Bad good machine

63
Bad good machine
A Red Army soldier with a “Raising M50” submachine gun.


Eugene Reising was an amateur marksman and a talented weapons engineer. He sincerely believed that the creations of gunsmiths should first of all satisfy the needs of the end consumer, that is, a shooter or a soldier in the field. Reising himself was a big fan of shooting competitions, and he had the opportunity to work with the legendary John Moses Browning. He took part in fine-tuning the Browning design, which later became the legendary 1911 pistol produced by Colt.




Eugene Reising with a prototype of his weapons, 1939. It is clearly visible that the cocking handle is located in a niche in the forend, but has not yet been moved down.

Reising developed several small-caliber pistols, and in 1938 he decided to take on the most promising weapon, in his opinion, a submachine gun. Before everyone’s eyes were the events of the civil war in Spain, where these weapons were more than actively used, and many guessed that the fire of a global conflagration was actually starting to flare up.

Two years later, the gunsmith presented his creation. Reising did not have his own production facilities or a manufacturer behind it, and he offered his submachine gun to various manufacturers. As a result, the company managed to interest the Harrington and Richardson Arms Company (H&R) in Worcester, Massachusetts, where production was launched in March 1941. According to the contract, the inventor himself was entitled to a commission of $2 for each sample sold.

The production of the Model 50, a full-size submachine gun, began, and a month later the Model 55 with a folding wire stock, as well as a shorter one due to the absence of a compensator muzzle brake. A self-loading carbine was also produced under the index 60. All weapons were produced in .45 ACP caliber.

It is clear that at first the main consumers were supposed to be various law enforcement agencies. While General Thompson’s creation reigned supreme on this market, and its cost scared off many, so Reising created a model that was more than competitive on the market.


The main brainchildren of Eugene Reising, from left to right - the early M50, often called the “police” or “civilian” model (although such a division did not officially exist), the late M50 (differences from the early model are visible in the number of ribs on the barrel, coating, placement of swivels, etc. ...) and the “landing” model M55.

But it was clear that we had to offer our weapons to the military. There will be prospects and volumes, especially since the war was already going on in Europe, the Japanese had been at war with the Chinese for several years, many in the United States understood that sooner or later one of these conflicts would affect them too.

And the first approach to the projectile took place in November 1941. Tests conducted by the US Army took place at Fort Benning, Georgia, and based on their results, the Reising design was sent for revision. After correcting the identified deficiencies, repeated tests were carried out at the beginning of 1942 at the test site in Aberdeen, Maryland. During these tests, 3 rounds were fired with only two delays: one caused by a defective cartridge, the other by incomplete locking of the bolt.


A group of USMC Marines pose with M50 submachine guns.

It seems that the result is more than good... But the military didn’t like something, and the army rejected Reising’s design. Here, however, a new customer unexpectedly appeared - the US Navy and the US Marine Corps as one of its structures.

Within the US Armed Forces, it was the Navy and Marine Corps that were pioneers in the use of submachine guns. By the time the Army adopted the Thompson submachine gun, Marines in Latin America and boarding crews of US Navy gunboats in China had already come to appreciate this rapid-fire weapon chambered for a pistol cartridge.


Those same “wind talkers” are USMC cryptographers from the Navajo tribe. Corporal Henry Bayeux and Private First Class George Kirk, Bougainville Island, December 1943. Kirk is armed with a Raising M55 submachine gun.

It was clear that in the emerging conflict in the Pacific theater of operations, the Marine Corps would play a huge role, and accordingly the USMC would grow... And a lot of submachine guns would be needed. But so far the output has clearly lagged behind the needs. It was necessary to saturate the army, the marines, and something had to be sent to the allies.

In addition, the Reising system had a number of advantages over the Thompson M1928A1 submachine gun. The “Raising M50” was lighter (almost 2 kilograms), much cheaper (more than 2 times), significantly more accurate when firing in short bursts, thanks to firing from a closed bolt and a retarder. In addition, at that time the USMC was creating its own parachute units, and for them the “Raising M55” looked very attractive, probably the most compact submachine gun chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge at that time.


The legendary "naval cavalry". US Coast Guard Mounted Patrol, Florida, 1942. Both cavalry sailors are armed with the Rising M50.

And now the time has come for a baptism of fire in the Solomon Islands. And everything immediately turned out to be very bad. The system was quite complex and sensitive to contamination. Partial disassembly for cleaning was difficult and inconvenient. At dusk, and even more so in the dark, it was difficult to find the fuse. The metal coating did not match the conditions in which the weapon was exposed, and corrosion became a problem. The magazines turned out to be not strong enough, and the original magazine was only designed to hold 12 rounds. And so on and so forth.

Among other things, the soldiers on the front line discovered, one might say with horror, that many weapon parts were not interchangeable. The technological process at the plant was designed in such a way that the final assembly was carried out with manual fitting of parts. That is, it was simply impossible to assemble one worker from several faulty machines “on the front end.” It was necessary to send the weapon at least to the battalion weapons workshop, where there was a tool, in order, again, to manually adjust the parts.

And with the “landing” model, everything turned out to be bad; in addition to the pedigree problems, there was also a specific one, the wire butt was very inconvenient. It was impossible to invest in the weapon; the butt was digging into the shoulder.


