G/K43 and SVT40 but it's still apples and oranges because those rifles were all chambered in full size, high power calibers. In some ways, I find the SKS superior to the AK47 and AKM. I have a few of those too including a Hungarian AK47 and Bulgarian AK74 post sample machine guns. I admit a bit of bias for the M1 and M14 designs, having collected and worked on them extensively over the years and the old Garand still wins hands down every time in my humble opinion! It's simple, comfortable to shoot, robust and reliable. How's that for a sales pitch?
It's been interesting to be subject to the scoffs of disbelief and the nit-pickery of the battlefield existence of a particular arm or it's ammunition, however may assessment is still valid within the scope in which I made it. Never once did I cite any particular betterment of an SKS over a Garand, both do a job well, however personal choice would choose, a lighter rifle, lighter ammunition, slightly improved magazine capacity, and adequate accuracy and power factor.
Based on my experience, the SKS is more than robust and with absolute scrapheap condition 50+ year old rifles still capable of doing the work long after their owner has been eliminated speaks as a testament.
I like the SVT-40, but, it's too long, and field stripping is a fidgety PITA, never fired a K43 because they cost too much to own and bash on the range. I used to own an M14 variant, shot it, hunted it, and ran some nice custom ones including an EBR build, they would not be my choice as a go to war rifle, heavy weapon, heavy ammo, just not my choice.
There was a post on another forum concerning SVT 40 rifles that were sporterized into hunting rifles in Finland and imported to Canada as they changed them to use the 303 cartridge. They do
not have the military appearance but do look like efficient hunting rifles. The old gas system has been modified and is shorter plus you have the 303 chambering in a semi auto.
A little off track (sorry) but talking about battle field carries I thought you chaps would like this although Lee Ermey finds out all about the Weatherby eye I quite like Ermey's vids especially the bloopers;
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...kHRWP98B3_FGDg
I don't know much about them aside from being called a Globeco Mohawk 555, or something to that effect and they are regarded as generally a bit dodgy by most. They pop up for sale in Canada every once in awhile, as a sporter military rifle they don't capture my interest, so I have never pursued one.Quote:
Originally Posted by RCS
Them and the Straight Pull Schmit-Rueben rifles, not interested at all...both in .303.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentryduty
I had heard discussion that some of those were dubiously rechambered to .30 WCF (.30-30) by jamming a chamber insert in the breech, more or less. Also not interested, I have a K31 as original and that is just fine the way it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
Always a fun discussion. I would not call the SKS light, compact but not light. I think it and the M1 are withing a few ounces fully fueled. I'll give that two more rounds are nice and the reload ability of the partially filled M1 is a real PIA. Good out to 400 yards is a stretch for the SKS. No I would not want to stand there and take hits but ballistics, open sights and sight radius all make a sure hit at 400 somewhat iffy. The M1 in arsenal trim (gas cylinder tight and op rod unbent) is a sure killer at that distance (assuming you can see your target at that range) round after round. I know this because at Military Silhouette (200 M to 500 M), shooting at white, non moving targets from a steady rest and nobody is shooting back, SKS shooters do not do as well as M1 shooters (the best are M96 and K31 shooters). Now a sloppy M1 (lots of bayonet practice) and a tight SKS are pretty much on a par. General Douglas MacArthur was correct knowing that a battle rifle needs to be able to shoot through stuff. The SKS is close, the M1 a wall destroyer especially with the 168 grain AP ammo. Up close and personal, I'll give the edge to the SKS, with a bit more room to roam, the M1 is all you need and more.
Dave
"a battle rifle needs to be able to shoot through stuff"
I love the quote, "The M1 will teach you that what you thought was cover was only concealment." :)
Whenever I mention I own an M1 Garand, friends who played Call of Duty ask me about the ping. I always tell them YES, you 100% hear it alone on the line. However, in a match I never hear anyone else's gun, only mine. There is so much going on and you're so focused... now amplify feeling that by 1000x because in war the targets are shooting back. Of course guys back then had no ear protection either. It's one of those weird myths logic quickly torpedos but is so pervasive it's taken as truth. Also after having one sled get stuck in my gun on the line and another that wouldn't stay in the gun, I gave up on using them and load them without one now.
Honestly I'm always a little surprised the MAS49 is never compared to the M1 more, probably as it's kind of unknown in the US. Too bad, they are fantastic guns but the difficulty finding 7.5 French here stopped me from buying an example that was untouched, post refurb... then of course a local shop got in a ton of it. Go figure. I like my SKS but actually think the best model are the commercial cut down/paratrooper models from China, as even my basic model doesn't balance the best to me and I find that even with good clips sometimes loading 10 rounds doesn't go as smoothly as it could.
I vote the M1 Garand, the sights and powerful cartridge put it over the top. I have put a lot of rounds in the M1 Garand, SVT40, G43 and the Swede auto loader. More hits farther out all day long for the M1 Garand. The Swede & G43 were close. The SVT40 looks the meanest and was fun to shoot but just did not do as well.. Any issues with the M1 Garand are nullified with just some practice. The SKS is good for close, maybe out to 150 yards but the sights and lower power put it at a severe disadvantage. My French MAS44 turned into a safe queen and never got to show her stuff, I have heard good things about the design.
No SKS expert here but lots for wrong info here. The SKS was fielded in 1945. The Russians handmade a Battalions' worth of SKS's and issued them for the Battle of Berlin. They were immediately withdrawn after the fall of Berlin and no Western Intel services spotted them. The round was developed in 1943, if I recall correctly. The Chinese begged the Russians for SKS's during the Korean War, but the Russians had no quantity of them to spare and the AK47 project was very slow. Korean War might have been very different if a million Chinese troops crossed the border with a million SKS's.
That's what we said...Quote:
Originally Posted by Calif-Steve
The million PPSh-41's the the PLA had did plenty of damage, maybe the SKS would have given them more stand off range us less "concealment" but what they really needed was the USAF and USN air power.
Dave