JohnR said:
I've wondered if there would still have been the move from 7.62mm to 5.56mm if we had adopted the 7mm round.

Although if I recall correctly the SA80 was originally designed with a 4.85mm round. Would this round have replaced the 7mm. How did its performance compare to the 5.56mm?

If the US had agreed to the .280 (7mm) then there never would have been a 7.62x51mm and subsequently a 5.56x45mm M193. So most likely there never would have been another 1970s cartridge competition for which the SS109 5.56x45mm and the 4.85mm (really a 5mm) round were developed. We would all be happily using 7mm to this day.

What would have been interesting is what rounds would have been developed to replace the .303 and .30 (7.62x57mm) for use by snipers who would have wanted a flatter trajectory. This could have resulted in the bigger .300 and .338 being fielded in armies decades before they were.
 
3304633.jpg


3304635.jpg


3304637.jpg


3304639.jpg


3304643.jpg


3304645.jpg


3304647.jpg
 
i foud a Manual for Enfield E.M. 1

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/manuals/EM1manual.pdf
on end of Manual are picture of E.M. 2 version "The MAMBA" and "The CORBA" calibre .280

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/manuals/EM1manual.pdf
source
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/em-1-manual
 
I've actually had the pleasure of speaking at length (well, e-mailing at length, that is) with a retired REME armourer who is intimately familiar with the EM2 design. His view is that the decision to go to the L1A1 was probably better in the long run, as that weapon was much less maintenance instensive than the EM2. He firmly believes that the average National Serviceman would never have been able to cope with the complexity of the rifle. The 7mm NATO round had some advantages, but the real objection from the US was cost. The T44 round that became the 7.62mm NATO round was, in essence, a shortened .30-06. The bullet itself is identical. To convert to the 7mm would have been more costly.
Just figured this might be of interest.
 
Longshaor said:
To convert to the 7mm would have been more costly.

Only if you want to convert existing 30-06 weapons to the new 7mm caliber. If you're designing from scratch, this is irrelevant.

And simply rechambering an existing 30-06 weapon to the new caliber makes little sense IMNSHO, except perhaps as a temporary stop-gap solution, as you lose the advantages of a lighter and smaller weapon possible with the 7mm.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
 

Attachments

  • fedorov1.jpg
    fedorov1.jpg
    13.1 KB · Views: 575
The definition of "Assault rifle" did not originally include any reference to the type of cartridge utilised. It only referred to the matter of selective fire and ammunition source.
 
Kadija_Man said:
The definition of "Assault rifle" did not originally include any reference to the type of cartridge utilised. It only referred to the matter of selective fire and ammunition source.

Quoting from the book "Assault Rifle", by Messrs. Maxim Popenker and Anthomy G. Williams (ISBN 1 86126 700 2), chapter 1:

"....there is no officially agreed definition of the term [Assault rifle]".

"The broadest definition [of an "assault rifle"] likely to secure agreement is along the lines of: "a standard infantry rifle with selective fire".

Later in the same chapter: "....it is also always magazine fed".

And: "...the term "assault rifle" should arguably be applied only to those weapons which are capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder; this would rule out those selective-fire rifles which chamber the traditional full-power 7.62 or 7.92mm rifle and MG cartridges....".

Thus arriving at the definition I used above: "a semi-and full auto, magazine fed, intermediate-power individual weapon".

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
 
Lauge said:
Only if you want to convert existing 30-06 weapons to the new 7mm caliber. If you're designing from scratch, this is irrelevant.

No it isn’t. It’s a very big deal for converting your production infrastructure for small arms and small arms ammunition (SAA). The change from .30-06 to 7.62x51mm meant the US was able to reuse all the tooling for making .30 weapons for 7.62x51mm weapons. Barrels, SAA could all be the same. The only difference was a slightly smaller brass nugget for the casing press.

As part of the ultimately failed compromises to meet American objections to the .280 (7mm) round the Belgians redesigned it so its casing used the same dimensions (in diameter) as the .30-06 ammunition so the US would not have to change all of their tooling. It also would have made it easy to rechamber.