Some of the first prisoners captured by American forces at the Omaha landing sector, on the deck of the US Navy battleship Texas, June 6, 1944, Normandy, France. Several Marines from the ship's Marine unit can be seen in the background, one of whom is armed with an M50 submachine gun. Most of the prisoners are not even Germans, but Italians. After the capitulation of Italy, they were disarmed and sent to prisoner of war camps, and from there they were transported as HiVs to various German military units.

Some of the problems were due to the fact that openly civilian weapons ended up at the front, and even in the most difficult conditions of the jungle of the Pacific Islands. Formally, there is no difference between “civilian” and “military” raisings, but in fact, the first models that fell into the hands of the Marines and later ones are very different.

Some of the problems with weapons could well be called “childhood diseases”, because in January 1942 a contract for the supply of weapons was signed, and already in the summer the first submachine guns were baptized by fire. There were no full military tests before sending the weapon to the front. Everything was needed here and now. And some of the problems were subsequently resolved.

But the weapon’s reputation had already been tarnished by the humid tropical climate, the complexity of the system itself had not gone away, and the Thompson system was radically simplified twice in 1942, in addition, bringing the cost of one sample to a level comparable to the Reising system (in 1944 it even became lower ), plus they increased production volumes.


A Veterans Guard of Canada soldier with a Rising M50, Canada, 1943. The structure was created as an analogue of the British “army of dads”, but here everything was initially better. For example, only those who served during the First World War, but were no longer subject to conscription into the army for a new war, served. Accordingly, people here were trusted with more serious things than in Great Britain, such as the protection of strategic facilities, escorting and guarding prisoners of war. At least once it was even necessary to suppress a revolt of German prisoners of war, although it did not come down to weapons; they limited themselves to water cannons, gas, batons and heavy veteran fists.

In general, on this story submachine guns of the Eugene Reising system could have ended, but no.

Nevertheless, the system had a number of advantages, some of the “childhood illnesses” were cured, and the conflict that flared up at that time was of such a scale that no one had any extra weapons. There were tasks for the submachine gun in the rear and even at the front.

The same USMC continued to use the Rising M50 until the very end of the war. On all large ships of the US Navy there was a division of Marines that served as internal police (after all, it could often be a real small city, the population of which almost entirely consisted of young people, multiply all this by a permanently stressful state and physical activity, there are places where tension points arise ), boarding team, and according to the combat schedule usually occupied the positions of anti-aircraft gun crews. In the weapons shops of these units, raising was registered until the very end of the war.

Several thousand samples were purchased by the US Coast Guard for rear units and units patrolling the coast on foot, in equipment... and on horseback. Yes, yes, a joke about the naval cavalry, but that, as usual, is a completely different story.

These weapons also went into service with various police forces involved in the protection of strategic enterprises and facilities; there was also a clear lack of modern weapons; at the beginning of 1942, the most common weapon in such service were hunting shotguns.


Scouts of the partisan detachment "Storm" (platoon of the Abinsk fighter battalion), Abinsk district of the Krasnodar Territory, winter 1942–1943. Three partisans are armed with Raising M50 submachine guns. There are a relatively large number of photographs of this partisan detachment. Judging by the photo, they went “to combat” with Soviet or German ammunition, leaving the “Americans” in the rear. Apparently, again, the shortage of non-standard cartridges had an effect.

The Americans also sent these weapons to their allies. This is how it ended up in the USSR. By the time they received these submachine guns, the Soviet military, who had previously encountered Thompsons (the first were supplied from the UK and are often designated as “British” in documents), clearly identified the main drawback of all systems chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge - this is the cartridge itself .

And the point is not in any of its terrible properties or the monstrous difference in penetrating ability and the stories going around about it (“put on two wet padded jackets and they will stop a bullet”), but in the fact that the cartridge was non-standard and was not produced in the USSR.

At the beginning of 1942, the ski battalions of the Bryansk Front were armed with many “British” Thompsons. And the documents of the Bryansk Front related to the actions of the ski battalions are literally riddled with one problem - solve the issue of ammunition, there is always not enough ammunition.

So the fate of the raisings in the USSR was predetermined from the very beginning - parts of the second echelon, guarding the rear, etc. But it was from the rear that these weapons came to the front.

How did it happen?

In July 1941, the formation of fighter squads began. They were formed by the NKVD from local party activists, police officers, business workers, etc. who were not subject to conscription. The range of tasks they solved, depending on the time and place of formation, was enormous. Somewhere they served to replenish the ranks of the Red Army units, somewhere they formed new full-fledged rifle units, somewhere they helped fight banditry and catch deserters, and somewhere, when German troops approached, they switched to partisan actions.

“Fighters” were often armed with whatever they needed, especially since they did not have to constantly fight, so non-standard weapons with non-standard ammunition were a frequent occurrence. Thus, during Operation Blau, along with the NKVD fighter battalions, the American submachine guns already issued to them went to the partisans.

In the USSR in 1942, they tested the Eugene Reising system upon receipt of weapons. Our gunsmiths were frankly not interested in the system and were noted by the complexity of the design, as well as the high requirements for processed parts, which our gunsmiths considered unacceptable in the conditions of mass military production.


List of the availability of weapons and ammunition in the destroyer battalions of the NKVD of the Azerbaijan SSR as of August 10, 1942. There are not many Risings (column No. 8), but they are often the only automatic weapons of these units.

In general, the history of submachine guns of the Reising system cannot be called brilliant, but they were not a complete failure either.

