Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Shiny Things' started by HiTechRedneck, Nov 20, 2008.
Oooh! What Izzat? my m44 needs a pal..
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xuGQnVfdzWQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Yup SVT-40....that video does not really do it justice. They are LOUD loud.
Pretty intresting rifle, adjustable gas system, 10 round box magazine.....in many ways it is more advanced than a garand. And before I get flamed for that last statement try to top off a grand after two shots.
Many people think it was not that great of a rifle, had problems, un reliable, complicated....bla bla bla...personally I don't think so. The real reason it was not in wide use during WWII is the type of troops the Soviet army had, elite units got this rifle, the rank and file got the 91/30, and yes the good ole Mosin was faster to make and much more easy to use.
I own all three "common" self loading rifles from WWII...the SVT-40 from the soviets, a Garand from the US and a G43 from the Germans....I personally think that the SVT is the best rifle....side by side with my garand the SVT is not as heavy. And the G43 while it works it is just not as stout as the other two. All very intresting history, and I know I will draw flack on picking the SVT over the garand.
No question the Garand is more accurate, but you have to remember these rifles are made to hit a man sized target, not an apple sized target. The Garand is much more accurate, but as a "battle rifle" the SVT had some things going for it that became standard in post war rifles....there is a reason the M16 does not use an ebloc clip.
Just my two bits.
IIRC, the Army specifically did not want a detachable box magazine, or anything protruding down from the bottom of their next battle rifle. I think it was old school generals from WWI that remembered trench warfare and sliding a rifle up over a parapet and firing from atop the sandbags. With the Garand you can get closer to the wall and slid the rifle along the top as far forward as needed. With a DBM protruding down, it would impede that.
It was more a question of cost. Between the world wars, the Army was given very little money by Congress, and the spring steel clips were a lot cheaper than magazines. The Garand was originally designed to use the .276 Pedersen cartridge in a 10 round clip, and when it was redesigned to use the 30-06, they could only get 8 rounds in the same space. There were experimental Garands that were modified to use a 20 round BAR magazine.
Interestingly, it has a selector and much the same full-auto linkage as an M14 It also appears to have stripper clip guides.
Then you'll throw a rod at this one
And here's an evolution of some of the experimental models
I have one of these:
Would I be mistaken to think he's gonna potentially have either some powder burned or very sore fingertips from being that close to the ejection port?
I've been thinking about one of these for a while now. Picked up a vintage H&R .22 break top for teaching people how to shoot a while back but it's just not the same thing.
These people carry black powder pistols, conversion cylinders to convert to metallic cartridges, and single action cartridge pistols of all types.
I don't get it. Why not just get the M14, then?
I am digging that! It seems like sacrilege to do that to a Garand, but I am considering it.
I was watching that as well...the fingers are SO close.
The poster that brought up cost is spot on...the between the wars military was pretty small and with an itsy bitsy budget. Poland had a military in better shape. (land forces specifically) It was not till things heated up in europe that FDR saw the wrighting on the wall and got the navy a few battleships as well as a new class of carrier laid down....they also started work on tanks.....in that climate it is really amazing they got the garand up and going.
A few different militaries started looking at different cartridges in the between war years, England, US, a few others, but the depression, and WWII starting put the end to that.....takes a GREAT deal of money to switch over all military arms to a new cartridge....something the US is working with now....is it really worth all that money to change?
My thoughts too... "Wow! That'd be cool... but a damned shame to do it to the International Harvester. Better off buying an M1A."
Yeah, two sides of the coin. Might be a bit easier to get an M1A, pricewise they seem to start ~$1500 level. YMMV etc etc. The other side is that if you mod a mixmaster Garand you're out maybe $1400 ish total. You can recoup some of that cost with the leftover parts from the conversion. Another item is quality; I would have no qualms whatsoever with using Shuff, but I do hear things about SA. No first hand from me, but it does come up.
I am totally in the dark regarding M14 pricing, but have come across parts kits sans receiver for $1250-1300. So add the receiver and any smith work needed.
Any option looks fun honestly
There's also the whole deal with the garand being a forged (stronger) receiver vs the cast m1as, whether that really matters, I'm not sure.
Just get one of these, 18" barrel, no mods necessary.
Investment cast steel is plenty strong. Almost every Ruger is investment cast, and almost every 1911 made today is also. Ruger pioneered the process in the firearms industry. It eliminates the forging process and cuts way down on machining costs.