Lauge said:
Only And simply rechambering an existing 30-06 weapon to the new caliber makes little sense IMNSHO, except perhaps as a temporary stop-gap solution, as you lose the advantages of a lighter and smaller weapon possible with the 7mm.

Not quite. You may have noticed the UK rechambered a lot of their .303 Bren guns to 7.62x51mm. Well they acquired a lot of Canadian built 7.92mm Bren gun bolts for re-chambering as 7.92mm ammunition was the source of the casing dimensions of the US .30-06 which lead to the 7.62x51mm so was compatable to the casings of the new rounds which is also why so many MG42s and Kar 98s were converted to 7.62x51mm after WWII. This enabled these guns to continue in service for many decades after production of .303 ammunition was stopped.

Presumably if the USA had adopted the .30-06/7.92mm compatible 7mm round they could have converted any number of .30-06 weapons to 7mm to keep them supplied after switching ammunition types. Of course even when converting to 7.62x51mm the USA and others kept .30-06 SAA in production so these weapons were supplied with plenty of ammo until they were worn out. So the need for the US to do so was minimal. But one could imagine the UK would have still acquired those Canadian Bren gun bolts and converted all those Brens to the 7mm round.

Also the 7mm round wasn’t just about enabling lighter individual weapons but better long range performance for machineguns. So a .30-06 or .303 MG converted to 7mm would have improved their performance at long range shooting thanks to the higher sectional density of the smaller round.

PS I always thought the key definition of an assault rifle is a weapon able to replace both a conventional rifle and a sub machinegun. That is able to accurate fire at over 100m and able to produce high volume fire at close range. For this it didn’t need an intermediate round and it didn’t need full automatic fire. It just needed a larger quick change magazine and the ability to quickly fire all those rounds. Why a SLR qualifies as an assault rifle because a trained soldier could (and did) use it as such.
 
The YouTube of the forgottenweapons.com site has the owner firing, field-stripping and giving his personal opinion on the 7.62 NATO version. It's not the original rifle as purely intended, but better than nothing. An interesting watch. http://youtu.be/_wdhN5_RpX4


Apologies if this is somehow a repeat of already posted info.
 
Regarding machine guns. When the MAG/GPMG was adopted was it an open competition or was it a one horse race? If it was a competition what were the other competitors? Was there a proposal to rechamber the TADEN of 7.62?

Regards
 
The commonly agreed definition of "assault rifle" is one that fires an intermediate cartridge in semi or full automatic. By "intermediate cartridge" we mean a cartridge stronger than a pistol (7.62 x 25 mm Warsaw), but not as strong as a full-bore rifle (7.62 x 54 mm Warsaw).

Only three cartridges have been made in significant numbers for assault rifles: the original German 7.92 mm Kurtz (short), the Warsaw 7.62 x 39 short and NATO 5.56 x 45 mm.
The original German 7.62 x 33 mm was only manufactured during World War 2 (1943 to 1945).
Russia introduced the SKS carbine (7.62 x 39 mm) shortly after WW2, and a decade later standardized on the AK-47 rifle and RPD light machine gun also firing 7.62 x 39 mm ammunition.
During the 1960s, the United States Army adopted the M-16 rifle firing 5.56 x 45 mm ammo and most NATO nations followed suit.
China recently introduced the QBZ-95G assault rifle firing 5.8 x 42 mm ammunition.

Most assault rifles can fire semi-automatic (single shot) or full automatic. Aimed single-shots are most valuable at medium ranges 100 to 500 meters). While full-automatic is most valuable at short ranges (e.g. house-clearing).

While a few full-bore (7.62 x 51 mm NATO) rifles have been issued with full-auto selector switches, my experience (with FN C2A1) proves that it is difficult to hit the target with more than the first and second rounds at short ranges (50 meters). Bipods are needed for accurate full-automatic fire at ranges beyond house-clearing.
 
Last edited:
Mostly accurate, but you've left out the 5.45×39mm in service with Soviet forces since 1974.