Production continued throughout the war (though only M60 carbines; production under a contract with the USMC ceased in 1943), and about 80 thousand samples were produced only under a contract with the USMC. Subsequently, the samples decommissioned from the US armed forces were sold on the civilian market and served for a long time in various US law enforcement agencies.

In general, despite the efforts and ideas of Eugene Reising, he ended up with a classic “civilian” submachine gun of the 1930s. Wartime presented not just different, but radically different requirements for weapons.

The Reisings did not have the gangster flair of the Thompsons, the cheapness of the walls, or the mass production of PPSh, but they left their mark on weapons history and honestly served on the fronts of World War II, and in completely different conditions and literally on different ends of the globe.


After the war, the raisings returned to where they probably belonged - in various law enforcement structures and agencies of the United States. Still, it turned out to be a good example of a weapon, but not for war and mass production conditions.
63 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +18
    22 January 2024 04: 11
    Quite an interesting publication and easy to read! Thank you!
    However, it would be possible to consider in more detail the design features of the weapon and the characteristics of the various options.
    1. +12
      22 January 2024 05: 23
      Good morning Sergey! I agree The author is growing quietly, I think he will be pleased with a kind word.
      Good day comrades!
      1. +9
        22 January 2024 05: 27
        Vladislav, it’s already day for me! wink
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        The author is growing quietly, I think he will be pleased with a kind word.

        Yes, it’s not a sin to praise for a job well done!
      2. +9
        22 January 2024 06: 57
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        I agree The author is growing quietly, I think he will be pleased with a kind word.

        I also liked the material and how it was written.
    2. +5
      22 January 2024 06: 40
      Quote: Bongo
      Quite an interesting publication and easy to read!

      Respect to the author, well-produced materials about the history of weapons do not appear often.
    3. +4
      22 January 2024 12: 03
      Here we are witnessing the birth of a new writer on the site hi So to speak, over time, a new master of the pen! hi
    4. +8
      22 January 2024 18: 28
      Hello, Sergey!
      I had a funny experience with Raising. Once, looking into the Maritime Museum of Sevastopol, I found it in a display case with captured weapons, and there was a signature on the card - “Trophy submachine gun.” Well, the ID of a State Historical Museum employee opens any door in any museum. I was received by the executive secretary with the rank of captain 2nd rank. We talked and went to the window. I showed him where on the “Raising” it is written “in black and white” where it was made. Cap asked me to compose the text for the signature myself, they took the paper from the display case and I simply rewrote what was stamped on the shutter casing, adding more Russian text. At the same time, I made amendments to some more trunks on the same display case. We parted as almost friends, but Cap never gave me a bottle. smile

      Found a funny photo: Rising M50 with a stock simulating an MP40 for film production (wiki)
      1. Alf
        +4
        22 January 2024 18: 48
        Quote: Sea Cat
        but Cap never gave me a bottle.

        Here is a sea serpent, pinched, you bastard! laughing Good evening, Konstantin! hi
        1. +5
          22 January 2024 18: 51
          Good evening, Vasily!
          He pinched and did not give water to a visiting Moscow fraer. laughing
          Well, we sorted out the bottle ourselves, just the three of us were hanging out. wink
          1. Alf
            +2
            22 January 2024 18: 51
            Quote: Sea Cat
            The three of us were just hanging out.

            Three is a classic.
      2. +2
        22 January 2024 22: 51
        Apparently he was on tour. He shared his experience as a metropolitan celebrity.
        1. +2
          22 January 2024 23: 26
          It happened by chance, but how could you not help your colleagues? Yes
          And is it really possible to demand from our sailors a thorough knowledge of imported weapons?
          For me the mistake was obvious... although they could have read what was written on the barrel and in what language. request
          1. +3
            23 January 2024 05: 58
            Every museum is interesting.

            I see how our local lives: with stuffed animals and birds.

            The effort of two people. Out of duty.
            1. +2
              23 January 2024 21: 12
              It’s like our Kolya Mikhailov, he voluntarily leads tours of the fort and maintains order.
              1. +2
                24 January 2024 08: 27
                What Nikolai does evokes enormous respect.
                1. +2
                  24 January 2024 09: 47
                  The main thing is that he himself enjoys it.))
                  1. +2
                    24 January 2024 16: 54
                    And one is closely related to the other.

                    When you do what you like, it turns out well. And you respect yourself.
                    1. +1
                      25 January 2024 02: 16
                      It's a pity that this doesn't always happen, unfortunately.
      3. +1
        26 March 2024 19: 24
        The rating of the M50 chambered for 5,6×15,6 mm is something like 200 joules - 9x19 is steeper than 480
        The rating of the M55 under 45 ACP 11,4x23 is already 500 Joules, it seems that it is in no way superior to our 7,62x25 480
        the weight of the ammo and cartridge are critical
        7,62x25 10 grams and 45 ACP is only a 15 gram bullet - you can’t take much
        but 15 grams has a very high stopping effect - you don’t need much (!)
        1. +1
          27 March 2024 07: 59
          Hi Roman!
          Great addition. good
          1. +1
            28 March 2024 09: 42
            mutually,
            I am constantly tormented by the question,
            why only Americans created similar body armor made of nylon and aluminum during WW2,
            and it really worked - losses were reduced by various estimates by 15 - 30%
            but unlike the USA, the USSR took a more progressive path
            in the Red Army there were massive steel bibs CH-38, CH-42,
            but in Leningrad there are full-fledged cuirasses MPZ-ZIF-22, PZ-ZIF-20
  2. +4
    22 January 2024 04: 53
    The Reisings did not have the gangster flair of the Thompsons

    It’s quite a compact machine, if we talk about the model with a folding stock, which can easily be hidden under a wide raincoat. Easy. The disadvantages include a relatively small magazine, but it is enough to shoot some guy from a rival gang wink
  3. +14
    22 January 2024 05: 11
    And the point is not in any of its terrible properties or the monstrous difference in penetrating ability and the stories going around about it (“put on two wet padded jackets and they will stop a bullet”), but in the fact that the cartridge was non-standard and was not produced in the USSR.
    - Not certainly in that way. Under the Tsar Father, 50 thousand Colt M-1911 pistols were purchased in the USA. After the revolution, a significant part of these pistols went to the Red Army. In addition, a number of the same pistols were captured in combat operations against the British and American invaders. To these we must add that in 1923 the OGPU purchased several hundred Tommy guns - Thompson submachine guns. Such an arsenal could not be operated without cartridges. Therefore, back in the 20s, the USSR launched the production of the most popular cartridges for imported pistols: 9x23 Steyer, 9x19 Parabellum, 9x17 Browning short, 7,63x25 Mauser, 7,65x17 Browning, 6,35x16 Browning, .45 ACP, etc. In particular, the .45 ACP was produced by the Sestroretsk Cartridge Plant. Another thing is that the production volumes of such cartridges were not large, since the main pistol cartridge was 7,62x25 TT (7,63x25 Mauser).
    1. +3
      22 January 2024 09: 54
      The reason for the dislike of “Raising” in the USSR was not at all because of the different cartridges, but because of their unsuitability as a weapon. I will refer to the Americans. Testing at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in the United States found that the assembly and disassembly of the weapon was unnecessarily complex, so that maintenance of the weapon was also difficult. In addition, the parts of various weapons were not interchangeable due to individual adjustment during manufacture, which became a big problem during operation and repair in the army. The Soviet operating instructions, for example, categorically forbade mixing up parts of one submachine gun with parts of another during disassembly.
      The design of the weapon was quite complex and, moreover, prone to delays when firing due to the rapid contamination of the receiver ledge, which serves to slow down the bolt's release, with dust and gunpowder fumes. In this case, the shutter did not reach the extreme forward position, and the trigger mechanism continued to block the trigger, preventing the shot from being fired. Such delays during firing were all the more difficult to eliminate given the fact that the Reising’s cocking handle was not rigidly connected to the bolt, which made it impossible to push it forward manually. It looks like this is an American tradition - just like the M-16 with its famous button for chambering the shutter!
      Ultimately, the Reising's reputation among the troops was extremely low, and many Marines tried to get rid of this weapon as quickly as possible. There is even a known case when an entire battalion of Marines, on the orders of Lieutenant Colonel Merritt A. Edson, sank their Raisings in the river in order to obtain a weapon more suitable for combat. Often this was the M1 self-loading carbine.
      As a result, at the end of 1943, the Raisings were withdrawn from the troops and transferred to Coast Guard units and ship commands, as well as the police, State Defense Forces and OSS. Some of these weapons, which showed their unsuitability for combat operations, were sent to the allies under Lend-Lease, including the USSR, as well as to various resistance movements. In Canada, “Raisings” were received by volunteers guarding German prisoners of war and reserve units, along with other obsolete weapon models.
      In the USSR there were strict requirements for testing weapons. Therefore, there were not even hints about the production of “Raisings” in the USSR. When receiving “Raisings” under Lend-Lease, they were perceived as a necessary evil.
      Lastly about the birds. The feeling is that under Lend-Lease we received according to the principle “God damn it, it’s not good for us.”
      For example, Soviet specialists had an extremely negative attitude towards .45 ACP cartridges coming from the USA. Unlike domestic .45 ACP cartridges, American ones, in particular, were found to have different amounts of gunpowder in different batches. There were frequent cases of spontaneous dismantling of bullets and other defects.
      The funny thing is that now such shortcomings are attributed to Soviet cartridges (we only produced galoshes). Even at VO (I can’t remember who exactly) someone once rants about how Soviet cartridges were supposedly so bad that they guaranteed one misfire per PPSh magazine. At one time, I talked a lot with front-line soldiers. I have never heard any complaints about Soviet cartridges from any of them. Whereas at the front it is impossible not to at least once get into a terribly critical situation due to the guaranteed misfire of one cartridge per magazine.
      1. +2
        22 January 2024 11: 58
        the cocking handle of the Reising was not rigidly connected to the bolt

        The Reising bolt did not have the usual cocking handle - instead, a special pusher with a hook-shaped handle passed under the barrel, access to which was provided by a cutout from the bottom in the front of the stock (clearly visible in the illustrations). When firing, the pusher and handle moved along with the bolt.

        But in general, Reising is an exception in the sense that most SMGs of World War II could not chamber a cartridge with a bolt. Most fired from the rear sear.
        The Soviet operating instructions, for example, categorically forbade mixing up parts of one submachine gun with parts of another during disassembly.