There is also a case to be made for the .30 Carbine as an assault rifle round, albeit at the lighter end of the spectrum. The guns for it were made by the millions and the rounds by the billions and it is an intermediate round substantially more powerful than any pistol round. Standard .30 Carbine ball has about double the energy at the muzzle of even the hot 9x19mm or 7.62x25mm loads reserved for submachine guns. The selective-fire M2 was in general issue at the close of WW2 and had pretty much replaced M1 Carbines and .45 ACP submachine guns by the Korean War.

It's interesting to speculate how the history of U.S. small arms might have been different if we had listened to Melvin Johnson and adopted the .22 Spitfire. Johnson's Spitfire was a bottleneck cartridge made by necking down the .30 Carbine to take a .22 bullet giving about double the energy of the FN 5.7x28mm and about two-thirds the energy of the 5.56x45mm in the same overall cartridge length as the .30 Carbine. We could have had a very effective and proven assault rifle in by Vietnam without any of the headaches of the debacle which was the introduction of the M16.

Of course, we've gotten a bit off-topic here, apologies....
 
I am sure I should know this, but why did the UK do such a botched job on the SA80 when it could have drawn on the seemingly much better EM2? And as a rider, is the Bullpup rifle now dead?
 
As for the 28P, https://www.historicalfirearms.info...8p-the-bsa-28p-is-an-interesting-side-note-to

The second rifle present for the trials was then reproofed and inspected and similar weakening and bulging of the receiver was found. While BSA corrected these issues and when tested again had performed properly the 28P was deemed to be too far behind the EM2 and FN rifle in development to be a serious contender for further trials and the BSA project was abandoned. BSA later went on to manufacture several EM2 prototypes chambered in the US T65 cartridge (7.62x51mm).
 
Odd how British engineers could take the IRA's favorite rifle (Armalite AR-18 and AR-180) and mangle it so badly! A dozen other successful rifles are based on the basic AR-18 mechanism.
Bullpups are not dead. Australia still manufactures their own version of the Steyr AUG and a dozen other countries (e.g. mainland China, Israel, etc.) have adopted various bullpups. The Israeli Galil is probably the best modern bullpup with IWI introducing up-dated versions every few years. Newer design bullpups are ambidextrous and have eliminated most of the early disadvantages (e.g. right-hand shooters only).
 
Bullpups are not dead. Even one of the contenders for the US Army rifle system is a bullpup.
Kel-Tech RDB, and RFB.
Desertec MDR, and in fact their bolt action rifle system are bullpups.
MSBN Grot system is interchangeable between conventional and bullpup configurations....except for the parade version I suspect.

Sterling of course was actively excluded from being considered for a new rifle system which is why they threw together a mockup based on AR18 parts......because Sterling had the license to make AR18s and understood the design well.

As for Rifle No.9......well flapper locking has a potential for excessive wear, which might have needed work.
 
thanks for this but why did they ignore all the work done on EM1 and EM2.
I do remember seeing a Sterling manual for AR18 in an army surplus shop years ago.
 
thanks for this but why did they ignore all the work done on EM1 and EM2.
I do remember seeing a Sterling manual for AR18 in an army surplus shop years ago.
I suspect that it comes down to the merits of the multi-lug bolt over virtually all the other locking systems.
Short rotation and the largest surface area make for strength and accuracy.
Only threaded lugs are better but are reserved for sniper weapons

Also the short stroke system can be less sensitive to variable quality ammunition and doesn't feed gas into the main spaces in the gun.

So combining these look like a winner in theory. But alas the SA80 didn't quite work out that way.

Though I just don't understand the roller locked EM-1 design. When the UK knew about the roller delayed action, why copy this?
 
Also the short stroke system can be less sensitive to variable quality ammunition and doesn't feed gas into the main spaces in the gun.
True, but a long-stroke system (like the AK's) is even better in that respect and in adverse conditions - a heavier reciprocating mass travelling further, with a lot more energy to push through the crud etc.
 
thanks for this but why did they ignore all the work done on EM1 and EM2.
I do remember seeing a Sterling manual for AR18 in an army surplus shop years ago.