        The PPSh had the same problem with stores, for example. Consequence of finishing with a file. The quality of PPSh production varied markedly between different factories.
        There is even a known case when an entire battalion of Marines, on the orders of Lieutenant Colonel Merritt A. Edson, sank their Raisings in the river

        PP weapons are specific and entire battalions were rarely armed with them (except perhaps the Germans in Soviet cinema :)) The Carbine was much better suited for this purpose.
        under Lend-Lease we received according to the principle “God damn it, it’s not good for us”

        Under Lend-Lease they received what they themselves chose. Lend-Lease was provided in cash, and ours themselves chose the amount that they considered necessary (and from what the Americans could produce, of course)
        1. 0
          22 January 2024 20: 23
          Quote from solar
          PP weapons are specific and entire battalions were rarely armed with them (except perhaps the Germans in Soviet cinema :))

          A company of machine gunners in each rifle regiment of the Red Army appeared with NKO order No. 0406 on October 12, 1941. And in the guards regiments there were two companies.
        2. +3
          23 January 2024 10: 15
          But in general, Reising is an exception in the sense that most SMGs of World War II could not chamber a cartridge with a bolt. Most fired from the rear sear.

          As a child, I was prone to conducting experiments of varying degrees of idiocy. I'll tell you about one thing. Before our shooting, our brothers-in-arms with the SKS shot at the range. I handed over my shell casings, and put the one I found from SKS in my pocket as a souvenir. When cleaning the weapon, scratching my back, I put this cartridge case in the magazine, the magazine in the AK and pulled the bolt. The effect exceeded all my expectations. I won’t lie, but it is very likely that the SKS chamber was somehow different from the AK chamber. Therefore, the cartridge case inflated in the SKS was driven into the chamber of the AK like a plug. The shutter had reached its extreme position, and not only did I move it, no matter how much I squirmed and tried, I couldn’t just move it by hand. I fucked great then, but this is Kalash! I was able to open the bolt only with a heel strike.
          This is said to mean that in principle a weapon firing from the rear sear cannot have such a problem as the cartridge not being fired into the chamber. If a weapon firing from the rear sear does not have a cartridge in the chamber, then the problem will not be to chamber this cartridge, but to knock it back out.
          If an AK cartridge does not go into the chamber, then it can be finished off with a heel or other savage method. When using a Raising or M-16, this situation is called a small arctic fox. For the M-16, for example, it is repeated in every 10th magazine. A simple example. In Israel, an Arab broke into a cafe and started killing everyone with an M-16. After the first magazine, his second one jammed, and while he was stomping on the life-saving bolt chambering button, they managed to punch him in the face and take the gun away.
          The PPSh had the same problem with stores, for example. Consequence of finishing with a file. The quality of PPSh production varied markedly between different factories.
          - no need to slander the PPSh. The only part of the PPSh that is not interchangeable is the disk magazine. When switching to a sector store, this problem completely disappeared. Have you ever held a PPSh in your hands? This is a masterpiece, this is beautiful, this is the weapon of the Winner! The manufacturing quality of the PPSh varied. I happened to hold in my hands a PPSh that had a forged bolt. Forged!!! The level of technology of a village forge, followed by minimal processing in a school workshop on a milling machine from the era of King Pea. However, all of its parts were interchangeable, because there simply are no non-interchangeable parts.
      2. Alf
        +4
        22 January 2024 18: 50
        Quote: Old electrician
        (I can’t remember who exactly)

        Carbine, don’t be remembered by nightfall.
  4. +4
    22 January 2024 06: 24
    Interesting. Thank you. But the fact that our partisans have it, and in “commodity” form, is already too much...
    1. +3
      22 January 2024 08: 03
      But the fact that our partisans have it, and in “commodity” form, is already too much...
      The partisans are not Smolensk or Belarusian, but Kuban. Perhaps they were supplied from Lend-Lease, which went through Iran.
  5. +4
    22 January 2024 08: 31
    Conflicting design. In essence, it is a semi-automatic carbine with the ability to fire automatically. On the one hand, there are many original solutions, in particular in the design of the semi-free shutter. On the other hand, it seems that the designer did not provide for disassembly outside the workshop at all.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  6. +4
    22 January 2024 11: 37
    I would like to add a few words. A characteristic feature of the Reising was that in the usual place there was no cocking handle and, accordingly, a slot. The specific features of the humid climate of Southeast Asia required just this. It was located in a large recess in the fore-end under the barrel after the magazine and moved during shooting, which was dangerous because a finger could get into the recess, so in most photos they hold it by the magazine and not by the fore-end, which risks loosening its fastening. The Finnish Suomi, for example, had the cocking handle under the receiver, but did not move when firing.
    At the beginning of 1942, the ski battalions of the Bryansk Front were armed with many “British” Thompsons. ...there's always a shortage of ammunition.

    I read that some of the equipment supplied under Lend-Lease was equipped with leather raincoats and Thompsons to arm drivers. After acceptance, the raincoats went to the authorities (there was such a funny story or story when the English delegation could not understand why they were being met by a group of drivers), and the Thompsons were used for other purposes. Moreover, the drivers did not need a lot of ammunition.
    Bad good machine

    The term, invented by the head of the training ground Filatov, caused confusion in the classification of hand-held automatic weapons for many years.
    It was only after a long time after the USSR that the general public was able to convey that the German “Schmeisser assault rifle” and the Kalashnikov assault rifle are far from being the same type of weapon. I think it’s not worth reviving the tradition of “automatic machines” on a specialized site.
    1. 0
      22 January 2024 20: 31
      Quote from solar
      The German “Schmeisser assault rifle” and the Kalashnikov assault rifle are far from the same type of weapon. I think it’s not worth reviving the tradition of “automatic machines” on a specialized site.