EM-2 was pretty complicated to machine, I believe. SA 80 was supposed to be a cheaper (largely stamped) gun, which explains why they looked to the AR18 (also a stamped, inexpensive gun, compared to the AR15).
 
A little more detail from a post of mine in another thread:
So we can buy the best available weapon, without nationalism getting in the way.

To be fair, it wasn't nationalism (leastways not domestic) that got in the way with the SA80 program. As noted elsewhere, the version of the EM-2 rifle with the experimental 6.25×43mm cartridge would have likely been ideal for the British Army in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. However the United States (along with HM Treasury's obsession with anything American made or mandated) put paid to that.

The 'original' SA80, otherwise known as the Enfield Weapon System (chambered in the 4.85x49mm cartridge), was developed by RSAF Enfield in conjunction with GST 3815 and GSR 3518. Early work was carried out in the late 1960s by many of the same designers that had worked on the EM-2, headed up by Sid Vance. Unfortunately, in the early 1970s, they all retired (said retirements 'helped' along, it has been speculated, by Treasury mandarins who wanted people who more amendable to Treasury desires, no matter how insane they were). After a pause, a new design team was assembled from scratch to resume work on the EWS. The new design team weren't as experienced as the old team, and it showed. Things weren't helped by non-stop Treasury interference and Labour government cost-cutting in general, which led to a number of ongoing ill-advised design changes even at that stage (this despite various prototypes of both the IW and LSW having been successfully tested in the interim) Despite all this, the team were able to produce two more prototypes [XL64 / XL65] with all the changes, good and bad, ready for the 1977 NATO Ammunition Trails (albeit at a cost in maturity and reliability). Unfortunately, the outcome of those trials were predetermined despite 4.85x49mm being superior in a number of respects, and the team had to start redesigning the LWS for 5.56x45mm. At this point, to save time and money, a number of features were rather hastily 'borrowed' from Armalite's AR-18 rifle (Armalite needless to say was not amused). Also at this time the consequences of one of those previously mentioned bad design choices, which arguably was a major part of the core concept of the 'later' LWS, really began make itself felt. This was the idea that a weapon that which was meant to meet the exacting operational requirements that the LWS was expected to fill, could be made easily and cheaply from stamped metal and plastics rather than machined components and wood or similar. You could kludge together prototypes together using this concept (sometimes of uncertain reliability, let us say) but when it came to actual production standard examples... Of course disaster ensued. To try cut a long story short, by 1980 it was clear that the Treasury's dream of a dirt cheap rifle system for the British Armed Forces was becoming a nightmare. However no-one (read bureaucrats) wanted to take any responsibility for the ungodly mess that had come about. To make matters worse, the new Thatcher government was planning to privatise just about everything in sight, including the RSAF and the rest of the Royal Ordnance Factories (RSAF Enfield was privatised in 1984). Which in turn goes a long way to explain how the revised IW & LSW 'passed' their IDTU trails in the years leading up to 1984, with the subsequent acceptance into service of the SA80 weapons system in 1985. (Though to be fair, they had at least kept the excellent accuracy of earlier incarnations of the LWS. When the rifle actually fired of course.)

In 1987, British Aerospace, who had bought the bulk of the Royal Ordnance, discovered that costs for the second batch production order for the SA80 (the first tranche was still being manufactured at Enfield, though with not inconsiderable difficulties due to the aforementioned design flaws) was higher than they had anticipated when they bid for the contract. In one of the most boneheaded (if you are being charitable) maneuvers of all time, the company decided that in order to cut costs (on what was a fixed price contract), they would move the production line from the (well equipped, with an excellent workforce) Enfield factory to a new supposedly cheaper facility at Nottingham, with a mostly new workforce. Despite this, the go ahead was given for full introduction of the SA80 to all branches of the Armed Forces. To say things got even worse would be a polite understatement. It may be another such understatement to say that the rifles from the new production line were dangerous garbage. Ultimately it transpired that this move was actually part of a very dubious real estate deal that would see the Enfield site (the factory had been closed in 1988) being flogged off for redevelopment in early 1989. British Aerospace may have made far more money from this than it did from the SA80 contract. Any subsequent investigations into this appear to have been killed off under the Major government.