      The term “automatic” is more than justified; the AK is the direct successor of the PPSh and in no way an “automatic carbine”.
      1. 0
        23 January 2024 11: 39
        You are also not entirely right:
        GOST 28653-2018
        INTERSTATE STANDARD
        SMALL WEAPONS
        Terms and definitions

        46 rifle: A rifled small weapon, structurally designed to be held and controlled when shooting with two hands with the butt resting on the shoulder.
        49 carbine: A lightweight rifle with a short barrel.
        51 automatic: Automatic carbine.
        52 submachine gun: An assault rifle designed to fire pistol cartridges.

        That is, an AK is an automatic carbine, and a PPSh is an automatic carbine, and even more - they can even be formally called rifles)
      2. +2
        23 January 2024 12: 09
        The term “automatic” refers to a wide class of weapons that have automatic operations during reloading, short for the word “automatic”; it was “automatic” that Tsar Nicholas 2 called Fedorov’s automatic rifle when he rejected it. But in modern terminology, it was not an automatic rifle (as Fedorov himself called it), but a self-loading rifle (also providing automatic reloading). When Fedorov wanted to use it for burst shooting, he called it a “machine gun”, “carbine-machine gun”. Nikolai Filatov, head of the weapons and ammunition department of the State Autonomous Agrarian University, called it “Avtomat.”
        Before, during and some time after the Great Patriotic War, submachine guns were called “machine guns” in the USSR, until they were completely replaced in the Soviet army by AK-based weapons, which was even reflected in military manuals on small arms, where both names were often given - both “submachine gun” and “machine gun”.
        The confusion lasted for many years. There is no point in reviving it by calling submachine guns “machine guns”...
        1. +3
          23 January 2024 13: 05
          But there is no confusion, there is a valid GOST, and I believe that on the VO website it is correct to use exactly those terms and definitions that are spelled out in it) That is, calling a PPSh a machine gun is correct, but an AK assault rifle is not, since there is no such definition in GOST no, well, it’s not worth coming up with all sorts of infantry rifles and calling the DP a heavy rifle, like the aforementioned Carbine
          1. 0
            23 January 2024 13: 49
            GOST is a separate source of confusion.:((
            This was already in the old GOST 28653-90 “Small arms. Terms and Definitions".
            “Avtomat” from GOST is, taking into account the definitions of an assault rifle and a carbine, “an automatic lightweight rifle with a short barrel”
            And “submachine gun” according to GOST, taking into account the definitions rifle, machine gun and submachine gun - “an automatic lightweight rifle with a shortened barrel, the design of which provides for firing pistol cartridges.”
            Yes, formally, according to the adopted GOST, the term “rifle” can be used instead of a machine gun and a submachine gun, despite the fact that these are fundamentally different classes of weapons.
            Do you consider this classification in this matter, which is laid down in GOST, normal? But as for me, this is an attempt to stretch the term machine gun, artificially introduced by Filatov, onto the globe, like an owl, as a result of which the submachine gun became a rifle.
            For a long time, people will wonder why the Mosin rifle was produced during the war, if there were much more effective rapid-fire and cheaper versions of “rifles” and “machine guns” :((
            1. +1
              23 January 2024 15: 54
              GOST is not a source of confusion, if you use its definitions, you can uniformly and unambiguously call small arms, including all sorts of “curiosities.” Here's a funny thing: there is an American-180 for 22LR. Is this an automatic? Yes! Is this a submachine gun? No! Because the 5,6×15,6R cartridge is a rifle cartridge! The use of the term “machine gun” from GOST for it allows us to clearly understand what this model is - an individual small weapon that allows automatic fire
              1. +1
                23 January 2024 16: 35
                GOST is not a source of confusion, if you use its definitions, you can call small arms uniformly and unambiguously

                This is a parody of GOST, and this has long been known to everyone who is interested in weapons; it has been discussed for more than twenty years.
                A carbine, according to this GOST, is a shortened rifle. The question arises - what specific rifle was shortened to create an AK “automatic carbine”? Submachine guns, according to this parody GOST, are some unknown rifles that were shortened, made automatic, and were designed to fire pistol cartridges. All that remains is to find these rifles, which have been shortened and adapted for a pistol cartridge.
                But, for example, the Steyr TMP is not a pistol, since it is intended to be held with two hands, not one, and it is not a submachine gun, since there is no shoulder rest, as provided for by GOST for rifles. There are no such weapons in this GOST.
                1. 0
                  23 January 2024 16: 47
                  Rifle Mosin 7,62 - barrel length ~100 calibers, AK - 54 calibers, rifle TOZ-8 - 114 calibers, AK-74 - 76 calibers. But the Steyr TMP still formally and actually has a butt
                  1. 0
                    23 January 2024 16: 54
                    GOST differs from the VO forum in that it should not allow fantasies, additions “from one’s own” and discrepancies.
                    There is nothing in this guest about whether or not a rifle is determined by the specific barrel length in calibers or millimeters. Same as a carbine.
                    Compare the barrel length of the Mosinka and SVD, for example.
                    1. 0
                      23 January 2024 17: 40
                      Yes, specific numbers are not needed in GOST, I gave the lengths of the barrels solely for clarity, to show that the barrels of machine guns MUCH shorter than rifle ones in the corresponding calibers
                      1. +2
                        24 January 2024 10: 46
                        You have a very vague idea of ​​the purpose of GOST. For some it is significant, but for others it is insignificant; this should not be in GOST in principle; there should be clear, unambiguous formulations that do not allow double interpretation. .
                        In addition, you have selected convenient options. The SVD, which you ignored, has a barrel length of 81 calibers, which is practically no different from the AK-74 with its 76 calibers.
                        And if you take the VSS Vintorez rifle, there will generally be 22 calibers, the VSK-94 rifle has a barrel length of 26 calibers.
                        Not to mention the fact that you replaced Gost’s term “shortened” with “much shorter.”
                  2. +1
                    23 January 2024 17: 03
                    The original Steyr TMP does not have a stock
                    https://patents.google.com/patent/USD328120
                    https://www.remtek.com/arms/steyr/tmp/tmp.htm
                    https://www.militarytoday.com/firearms/steyr_tmp_images.htm
                    1. +1
                      23 January 2024 17: 53
                      A patent from '89 describes the design pistol with two handles, and note - semi-automatic, self-loading. And it fully corresponds to paragraph 44 pistol: A short-barreled small weapon, structurally designed to be held and controlled when firing with one hand. Since the balance and weight distribution allows you to hold and shoot from it with one hand. It’s also more convenient to shoot from the PM while holding it with two hands, but that doesn’t stop it from being a pistol, but when automatic shooting was added to the TMP, the butt had to be attached too - so it became a submachine gun
                      1. +1
                        24 January 2024 11: 13
                        44 pistol: Short-barreled small arms, structurally intended for holding and controlling when shooting with one hand.

                        GOST talks about constructive execution, not the method of application.
                        Steyr TMP is CONSTRUCTIONALLY designed to be held with two hands; for this purpose there is a second handle.
                        How you personally use it is up to you.
                        The patent from 89 describes the design of a pistol with two handles, and note that it is semi-automatic, self-loading.

                        Actually, I provided a link to a 1992 patent.
                        In any case, this does not change anything; GOST classifies self-loading weapons as automatic.
                        19 automatic small arms: Small arms with full automatic reloading.
                        20 self-loading small arms: Automatic small arms, trigger mechanism
                        which allows only single shooting.

                        Steyr TMP falls out of the GOST classification altogether. Just like, for example, Agram 2000, Agram 2002 and other submachine guns with two hands, but without a shoulder rest.
                        This is what it is, this is “GOST”.
        2. 0
          23 January 2024 21: 40
          Quote from solar
          Before, during and some time after the Great Patriotic War, submachine guns were called “machine guns” in the USSR, until they were completely replaced in the Soviet army by AK-based weapons

          This is quite logical, because it indicates the tactical purpose of the weapon. The term "automatic" emphasizes that the automatic mode is the main one for this weapon. On the other hand, a machine gun is not a weapon of self-defense or only close combat, like a pistol or submachine gun, but is a basic weapon intended for shooting at main ranges of small arms combat, i.e. about 300 meters. For the PPSh this is of course a bit of a stretch, but that is exactly how it was used. That is why a company of machine gunners appeared in each regiment, the first unit fully armed with automatic weapons.
          1. 0
            24 January 2024 11: 16
            For PPSh this is of course a bit of a stretch

            stretch is putting it mildly. It couldn’t be used like that; the primitive sight didn’t allow it. Unless you shoot “in the wrong direction.”
            1. +1
              25 January 2024 21: 14
              Quote from solar
              stretch is putting it mildly. It couldn’t be used like that; the primitive sight didn’t allow it. Unless you shoot “in the wrong direction.”

              The sight was initially marked at 500 meters. And when a company of machine gunners fired “in that direction”, it was not boring on the other side of the front sight.
              1. 0
                26 January 2024 00: 13
                It is logical that the sight at 500 meters was removed. It is only suitable for shooting at a firing range, where targets stand statically at a strictly measured distance, which cannot happen in combat.
                And when a company of machine gunners fired “in that direction”, it was not boring on the other side of the front sight.

                When it shoots with a real QUO at a range of meters or tens of meters (otherwise it won’t work after 200 meters), the only psychological effect will be from the whistling of bullets, wasted ammunition and overheating of the barrel.
                Well, perhaps they will advance in a column, as in Chapaev’s movie, but the Germans don’t seem to notice this.
                But to lie down at 400 meters and shoot out this company, hiding behind their machine guns, is another matter; they were capable of this.
                Submachine gunners were used in large groups for urban battles.
                1. 0
                  26 January 2024 23: 24
                  Quote from solar
                  Submachine gunners were used in large groups for urban battles.

                  What kind of urban battles were there in the fall of 41? Used where high fire density was required. Both in attack and defense. By the way, there was no separate technique - “suppressive fire” in those days, they just noticed that it worked and started using it.

                  In addition, you greatly exaggerate the supposed “uselessness” of shooting at such distances. At 200 meters the PPSh hit the chest target with a single shot, at 300 it was unlikely to be a single shot, but with a burst of 3-5 rounds it hit quite often.
                  1. 0
                    27 January 2024 01: 43
                    These hits are polygon hits. When the distance is clearly known and does not change. This doesn't happen in real combat. The pistol bullet has problems with persistence. At the training ground, you can set the rear sight strictly at the distance measured to the targets, but not in battle.
                    we just noticed that it worked and started using it.