To her credit, Thatcher did not know the true state of affairs with the SA80 (the same can not be said of other notable figures in her government & the Civil Service). It is unclear when she finally discovered the full truth, but it is likely it was sometime around late December 1987 at the earliest. This was at a time when other early Thatcher era defence blunders such as the Nimrod AEW3 (originally inherited from the previous Labour government it must be noted) and the Challenger tank had already come home to roost, and then some!

All this was paving stones on the SA80's road to infamy in Operation Granby, in particular in the form of the L85A1 rifle.
 
The only comment I have is that while I entirely agree that the EM-2 in 6.25mm calibre was just about ideal (assuming that it worked in practice as well as in theory - the design was not without problems) one of the first decisions of NATO was to adopt a common rifle/MG round and that was decided to be the 7.62 x 51 (despite loud protests from the UK and certain others). The USA of course subsequently adopted the 5.56mm round to supplement (rather than replace) the 7.62 mm, but the UK simply didn't have the political or financial clout to go it alone.
 
I, along with several other R.A.F. personnel, was given the chance to try out the SA80 at Bisley back in 1983, and everyone of us was impressed with the rifle, apart from the weird trigger creep which none of us liked, and looked forward to it’s introduction into service, we couldn’t foresee back then all the problems this new rifle was going to have.
 
Re: British .280 Rifle Circa 1951

zen said:
Or for that matter the Arisaka 6.5mm round?

....which was used in the first ever in-service "assault rifle" (a semi-and full auto, magazine fed, intermediate-power individual weapon), the Fedorov Avtomat:
http://world.guns.ru/assault/rus/automatic-fedorov-e.html

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
Man you must have a severe issue with technicalities..
the Fedorov was CHAMBERED IN A FULL BATTLE RIFLE CARTRIDGE... IT WAS A CARTRIDGE USED BY IMPERIAL JAPAN IN ITS ARISAKA RIFLES


the FIRST TRUE ASSAULT RIFLE IN EVERY SENSE AND DEFINITION OF THE WORD IS THE MKb(H)42/MP43/MP44/STG44

the Fedorov Avtomat IS A SELF LOADING BATTLE RIFLE somewhere between the SVT/G43 rifles and BAR/DP LMGs


the way an "Intermediate" cartidge is classified in 2 categories
Power somewhere between a full battle rifle cartridge and a pistol cartridge
size somewhere between a full battle rifle cartridge and a pistol cartridge

6,5x50SR FULFILLS NEITHER ONE OF SAID REQUIREMENTS


plus the FA WAS HEAVIER THAN MOST NATIONS BATTLE RIFLES AT 14 LBS

WHERAS THE
7.92x33 IS BOTH IN BETWEEN RIFLE AND PITOL CARTRIDGES IN SIZE AND POWER
 
The definition of "Assault rifle" did not originally include any reference to the type of cartridge utilised. It only referred to the matter of selective fire and ammunition source.
no it did

BECAUSE the origin of the ASSAULT RIFLE was in the Third Reich
Assault Rifle/ Avtomat are rough Anglicized and slavic translations of STURMGEWEHR
 
Re: British .280 Rifle Circa 1951

zen said:
Or for that matter the Arisaka 6.5mm round?

....which was used in the first ever in-service "assault rifle" (a semi-and full auto, magazine fed, intermediate-power individual weapon), the Fedorov Avtomat:
http://world.guns.ru/assault/rus/automatic-fedorov-e.html

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
the FA IS A BATTLE RIFLE NOT an Assault Rifle
its too heavy
its too awkward
it is not manageable in full automatic fire
 
You realize the posts you're replying to in ALL CAPS are nearly nine years old?

Not so long ago it was fairly common to see the G3 and FAL described as assault rifles in respectable and even authoritative publications. I suspect the militancy about the distinction is driven by reaction in the US gun press (blech) against the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and the tendency of Wikipedia to put things into ever-narrowing categories for some mysterious reason.