                    It didn’t work and couldn’t work; the results of 1941 clearly showed this. We used what was at hand. However, maybe one of the bosses thought like you.
                    1. 0
                      27 January 2024 19: 50
                      Quote from solar
                      It didn’t work and couldn’t work; the results of 1941 clearly showed this. We used what was at hand. However, maybe one of the bosses thought like you.

                      Yeah, yeah... And so they reasoned until 1945, and then they made the AK, and then the AK-74. Well stupid! The Americans are also probably stupid, they relied on self-loading weapons, such as the M-14, but when faced with the AK, they recognized the problem and abruptly switched to the M-16. Well, too stupid!
                      1. 0
                        28 January 2024 01: 20
                        And so they reasoned until 1945, and then they made the AK, and then the AK-74.

                        They don't have a pistol bullet.
                      2. 0
                        28 January 2024 01: 27
                        The submachine gun as the main weapon of the unit is applicable only for a relatively narrow range of tasks. For this reason, its use is justified. If you go beyond this range of tasks, it sharply loses effectiveness.
                      3. 0
                        28 January 2024 20: 59
                        Quote from solar
                        The submachine gun as the main weapon of the unit is applicable only for a relatively narrow range of tasks.

                        By 1945, the PPSh had become the most popular weapon of the Red Army, more than 6 million were produced, this is 55% of all types of hand weapons. Apparently you don't understand something.
                      4. 0
                        28 January 2024 21: 36
                        This does not mean that this was the optimal solution. This is first of all. Secondly, companies of machine gunners (one company per rifle regiment) were created due to the weakness of infantry weapons due to losses in the first months of the war and due to the fact that they could not provide the army with normal machine guns and self-loading rifles - therefore there is no need to raise the need for virtue. Thirdly, even they had to be used for special tasks, as I wrote, which was stipulated directly in the order for their creation.
                        This is logical, since sending them to fight head-on against the Wehrmacht with its single machine gun and carbines is the road to huge losses, since the Germans could easily fight outside the effective fire range of submachine guns. Unfortunately, this was also practiced.
                        Order on the introduction of machine gunner companies into the staff of rifle regiments No. 0406 October 12, 1941... To eliminate the existing deficiency in automatic fire I order the existing rifle division according to state number 04/600: 1. Place in each rifle regiment at the disposal of the regiment commander a company of fighters armed with machine guns (PPSh) consisting of 100 people.
                        ...
                        3. Commanders of rifle regiments should widely use companies of machine gunners to create decisive fire superiority over the enemy in close combat, in ambushes, during detours, searches, to cover a maneuver, using surprise and massive automatic fire.

                        Which is what I wrote about.
                      5. 0
                        29 January 2024 21: 02
                        Quote from solar
                        Which is what I wrote about.

                        At the same time, it was the PPSh that eventually became the main weapon of the Red Army, and for example, the 1944 model carbine was created and used as an auxiliary weapon. I don’t understand how you manage to point-blank not notice an “elephant” of such size... Let me remind you once again - 55% of the weapons of the Red Army are PPSh.
                      6. 0
                        30 January 2024 00: 50
                        The main small arms of the Soviet army was the Mosin rifle.
                        Only in four years of war was it released more than 11 million rifles and carbines, created on the basis of the three-line.

                        2 times more than PPSh.
                        Plus those that were released before the war, plus SVT and ABC in different versions.
                        As for the fact that the submachine gun was used in the Soviet troops much more than in the armies of other countries (neither the Germans nor the Americans and the British used such a number of SMGs, they were not wasteful with their personnel), the answer to this was given back in Stalin’s order of 1941, which I cited, is a necessary measure, since they could not provide normal weapons. Therefore, they were forced to use the PPSh as an ersatz. Moreover, by 1945 the situation had changed somewhat - the number of assaults on populated areas had increased, the situation with tanks that needed to be accompanied had changed, and for such specific tasks a submachine gun was better suited than a rifle or carbine.
                        But in general, a large number of PP is a consequence of the inability of Soviet industry to produce normal weapons, and this entailed the need to strive for close combat and, as a consequence, to large losses of personnel. There is no need to pass off a forced measure as an advantage.
          2. 0
            24 January 2024 12: 35
            The term "automatic" emphasizes that the automatic mode is the main one for this weapon.

            The term "automatic" is a slang abbreviation for the word "automatic", introduced by Filatov. And “automatic mode,” either by today’s standards or by those that existed at the beginning of the century, means that the weapon was loaded without the participation of muscular force and includes both weapons that fire in bursts and single shots.
            AVT-40, ABC-36 - the main type of fire for them was single, nevertheless they were called automatic.
  7. 0
    22 January 2024 21: 53
    Not a word is said about the design of the weapon and the features of its technical solutions. In my purely personal opinion, this article is sorely lacking.
  8. 0
    23 January 2024 01: 24
    Quote: carpenter
    Quote: Bongo
    Quite an interesting publication and easy to read!

    Respect to the author, well-produced materials about the history of weapons do not appear often.

    I support! Interesting stuff.
  9. 0
    27 January 2024 15: 37
    Very interesting article. And for me it’s also educational: this is the first time I’ve heard about this weapon. Thanks to the author.