Assault Rifle/ Avtomat are rough Anglicized and slavic translations of STURMGEWEHR

I'm almost certain Avtomat is derived from the Greek autómatos and has no linguistic connection to sturms or gewehrs.
 
Last edited:
the FA IS A BATTLE RIFLE NOT an Assault Rifle
its too heavy
its too awkward
it is not manageable in full automatic fire

Weight of Federov Avtomat: 4.4 kg empty, 5.2 kg loaded.
Weight of StG 44: 4.6 kg empty, 5.16 kg loaded

Power of cartridges:
Muzzle energy of 6.5 mm Arisaka Type 30 cartridge fired from an Avtomat: 2,200 J
Muzzle energy of 7.9 mm StG 44: 1,900 J
Muzzle energy of recent proposals for assault rifle cartridges (6.8 mm Rem SPC, 6.5 mm Grendel): 2,400-2,500 J
Muzzle energy of "battle rifles" firing full-power 7.6-7.9 mm ammunition: 3,000-4,000 J (7.62 x 51 NATO is around 3,400 J)

Manageability in automatic fire (from Wiki):
Russian data indicates that when fired in short bursts the Fedorov Avtomat could reliably hit targets having a profile of 0.6×0.5 m at a distance of 200 m. At 400 m the dispersion increased to 1.1×0.9 m and at 800 m it was 2.1×1.85 m. Consequently, burst fire was only considered effective up to about 500 m
 
no it did

BECAUSE the origin of the ASSAULT RIFLE was in the Third Reich
Assault Rifle/ Avtomat are rough Anglicized and slavic translations of STURMGEWEHR

To adopt a similarly pedantic tone: NO it wasn't. NO it doesn't.

The term sturmgewehr was Adolf's belated bit of branding (of something he originally opposed). As drejr noted, the etymological roots of автомат lie in αὐτόμᾰτος - just like the English automatic. And the of use of 'automatic' relating to firearms dates back to at least 1877.

A direct Russian translation of sturmgewehr - штурмовая винтовка - would transliterate as some like 'shturmovaya vintovka'. So, avtomat is no more a translation of sturmgewehr than fusil d'assaut is.

Study evolution in nature and the complexities of biology will quickly teach you that absolutist definitions and reality rarely mesh.
 
no it did

BECAUSE the origin of the ASSAULT RIFLE was in the Third Reich
Assault Rifle/ Avtomat are rough Anglicized and slavic translations of STURMGEWEHR

To adopt a similarly pedantic tone: NO it wasn't. NO it doesn't.

The term sturmgewehr was Adolf's belated bit of branding (of something he originally opposed). As drejr noted, the etymological roots of автомат lie in αὐτόμᾰτος - just like the English automatic. And the of use of 'automatic' relating to firearms dates back to at least 1877.

A direct Russian translation of sturmgewehr - штурмовая винтовка - would transliterate as some like 'shturmovaya vintovka'. So, avtomat is no more a translation of sturmgewehr than fusil d'assaut is.

Study evolution in nature and the complexities of biology will quickly teach you that absolutist definitions and reality rarely mesh.

Avtomat in modern Russian has a closer meaning to the original German Maschinenkarabiner - which of course isn't the same as the old (and evocative) English term machine carbine.

The strict prescriptivism you see these days is mostly political in nature. The only other thing I'll say about that is I've owned and been interested in firearms my entire life - which is precisely why I remember the big semiautomatic Assault Rifle and Assault Weapon annuals Guns & Ammo used to put out, quite often with G3 clones featured prominently.

There's probably also broader cultural aspects. Back in those days you could say "clip" without someone chiming in with "Akshually, it's a detachable box magazine." The purpose of language was to communicate rather than prove you knew more about obscure topics on the Internet.

More on topic, it's an oversimplification to completely blame the Americans for the EM-2 debacle. The Parliamentary debates about the rifle are absolutely bonkers, with Tories basically wondering out loud how it compares to the Martini-Henry as a club and Labor not really knowing the caliber of their pet rifle.

The politics of the EM-2 are more interesting than the technical aspects in my opinion. There was plenty of obstinacy and chicanery from every faction - "American" and "British" not being monoliths.
 
Last edited:
fa
the FA IS A BATTLE RIFLE NOT an Assault Rifle
its too heavy
its too awkward
it is not manageable in full automatic fire

Weight of Federov Avtomat: 4.4 kg empty, 5.2 kg loaded.
Weight of StG 44: 4.6 kg empty, 5.16 kg loaded

Power of cartridges:
Muzzle energy of 6.5 mm Arisaka Type 30 cartridge fired from an Avtomat: 2,200 J
Muzzle energy of 7.9 mm StG 44: 1,900 J
Muzzle energy of recent proposals for assault rifle cartridges (6.8 mm Rem SPC, 6.5 mm Grendel): 2,400-2,500 J
Muzzle energy of "battle rifles" firing full-power 7.6-7.9 mm ammunition: 3,000-4,000 J (7.62 x 51 NATO is around 3,400 J)

Manageability in automatic fire (from Wiki):
Russian data indicates that when fired in short bursts the Fedorov Avtomat could reliably hit targets having a profile of 0.6×0.5 m at a distance of 200 m. At 400 m the dispersion increased to 1.1×0.9 m and at 800 m it was 2.1×1.85 m. Consequently, burst fire was only considered effective up to about 500 m
cts are the Federov is NOT an assault rifle.. it shoots a cartridge that is NOT intermediate
the STG is the first assauilt rifle
 
no it did

BECAUSE the origin of the ASSAULT RIFLE was in the Third Reich
Assault Rifle/ Avtomat are rough Anglicized and slavic translations of STURMGEWEHR

To adopt a similarly pedantic tone: NO it wasn't. NO it doesn't.

The term sturmgewehr was Adolf's belated bit of branding (of something he originally opposed). As drejr noted, the etymological roots of автомат lie in αὐτόμᾰτος - just like the English automatic. And the of use of 'automatic' relating to firearms dates back to at least 1877.

A direct Russian translation of sturmgewehr - штурмовая винтовка - would transliterate as some like 'shturmovaya vintovka'. So, avtomat is no more a translation of sturmgewehr than fusil d'assaut is.

Study evolution in nature and the complexities of biology will quickly teach you that absolutist definitions and reality rarely mesh.
there is ABSOLUTELY no proof the Adolf ever opposed the STG in any way other than a very much common desire to keep logistics easy... itroducing the STG would add complications in logistics due to being yet another cartridge to manage. as well as a brand new rifle using entirely unique jigs and machinery to create..

"Adolf hated the sturmgewher as he was an idiot" is a phrase which is entirely false in both areas
 
the FA IS A BATTLE RIFLE NOT an Assault Rifle
its too heavy
its too awkward
it is not manageable in full automatic fire

Weight of Federov Avtomat: 4.4 kg empty, 5.2 kg loaded.
Weight of StG 44: 4.6 kg empty, 5.16 kg loaded

Power of cartridges:
Muzzle energy of 6.5 mm Arisaka Type 30 cartridge fired from an Avtomat: 2,200 J
Muzzle energy of 7.9 mm StG 44: 1,900 J
Muzzle energy of recent proposals for assault rifle cartridges (6.8 mm Rem SPC, 6.5 mm Grendel): 2,400-2,500 J
Muzzle energy of "battle rifles" firing full-power 7.6-7.9 mm ammunition: 3,000-4,000 J (7.62 x 51 NATO is around 3,400 J)

Manageability in automatic fire (from Wiki):
Russian data indicates that when fired in short bursts the Fedorov Avtomat could reliably hit targets having a profile of 0.6×0.5 m at a distance of 200 m. At 400 m the dispersion increased to 1.1×0.9 m and at 800 m it was 2.1×1.85 m. Consequently, burst fire was only considered effective up to about 500 m
the Federov is by all definition a BATTLE RIFLE
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom