Military Review

Maxwell Atchisson submachine guns (USA)

41
American gunsmith Maxwell Atchisson is known to the general public as the developer of the AAS and AA-12 automatic rifles. Experts also know him as an active participant in the development of a number of small-caliber and small-caliber artillery samples. weapons. However, Atchisson’s design activities were not limited to these developments. In the fifties and sixties, this engineer created several of his own projects of submachine guns, which, however, did not leave the test stage.


Unfortunately, very little information has been preserved about the development of M. Atchisson. The prototypes of the original weapons were completely lost. For this reason, at present, one has to rely only on fragmentary information and a few drawings or photographs. For example, the original small-caliber submachine gun remained in only one photograph. Nevertheless, M. Atchisson’s weapon is of great interest with historical points of view.

Atchisson Model 1957

The first known development of M. Atchisson in the field of small arms was the submachine gun of type 1957, created in the second half of the fifties. Within the framework of this project, the gunsmith developed a fairly simple weapon suitable for solving the assigned tasks. Apparently, one of the main goals of the project was to maximally simplify the design and reduce the size of the weapon. For this reason, the Model 1957 submachine gun has received several characteristic features.

Maxwell Atchisson submachine guns (USA)
Submachine gun Atchisson Model 1957. Photo Smallarmsillustrated.tripod.com


The appearance of some parts suggests that the promising weapon was not developed from scratch, and in its design some parts borrowed from other samples were used. For example, it was proposed to place a detachable box magazine in a small reception shaft with a characteristic extension at the bottom and side recesses, which makes it possible to suspect the use of parts of a German MP-38 / 40 submachine gun.

The basis of the design of the submachine gun arr. 1957 was a tubular receiver, inside which were placed all the main parts. From below, an oblong casing with a firing mechanism and a shop shaft was attached to it. An interesting feature of this weapon was the absence of a separate pistol grip. Hold a submachine gun was offered for the store, located right behind the trigger. For comfortable holding with two hands on the lower oblong housing a wooden forearm was provided.

In front of the receiver was placed rifled barrel caliber 9 mm long 203 mm. Behind the barrel housed the bolt and return-combat spring. The shutter was made in the form of a massive cylindrical block with a drummer on the front surface. Apparently, when assembling weapons, the bolt and spring were placed in the receiver box through the rear end, which was closed with a round cover.

The submachine gun had an automatic based on a free shutter. Under the action of a recoil pulse and a spring, the shutter had to sequentially move back and forth, carrying out the process of reloading and firing. Locking the barrel was not provided. In the lower case, located under the receiver, there was a trigger mechanism with several modes of operation. Above the trigger was displayed flag fuse-translator fire. With it, USM could block and also switch to single or automatic fire.

The Atchisson Model 1957 submachine gun was supposed to use Parabellum 9x19 pistol cartridges. Due to the medium length barrel, it was possible to ensure the initial speed of the bullet at the level of 360-365 m / s. The firing range was declared at the level of 200 m, however, effective fire could be conducted only at smaller distances.

The supply of ammunition was to be carried out from box magazines on the 32 cartridge, placed in the lower receiving shaft of the weapon. During firing, the bolt independently sent the upper cartridge from the magazine to the chamber, and after the shot, threw the spent cartridge through a window in the upper surface of the receiver.

The Atchisson submachine gun had a distinctive design that affected the convenience of its retention. During the shooting, the weapon should have been held by the store and its shaft, as well as by the wooden forearm. For confident aimed fire, the shooter could use a butt. This device was made in the form of a curved metal rod. The front straight ends of this rod were included in the mounting on the receiver, which allowed to put the butt, moving it forward. At the same time, the frame back plate remained under the back of the box.

Probably, at least one experienced submachine gun of the new model was used, which was used in the tests. However, accurate information on the number of weapons produced and the results of inspections are not available. It can be assumed that the project was recognized as unsuccessful and unpromising. For this reason, the prototype (or samples) was disposed of as unnecessary. To date, only a few images of these weapons and a brief description have survived.

.22 SMG

Already in the sixties, Maxwell Atchisson began work on a new project of a submachine gun. This weapon was planned to be used for training purposes, which affected its main features. So, in view of the absence of the need for high firepower, it was decided to use the .22 Long Rifle cartridge. Such ammunition allowed the necessary efficiency to prepare shooters with minimal expenditure on ammunition. The applied cartridge influenced the name of the weapon: in a number of sources it is designated as .22 SMG (“Submachine gun .22”).

Unfortunately for historians and weapons lovers, only one photo of the Atchisson submachine gun under a small-caliber cartridge has been preserved. Available descriptions also do not differ in detail. However, this sample is worth considering.


The only image of a submachine gun chambered for .22 LR. Photo by Augfc.tumblr.com


As can be seen in the existing photo, the proposed submachine gun should have several basic features. For ease of use, he received a full-fledged wooden box, similar to that used on rifles. Another curious feature of the weapon was the drum shop for 70 cartridges. Due to the relatively small size and weight of the selected ammunition, it was not possible to place a significant amount of ammunition in the largest magazine. From the available data it follows that the body of the store consisted of two main parts: the main cylindrical and a small upper rectangular. The latter was intended to be placed in the receiving window of the box and the receiver. This design of ammunition systems also did not preclude the use of existing box stores.

The details of the .22 SMG M. Atchisson's design are unknown. Apparently, the automatic for automatic pistol-machine guns based on the free gate, which could work correctly even with a relatively low-power cartridge, were used. In this case, all the details of automation were placed in the receiver, mounted on the bed. The trigger mechanism probably allowed firing single or bursts, and also equipped with a fuse.

The only remaining image of a submachine gun chambered for .22 LR suggests that Atchisson and his colleagues produced at least one prototype of the new weapon and conducted some of its tests. The photo clearly shows that the weapon fired, although it would be impossible to determine the mode of fire, for obvious reasons.

The fate of the only prototype .22 SMG is unknown. Information about the presence of this sample in museums or private collections is missing. Serial production did not start. Moreover, it is possible that the draft of the new weapon was not offered to potential customers and was closed at the end of the first tests.

***

In the seventies, Maxwell Atchisson developed the AAS automatic rifle, on the basis of which the AA-12 product was later created. Thanks to these weapons Atchisson gained fame among the general public. However, this was not the only development of the constructor. According to reports, over the years the gunsmith received two and a half dozen patents for certain inventions and innovations in the field of small arms and small-caliber artillery systems. Thus, the two variants of submachine guns remaining at the development and verification stage could contribute to the emergence of new projects and therefore deserve to take their place in the history of small arms.


On the materials of the sites:
http://smallarmsillustrated.tripod.com/
http://guns.wikia.com/
http://forum.guns.ru/
http://augfc.tumblr.com/
http://strangernn.livejournal.com/
Author:
41 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. the47th
    the47th 29 January 2016 13: 24
    0
    .22 SMG is very similar to American-180. Either Atchisson did it together with Kasull, or someone stole the structure from someone.
  2. 2news
    2news 29 January 2016 13: 57
    0
    Quote: author
    in a number of sources it is designated as .22 SMG (“.22 submachine gun”)

    In fact, SMG does not mean a submachine gun. SMG means an automatic weapon with a combat rate of 80-100 rounds per minute. And what is it, PP or automatic, does not follow from the term SMG. For example, PPSh, MP40, Thompson, AK-74 and M16A4 are all SMG.
    But in RuNet, for some reason, everyone is convinced that SMG translates as PP. This is not true.
    1. Threshkreen
      Threshkreen 29 January 2016 14: 10
      +3
      SMG = sub machine gun = PP in the most common sense in all English literature. Your ko
      1. 2news
        2news 29 January 2016 14: 47
        +2
        Quote: Threshkreen
        SMG = sub machine gun = PP in the most common sense in all English literature.

        Nope. It all started with Thompson, which is quite rightly called SMG in the USA. Considering that he had a pistol cartridge on the Internet, SMG was boldly translated as a submachine gun.
        In fact, a submachine gun, this is a machine pistol (MP). However, it should not be confused with automatic pistol (AP), i.e. with an automatic gun (e.g. APS).
        In addition, in Europe (and the USSR / Russia) weapons are classified by cartridge. Therefore, the same SMG Thompson, he is also MP. Those. submachine gun with a rate of fire of 80-100 rounds per minute.
        It’s more difficult in the USA. They look at ballistics there. Therefore, the M16A4 is an automatic rifle, although it has an intermediate cartridge. And besides, it’s also SMG (based on rate of fire). In this AK-74, it is also SMG. But not an automatic, but an assault rifle. But M4A1 is not SMG, but AR (automatic rifle) with AR- ballistics.
        And PCA, this is also SMG. Only MP (submachine gun).
    2. tasha
      tasha 29 January 2016 14: 58
      +1
      Submachine gun - lightweight automatic small-arms weapon chambered for relatively low-energy pistol cartridges and fired from the hip or shoulder. Most types utilize simple blowback actions. Using cartridges of such calibers as .45 inch or 9 mm, they usually have box-type magazines that hold from 10 to 50 cartridges, or occasionally drums holding more rounds. A short-range weapon, the submachine gun is rarely effective at more than 200 yards (180 m). It fires at rates as high as 650 or more rounds per minute and weighs 6 to 10 pounds (2.5 to 4.5 kg).

      You can argue a lot and for a long time and to no avail, but let's leave this question to linguists. This interpretation is given in the Encyclopedia Britannica.
      1. 2news
        2news 29 January 2016 15: 50
        +3
        Quote: tasha
        You can argue a lot and for a long time and to no avail, but let's leave this question to linguists.

        OK.
        I want to ask you a couple of questions. In Russian there is a term "automaton". It is useless to argue with the meaning of this term, because there is an official GOST for "machines". Therefore, automatically officially in accordance with GOST are PPSh, PPS, AK-74 and AK-74 (I missed something, but it doesn’t matter). In this case, the PPSh and PPS (according to the cartridge) are submachine guns. And the AK-74 and AK-47 (on the cartridge) - assault rifles (although with quite different performance characteristics, it should be noted).
        1. What English-language term corresponds to the Soviet concept of "automaton"?
        2. What is the name of a weapon with a combat rate of 80-100 rounds per minute. I want to note that there are special terms for rate of fire for all other categories of light shooting (up to 20, 20-40, 40-60, 60-80, 100-150) in English. These are MR, SAR, SFR, AR and LMG.
        1. tasha
          tasha 29 January 2016 16: 15
          +1
          If it does not bother you, please provide an extract from GOST.

          In any case, there should be a reference point.
          Here is what the Big Encyclopedia of Weapons writes (Ex.2008g)

          Machine. Fedorov classified as an automatic only a self-firing rifle, which, instead of a permanent magazine, has a removable, attached or plug-in magazine, in addition, it has a bipod (!) And occupies an average position between rifles and light machine guns in terms of its characteristics (obviously hence the ")

          In the future, the name A. was assigned to a special type of self-shooting rifles and pistols, providing continuous (automatic) shooting with one pull of the trigger .. Until the 40's, these were the heaviest types of automatic rifles, approaching in their qualities more like machine guns. Single-shot weapons are now called self-loading ...

          During the Second World War, the name A. was assigned to the PP.

          Nowadays, this is the name of the second generation automatic rifles .. firing intermediate and low-impulse cartridges. Abroad, weapons of this type are usually called "assault rifles". The terms A and ШВ are often used interchangeably, although weapons have some constructive differences.

          Hence the answers to your questions
          1. During WWII, most likely - SMG, now - more Assault Rifle. Probably. And there is nothing surprising here. The meaning of many words has changed. Time is merciless ...

          2. Write if you know. Interesting. But SMG, according to Britannica - from 650 and above.
          1. 2news
            2news 29 January 2016 17: 51
            +1
            Quote: tasha
            If it does not bother you, please provide an extract from GOST.

            GOST 28653-90 “Small arms. Terms and Definitions". http://protect.gost.ru/v.aspx?control=8&baseC=6&page=2&month=5&year=2008&search=
            & RegNum = 1 & DocOnPageCount = 15 & id = 129580
            Automatic - automatic carbine
            Submachine gun - an automatic machine, the design of which provides for firing pistol cartridges.
            Quote: tasha
            Fedorov classified

            It does not matter.
            Quote: tasha
            Nowadays, this is the name of the second generation automatic rifles .. firing intermediate and low-impulse cartridges. Abroad, weapons of this type are usually called "assault rifles".

            Hmm.
            1. AKM does not fire so that low-pulse cartridges.
            2. M16A4 shoots low-pulse cartridges. But at the same time, never an assault rifle. And just automatic. And there is an explanation for this.
            Quote: tasha
            The terms A and BW are often used synonymously, although weapons have some design difference.

            In general, I would not operate with Russian-speaking terms. Everything is very ambiguous and uncertain there. One propaganda. For example, the BAR is an honest automatic rifle. And exactly the same DP-27, this is supposedly a machine gun. Where is the logic? What fright DP-27 suddenly became a machine gun?
            Quote: tasha
            Now, more Assault Rifle. Probably.

            Assault Rifle (NW) is an indicator of the category of automatic weapons based on the range of effective destruction. It is located between Automatic Rifle and Automatic Carbine (it is correct to translate into Russian as a submachine gun, not an automatic carbine, because Automatic Short Rifle is an automatic carbine). As a rule, the AsR rate of fire lies in the range of 80-100 rounds per minute. But in the same range lies the rate of fire and M16A4 (AR). As well as almost all PP.
            Quote: tasha
            But SMG, according to Britannica - from 650 and above.

            I don't want to argue with Britannica, Britannica sounds too solid. But as far as I know such a weapon is called SMG... And in "Britannica" I caught the phrase "fired from the hip or shoulder". What is this definition? What is the gradation depending on where the shot was fired from?
            In addition, Thompson (no one argues that this is SMG?) Of wartime has a recoil momentum of 5,16 kgm / s (post-war 5,54 kgm / s). And M16A1 5,02 kgm / s. AK-74 4,61 kgm / s. Those. according to Britannica, they are SMG. But at the same time, M16A1 is AR, and AK-74, this is AsR.
            And then what about AKM? After all, this is also AsR, and according to Britannica, he allegedly does not pull on SMG.
            1. tasha
              tasha 29 January 2016 18: 23
              +4
              Again. I offered you an answer to your question, which English-language term can correspond to the Soviet concept of "automaton". PPSh, PPS - automatic machines, they are also PP. The English term SMG is more suitable. AK-74, AKM and AK-47 are also assault rifles, the term Assault Rifle is more suitable for them. All. All questions about Britannica - to the compilers. According to the Encyclopedia - to the publishing house.

              Then think for yourself. Do you have internal contradictions and disagreements, offer your classification and terminology, translation options. Set out as an article, publish on VO. I will read it with great pleasure and interest.

              How the British classify weapons by rate of fire is their business.
              1. 2news
                2news 29 January 2016 20: 11
                0
                Quote: tasha
                I offered you an answer to your question, what kind of English-language term can correspond to the Soviet concept of "automaton". PPSh, PPS - automatic machines, they are also PP. The English term SMG is more suitable. AK-74, AKM and AK-47 are also assault rifles, the term Assault Rifle is more suitable for them.

                Yes, thanks, I understood what you wrote.
                Quote: tasha
                All questions on Britannica - to the compilers. According to the Encyclopedia - to the publishing house.

                Do not get angry. In fact, I just wanted to show how amateurs misunderstand concepts. And how the gossip of these same amateurs spreads over the Internet. It's no secret that 99,9% of "authoritative information" on the internet is gossip or links to gossip. Serious information is not published here and will most likely never be published. It's just me, out of boredom on a well-deserved rest, I decided to do a kind of "educational program".
                The SMG in Thompson's name was at one time translated (presumably, but incorrectly) as a submachine gun by some "smart amateur". And then off we go. And the further, the more.
                I could give you a dozen of such gossip, which have already become a common place on the internet. Including my favorite, the "dead Japanese machine gunners" and the "G" cartridge. Or about "front-line 100 grams for colds and flu" (it sounds especially piquant about the summer 100 grams). But I will not, we are not at the conference.
                Regarding Assault Rifle. I highly recommend you read again what I wrote earlier: Assault Rifle (BW) is the name of the category of automatic weapons based on the range of effective destruction. It is between Automatic Rifle and Automatic Carbine (it is correct to translate into Russian as a submachine gun, not an automatic carbine, because the Automatic Short Rifle is the automatic carbine in Russian). This is a key definition of AsR. It has nothing to do with rate of fire.
                Just a statement of the fact that between the submachine guns (machine pistol) and the automatic rifles (Automatic Rifle) there are 2 more categories of automatic weapons, this is Automatic Carbine (submachine guns are actually extremely rare, figurative ones were serially produced only in the Dominican Republic) and Assault Rifle (not at all rare, although they are produced and produced mainly only in the USSR / Russia). Also, Automatic Thompson (for an inexperienced fighter) on a pistol cartridge can also be attributed to Automatic Carbine by TTX. Although in Europe and the USSR they were PP (because of the cartridge).
                Quote: tasha
                Set out as an article, publish on VO. I will read it with great pleasure and interest.

                I don’t publish anything at VO, with the local voting system it’s only to make people laugh, they will immediately bury and ban. It is not worth it to speak critically about Soviet weapons.
                1. MMX
                  MMX 29 January 2016 22: 15
                  +3
                  Diseased, they are correctly trying to explain to you (and, as I see, to no avail) that the standards are different everywhere. Therefore, questions like "What English-language term corresponds to the Soviet concept of" automaton "?" and the like, are, to put it mildly, somewhat incorrect ... And this has nothing to do with criticism of this or that weapon.
                  Rejection of your point of view causes you a terrible popabole, as clearly follows from your comments. Treat your modest work (and knowledge) more simply. Moreover, this is one of hundreds (or maybe thousands) of points of view, characterized by a false idea of ​​the world in which we live.
                  1. 2news
                    2news 29 January 2016 23: 11
                    -2
                    Quote: MMX
                    Ill, they’re trying to correctly explain to you

                    Well, and you, unhealthy, who called here with your boorish remarks? Go, and not just go, but go far. And fast.
                2. tasha
                  tasha 30 January 2016 07: 52
                  +1
                  Thanks for the reply.

                  The SMG in Thompson's name was at one time translated (presumably, but incorrectly) as a submachine gun by some "smart amateur".


                  So offer your own version of the translation, more faithful.

                  About the Assault Rifle. I didn't quite understand what it was about. Those. Do you want to suggest a different English-language term, more consistent with the modern meaning of the term "automaton"?
                  In Russian-language literature, the AK-74 is an assault rifle, but the M16 is an assault rifle. "So it is accepted here .."

                  http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf

                  In the interesting document "Assault weapons identification guide" (Department of the Attorney General of California 2000), the entire AK line and the AR-15 family are included in the RIFLES subcategory (by the way, the SKS with an extended magazine is also included there). UZI, for example, is also AW, but a subcategory of PISTOLS.

                  Here you would be on a well-deserved rest made up a simple table of three columns. The first is a model of weapons, the second is an English name, the third is a meaning that is appropriate in meaning from the Russian language. The benefit would be undoubted, especially for translators. Of course, you will get your share of the minuses, but you will make some kind of order. Again, for the truth, you can suffer hi
                  1. 2news
                    2news 30 January 2016 14: 02
                    +1
                    Quote: tasha
                    So offer your own version of the translation, more faithful.

                    I already wrote, "automatic". Those. automatic weapons with a combat rate of fire of 80-100 rounds per minute (for them, in our GOST, the rate of fire is not indicated, but as a rule, for machine guns it is exactly that).
                    Quote: tasha
                    Those. Do you want to suggest a different English-language term, more consistent with the modern meaning of the term "automaton"?

                    I do not want. He is. This is SMG.
                    Quote: tasha
                    In Russian-language literature, the AK-74 is an assault rifle, but the M16 is an assault rifle. "So it is accepted here .."

                    It may be accepted. Only now, in fact, the AK-74, it is both AsR (ШВ) and SMG (automatic). And M16 is AR (AB) and SMG (automatic). SMG is an indicator of rate of fire, and not a subclass of small arms (AR, AsR, AC, etc.).
                    Quote: tasha
                    The first is a model of weapons, the second is an English name, the third is a meaning that is appropriate in meaning from the Russian language. The benefit would be undoubted, especially for translators.

                    This is a lifelong job. A simple one, for the main species, is still possible.
                    Quote: tasha
                    Of course, you will get your share of the minuses, but you will make some kind of order.

                    I am saving fat. As I accumulate, it can be bungled. laughing
                    Quote: tasha
                    Again, for the truth, you can suffer

                    This is my favorite pastime. repeat
                3. tasha
                  tasha 30 January 2016 08: 16
                  +1
                  It is not worth it to speak critically about Soviet weapons.


                  Worth it, of course. But in assessing any type of weapon, one must understand the conditions under which the weapon was created and MADE. What technologies, materials and work resources were available at the time of development, for what tasks and with what hands did you plan to use these weapons. What is the use of a researcher who claims stupidity of designers, arguing about this after more than a dozen years. It’s good to be smart from the perspective of afterlife, is it only beautiful ..
                  1. 2news
                    2news 30 January 2016 12: 03
                    0
                    Quote: tasha
                    It’s good to be smart from the perspective of afterlife, is it only beautiful ..

                    It's not about afterglow. These are excuses for boys of younger school age. They are gullible at this age, so you can tell them everything.
                    I will tell you one case from history. In 1945 the arms of two schools fell into the hands of the USSR. Pretty advanced and famous Czech. And quite backward and slop German. The Germans had a product on an intermediate power cartridge (StG). And the Czechs had a similar product (Vz.). The German product was fairly well tested and showed its complete incapacity. The Czech product was not tested, but EVEN ON PAPER it looked noticeably better than the German one. School, you know.
                    What was the point. The Germans suffered from a low density of fire (MG's "ingenious" concept in action). Therefore, the maximum rate of fire was put at the forefront of their AsR. To do this, they sacrificed the effective range (3/4 of the norm, which actually characterizes AsR). Laughter lies in the fact that the Germans could not achieve their goal. They were unable to balance the recoil momentum of their AsR (7,06 kgm / s). Therefore, it was possible to smack out of their vanderwafe (and the last ones) in automatic mode no further than 100-150 m. And therefore, their StG basically became the special weapon of the panzergrenadiers. Those. tank paratroopers.
                    The USSR intended to turn such special weapons into the main army. And turned (though not for long). What, in order to begin to understand from the very beginning that this stupidity needs some kind of after-knowledge? It seems to me that the minimum level of professionalism and common sense is quite enough.
                    The Czechs showed a completely different approach (I repeat, school). It was immediately clear to them that no full-fledged AsR would work, the recoil impulse could not be balanced. Therefore, from the very beginning they made air-conditioned LMG (handbrake) of the maximum possible power. WITHOUT NEEDING A STEM CHANGE, this is important. And already on the basis of the resulting cartridge did self-loading. The result was a congenial system Vz.52. What is called cheap and cheerful. On a cartridge of 7,62 × 45mm they received weapons level AR-. Those. almost full army, but very cheap in ammunition.
                    This is the best thing that ever existed in the world on an intermediate cartridge until the 60s, before the appearance of "small pieces". And even now, if the USSR had been armed with this system, there would be no need for a massive rearmament into "small cars". After all, the AK-74 is still an AsR. It made sense for the Americans to jump to "little things". And also the USSR from the cartridge 7,62x39 mm.
                    But we chose the "German" option. This is not an afterthought, this is unprofessionalism.
                    1. tasha
                      tasha 30 January 2016 12: 41
                      0
                      The story is interesting and well done Czechs. What can I say. In which year, by the way, did they launch the 7,62x45mm cartridge into production? How much could they produce per year?
                      1. 2news
                        2news 30 January 2016 12: 48
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        In which year, by the way, did they launch the 7,62x45mm cartridge into production?

                        Developed in the 40s. Around the same time when the AK system on the cartridge 7,62x39 mm. And in production they launched in 1952. But on their own and not for long. Soon, all weapons were redone under a single cartridge of 7,62x39 mm.
                      2. tasha
                        tasha 30 January 2016 13: 01
                        0
                        Why didn’t they begin to remake all the weapons of the Warsaw Pact countries under 7,62x45?
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. tasha
                        tasha 30 January 2016 13: 20
                        0
                        No, you are mistaken. Adopt a new type of weapon or a new cartridge - this is not a button in a computer game to press.
                        By 1952, the 7,62x39 cartridge is already in mass production at several plants in the USSR, so switching to a new cartridge is not economically feasible.
                      5. 2news
                        2news 30 January 2016 13: 43
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        By 1952, the 7,62x39 cartridge is already in mass production at several plants in the USSR, so switching to a new cartridge is not economically feasible.

                        The Czechs began to develop their weapons long before 1952. And since 1945 everything was known about their developments. Therefore, by 1948. or a little later in mass production there could be not a cartridge of 7,62x39 mm, but a cartridge of 7,62x45 mm.
                        Quote: tasha
                        Adopt a new type of weapon or a new cartridge - this is not a button in a computer game to press.

                        I agree. But the sooner the bug is fixed, the cheaper it is. See example M16A2. I assure you, the correction of a mistake with a cartridge of 7,62x39 mm and weapons on it in 1974. cost the USSR is very expensive.
                        In addition, nothing would have to be fixed. A really new weapon (and its ammunition) went into production from 1948 (RPD) and 1949 (SKS and AK). By that time, an alternative Czech concept was well known. The wrong managerial decision was simply made, the wrong choice was made. This subsequently cost the USSR a lot of money.
                      6. tasha
                        tasha 30 January 2016 14: 26
                        0
                        Therefore, to 1948. or a little later in mass production there could be not an 7,62x39 mm cartridge, but an 7,62x45 mm cartridge.


                        That is unlikely. Until 1950 it was the cartridge 7,5x45mm Z-49 (49 is the year of adoption) and was produced for the Czech army. And only in the 1952 year began to produce 7,62x45mm Vz52.

                        It was good to the Czechs. Throughout the war they made cartridges for German calibers. The war is over, it is time to arm your army, you can switch to a new cartridge.
                      7. 2news
                        2news 30 January 2016 14: 52
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        That is unlikely.

                        Why then? If the "Czech" concept were immediately adopted, then the actions would be different.
                        In addition, I do not know anything about the 7,5x45 mm cartridge, maybe some kind of experimental one.
                        By the way, a similar concept was developed by the British on the 7x43 mm British cartridge. The British cartridge case was slightly shorter, but slightly thicker. But the British had a serious problem with the wrong caliber. What Americans subsequently pointed out to them quite objectively. The Czech patron was deprived of this drawback.
                        In general, I repeat, it was a very specific system. Personally, I don't find any particular problems in it. Unless you can find fault with the power of the cartridge (it would be optimal to add quite a bit, about 4,5%), but there is an explanation for this - it was difficult to provide a greater heat sink. To "digest" a cartridge of greater power would have to reduce the rate of fire. But the Czechs were making quality niche weapons, not cheap crafts. Therefore, they did not agree to this. Also, a cartridge of greater power would affect the accuracy of automatic fire. Perhaps this second factor turned out to be decisive. The important thing is that the Czechs did not succumb to the temptation to "give in a little".
                      8. tasha
                        tasha 30 January 2016 15: 35
                        0
                        The story with the Z-49 cartridge and the ZK472 rifle is more than muddy. Until now, authorship has not even been decided.

                        As for the concepts, I can only assume that the cartridge 7,62x39 arr. 1943 was adopted with the aim of obtaining massive automatic weapons to replace the PCA if the war drags on. Well, after WWII in the USSR there were more important tasks than experiments with calibers and cartridges.
                      9. 2news
                        2news 30 January 2016 17: 49
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        that the cartridge is 7,62x39 arr. 1943 was adopted with the aim of obtaining massive automatic weapons to replace the PCA if the war drags on.

                        The usual dumb apesity. Like, a German, he’s smart, he won’t do anything bad. Therefore, we, bast shoes, need to do as he does. And then we definitely will not lose. But lost.
                        A similar story was in the 20s with a cartridge of 7,62x25 mm TT. Which is actually a Mauser. Also there was a place to be stupid ape. And it’s ok with someone right. No, the Germans who were under sanctions were taken as an example. And so normal army cartridges (and weapons) could not do. So the Bolsheviks copied the Mauser sanctioned cartridge (and even earlier they bought the funny Mauser-Bolo bzdulki). Those. by these purchases themselves voluntarily accepted the sanctions. which no one imposed on them. Of course, neither the TT pistol nor the PP on the TT cartridge were really good at anything. Because of the stupid cartridge, which in the USSR for some reason became an army.
                        True, in the 70s they orientated correctly, and the role model was chosen correctly. The level of professionalism by that time had clearly grown.
                        Quote: tasha
                        Well, after WWII in the USSR there were more important tasks than experiments with calibers and cartridges.

                        What is more important than primary grassroots small arms? This is the most expensive part of armament costs. A mistake is expensive here, so such weapons must be approached very carefully. But they didn’t come. They just copied the "smart Germans" and that's it.
                      10. tasha
                        tasha 30 January 2016 18: 27
                        0
                        It seems to me that you are again arguing from the point of view of afterlife. It is not right. Before you make such categorical conclusions, you still need to think about the causes of certain events, and possible alternative options.
                        Pay attention to the history of the TT cartridge and you will understand that economic considerations outweighed the shortcomings.
                      11. tasha
                        tasha 30 January 2016 18: 44
                        0
                        Think for yourself. In the 1943 year, the Red Army was armed with software under the 7,62x33 cartridge and a rifle under the 7,62x54 cartridge. Self-loading rifle did not have time to bring. PP at distances over 200m is ineffective. Your actions?
                      12. 2news
                        2news 30 January 2016 19: 39
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        PP chambered 7,62x33

                        7,62x25 mm.
                        Quote: tasha
                        PP at distances over 200m is inefficient.

                        Do you know what was the range of effective PCA lesion? 30 meters With a norm of 100-110 m.
                        Do you know what was the effective range of the TT pistol? 0 (zero) meters. Those. even a point-blank shot did not guarantee the defeat of the enemy's central nervous system. At a rate of 50 meters.
                        That's all he is, a hunting cartridge of 7,62x25 mm TT.
                        Quote: tasha
                        Your actions?

                        1. I replace the bullet in the TT cartridge with a bullet with a caliber of 8,8 mm (according to Soviet counting systems and 9 mm according to European) mm and at the same time shorten the sleeve from 25 to 23 mm. Thus, I get a good weapon system pistol + submachine gun. There was nothing tricky about this, everything was simple, like the corner of a house. So it was necessary to do it at the very beginning, in the 20s. And in the 40s, it’s not too late either. I would call this path primitive (but quite effective), because there were other, more advanced solutions.
                        To be continued ...
                      13. tasha
                        tasha 30 January 2016 21: 15
                        0
                        Of course 7,62x25.

                        Why 7,62? Because in this case, for the production of weapons under this cartridge, it will be possible to use rejected rifle barrels. 6-7 rifle trunks were removed from the machine during the shift, before the introduction of the broach into the 1937-1938gg.
                      14. 2news
                        2news 31 January 2016 14: 25
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        can be used rejected rifle barrels

                        Oh yeah. Another runet bike.
                        In addition, if this were the case, this is not a reason to release a substandard army pistol cartridge and weapons on it. No "barrel savings" can justify this. It's just unprofessionalism. Misunderstanding that an army pistol in 7,62 mm caliber cannot be.
                      15. tasha
                        tasha 31 January 2016 15: 02
                        0
                        Pay attention to the memoirs of Novikov V.N. about weapons production in Izhevsk. At least.
                      16. 2news
                        2news 31 January 2016 15: 23
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        Pay attention to the recollections of Novikov

                        You know, I don’t read memoirs for a long time. I just do not consider it necessary. In my opinion, this is such a special genre of unscientific fiction.
                      17. tasha
                        tasha 1 February 2016 09: 35
                        0
                        Do not read memoirs. Then look for materials for making small arms barrels at other sources.
                      18. 2news
                        2news 1 February 2016 10: 39
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        Then look for materials for making small arms barrels at other sources.

                        Yes, where does it come from? No savings can justify the release of incompetent weapons. And the armament on the 7,62x25 mm TT cartridge was just that. Due to the basics, i.e. bad cartridge. Which, I remind you again, in Germany itself was not army, but was small game hunting.
                        What the hell is "making barrels" if the army adopts a hunting cartridge for small game? And then, in 1951. service police patron PM. What has the trunks to do with it? It's just sheer unprofessionalism.
                        And only already in the Russian Federation a normal army pistol cartridge was adopted for the first time in history.
                      19. tasha
                        tasha 1 February 2016 11: 30
                        0
                        Yes, where does it come from? No savings can justify the release of incompetent weapons. And the armament on the 7,62x25 mm TT cartridge was just that. Due to the basics, i.e. bad cartridge.


                        Here are a couple of questions. Why did you buy a license to produce this particular cartridge? And why did you BUY a license? Your answer is understandable - because there are red pants in the head. wink But seriously?
                      20. tasha
                        tasha 1 February 2016 11: 50
                        0
                        Here's another interesting question. Why in pre-revolutionary Russia did not find your Browning, Mauser or Colt? What do you think? Question without a catch, really interesting ...
                      21. 2news
                        2news 1 February 2016 12: 39
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        Why in pre-revolutionary Russia did not find your Browning, Mauser or Colt? What do you think?

                        Everything in any country is determined by the level of development of the productive forces. Those. not by investment, not by strong / weak hand, not by the price of oil. But only the level of development of the productive forces (PS).
                        For their development in general (sometimes they degrade), as well as for the speed of their development, the conditions in which they exist are very important. For example, if we compare the level of 1913 and 1940 in Russia / the USSR, then the level of development of PS clearly degraded. And much.
                        But at the same time, the level of development of PS in Russia in 1913. was noticeably lower than in Europe. For quite subjective reasons. PS must be carefully and carefully raised, in the literal sense of the word. We need to create conditions for them, and work with them a lot. Otherwise there will be no sense.
                        As for your examples, I would not put Mauser on a par with Colt and Browning. For Russia, the level of Mauser was high. For the rest of the world, it sucked. Yes, that Mauser. Walter P38, the best pistol that the Germans had during WW2, was barely operational (not to be confused with the modern Walter P38 new). Germany in general did not stand out in any way, because before WW1, the level of development of its PS was quite low (in comparison with France and Britain). The rapid development of the SS there occurred only under the Nazis, but the huge lag in technology and everything else, 5 years before the beginning of WW2, even could not overcome this explosive growth. As a result, the Germans in WW2 fought with weapons in general, fufly. I showed you this in detail using the example of a "single German machine gun MG ".
                      22. tasha
                        tasha 1 February 2016 12: 48
                        0
                        As they used to say - "delicately bypassed" and "streamlined formulations" ...

                        You and I talked a lot and a lot about a single German machine gun. I am still convinced that for the Germans to develop and launch into production in 1934 a year two machine guns, two rounds with light and heavy bullets was an unacceptable luxury. Tanks need to be built, planes, ships. There were no frills, there was a competition, there was a technical task - that’s the result. Optimal for those conditions.
                      23. 2news
                        2news 1 February 2016 13: 42
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        As they used to say - "delicately bypassed" and "streamlined formulations" ...

                        Very specifically and unambiguously answered, in my opinion.
                        Quote: tasha
                        I am still convinced that for the Germans to develop and put into production in 1934 two machine guns, two rounds with light and heavy bullets was an inadmissible luxury.

                        Those. Russia / USSR, Britain could have 2 rounds, and nothing, coped. Was it too expensive for Gremania?
                        Your logic is bad again. And the British MK.7 and 8, as well as the Soviet with bullets "L" and "D" were on the same sleeve. And the sleeve is 80% of the cartridge. Those. the solution was quite economical.
                        The Germans had to master the production of the 7.92 × 33mm Kurz cartridge, which had nothing to do with the 7.92 × 57mm Mauser cartridge. Those. 80% unified cartridge is a "luxury", and 0% unified, this is normal. Strange logic.
                        Quote: tasha
                        Optimal for those conditions.

                        The optimal solution for those conditions was the solution that everyone else used, except the Germans. This theory suggests, and practice confirms.
                4. The comment was deleted.
                5. tasha
                  tasha 1 February 2016 11: 54
                  0
                  Separately, about saving. Recall the scale of industrialization events in the early 30's. Everything, everything had to be created from scratch. And all needed resources.
                6. 2news
                  2news 1 February 2016 12: 45
                  0
                  Quote: tasha
                  Remember the scale of industrialization activities in the early 30s.

                  I don’t know this. This is mainly propaganda. The industrialization of the 30s failed miserably. Real industrialization in the USSR began in 1943. And when it ended, I will not say, I did not study this issue.
                  Quote: tasha
                  Everything, everything had to be created from scratch.

                  Do not exaggerate. A lot of the Bolsheviks inherited from tsarist Russia. And in 1941. to the level of development of tsarist Russia in 1913. they could not get out. Break, broke, but could not build. All because of the same degradation in the level of development of PS.
                  Quote: tasha
                  And all needed resources.

                  The resources were there. And in abundance. But they squandered. Exactly the same as they were squandered in the days of "developed socialism". Nothing has changed in that system. And it could not change.
                7. tasha
                  tasha 1 February 2016 12: 55
                  0
                  All clear. The topic of industrialization was closed.

                  It is a pity that the Bolsheviks almost never got from the king of the arms industry. So I had to create a legacy. New to do - no money, so spin as you want.
                8. 2news
                  2news 1 February 2016 13: 11
                  0
                  Quote: tasha
                  It is a pity that the Bolsheviks almost never got from the king of the arms industry.

                  And then. I will list little by little.
                  1. Russian infantry rifle, in 1930 called the Mosin rifle.
                  2. Revolver Nagan.
                  3. Three-inch, the main gun of the Red Army 2MV.
                  4. Forty-footed, slightly redone 47-mm sea gun.
                  5. Machine gun Maxim.
                  6. A regiment, a slightly redone 76 mm short cannon of the 1913 model.
                  This is called, i.e. basic weapons of the Red Army during the Second World War. It all came from tsarism. Of course, for the production of all this there was a production base.
                  Quote: tasha
                  New to do - no money, so spin as you want.

                  Where did they go? Is this money? Those. adopt a cartridge for hunting small game (and weapons on it), there is money. But is there a normal army cartridge and weapons on it? Your logic is strange.
                9. tasha
                  tasha 1 February 2016 13: 57
                  0
                  Of course, for the production of all this there was a production base.


                  In this "of course" your main problem lies. You are not interested further. Some kind of man-hours, some kind of machine tools, workshops, stamps, presses, equipment ... There was a point ...
                10. 2news
                  2news 1 February 2016 15: 23
                  0
                  Quote: tasha
                  In this "of course" your main problem lies.

                  I have no problems. All of these samples possessed in Russia, before the Bolsheviks, their production base. Of the merit in the field of armaments of the army, you are clearly exaggerating.
  3. 2news
    2news 31 January 2016 14: 33
    0
    Quote: 2news
    To be continued ...

    And there will be no continuation. And to introduce a new pistol cartridge in 1943. also not should.
    In 1943 it was just necessary to finish the battle. Focusing on the saturation of the troops DP-27 / DPM. At the very least, it was the only full-fledged automatic rifle in the USSR in those days. Here is its release and had to be increased.
  4. tasha
    tasha 31 January 2016 15: 19
    0
    The fact of the matter is that for a proposal to change in caliber you would be like a pest wink And there would be no continuation ...

    How many man-hours are spent on the production of the only full-fledged automatic rifle and how much is the production of PPSh? Thought compared?
    What does it mean to do well? How much? A year, two, three? By the forty-third year, industry more or less got to its feet after the evacuation. Some reserves were accumulated, the capacities were slightly freed up, and the opportunity appeared to introduce new models. So they considered it necessary to switch to a new cartridge with minimal restructuring of production. We didn’t have time with weapons. It's a pity.
  5. tasha
    tasha 31 January 2016 15: 22
    0
    I got a story here. The commander of the mortar battery under the hop on his birthday ordered to give a volley. So simple, anyhow. For which he was severely beaten by another commander. He recently arrived from vacation and saw who is doing these mines and in what conditions.
  6. 2news
    2news 31 January 2016 16: 23
    0
    Quote: tasha
    what kind of proposal to change the caliber of you would be like a pest

    May be. Then another question, after the Second World War, a cartridge 9 (9,2 "for Western money") x18 mm PM was adopted. On brand new sleeve. A couple of questions:
    1. Why was it impossible to adopt a cartridge on a TT sleeve reduced to 23 mm in caliber 8,8 (9) mm? After all, it would be much cheaper than adopting a new cartridge case.
    2. If you already adopted a new cartridge on the original sleeve, then why was it made like that? Why is the height of the sleeve 18 mm, not 22 mm?
    And then, I completely agree that the Soviet caliber of 9 (9,2) mm in those days was much better than the European 8,8 (9) mm. But why did they stop at 9 (9,2) mm? Why was it impossible to make a cartridge in the Soviet caliber 10,7 mm on a sleeve 21 mm high? According to my estimates, such a cartridge would give the army a full-fledged army pistol + submachine gun with a TTX of a submachine gun (Automatic Carbine). And this, I emphasize, on the pistol cartridge.
    But this was not to be expected from the USSR, unprofessionalism was simply terrifying. In reality, something else happened, a police pistol (PM) was put into service with the army. They also tried to pervert, and she also slipped an automatic police pistol (APS), supposedly instead of PP. It was just some sort of diversion, in my opinion. However, this, in my opinion, applies to all new Soviet cartridges up to 9x18 mm PM and weapons on them. It is enough to say that a real army cartridge was adopted for weapons only in the Russian Federation. And this is the cartridge of Para.
    Quote: tasha
    How many man-hours are spent on the production of the only full-fledged automatic rifle and how much is the production of PPSh? Thought compared?

    I suggest you compare another indicator. The effective range of the DP-27 is about 600 m. MG42 and Mausers are even larger. The similar PPSh indicator is about 30 m. The real battle of the squad begins at a range of 400 m. Count how many times the machine gunner will be killed while he overcomes these 370 m and begins to effectively hit the enemy.
    Quote: tasha
    an opportunity to introduce new designs.

    Something I do not remember such. Unless PPSh replaced on PPS. The same eggs, only in profile.
    Quote: tasha
    So they considered it necessary to switch to a new cartridge with minimal restructuring of production. We didn’t have time with weapons. Sorry.

    Nope. These German trophies were caught, here are the copypasters and fussed. There was no cartridge and weapons on it during the Second World War. Something experimented on trifles somewhere. The real rearmament began in 48-49. At the same time, the production of cartridges was launched.
    Too bad. It would be better if this rearmament passed the USSR. Because it was expensive, and the weapon stood in service quite a bit. Because of its completely worthless performance characteristics.
  7. tasha
    tasha 31 January 2016 19: 50
    0
    1.
    On a brand new sleeve.

    ? Sure?

    2.
    2. If you already adopted a new cartridge on the original sleeve, then why was it made like that? Why is the height of the sleeve 18 mm, not 22 mm?


    I’ll insert a picture here. On the left - 7,62х25 on the right 9х18. Do you notice anything?

    I suggest you compare another indicator.


    For the second half of the 41 year, the troops received 45300 light machine guns, in 42 - 172800, in 43 - 250200, in 44 - 179700. In the army at 9 May 1945 year there were 390 thousand light machine guns. Throughout the war, the loss of light machine guns amounted to 427,5 thousand units, that is, 51,3% of the total resource (taking into account the supplies and pre-war stocks delivered during the war).

    In 1943, in the rifle company, there were 2 easel and 18 light machine guns (automatic rifles) in the state. I’m not sure that this amount could be significantly increased, if only by reducing the production of PP.

    Something I do not remember such. Unless PPSh replaced on PPS. The same eggs, only in profile.


    This is not only about small arms, but weapons in general.

    In the history of many types of weapons developed in the period 1944-1945 comes an interesting phrase "it was decided not to accept it for service, as it was developed for wartime technology."
  8. 2news
    2news 31 January 2016 21: 51
    0
    Quote: tasha
    Sure?

    More than.
    Quote: tasha
    On the left - 7,62x25 on the right 9x18. Do you notice anything?

    Your guess is wrong. There, in fact, the geometry is completely different. Right here are all the options. Only the diameter and thickness of the bottom are less similar. The TT is 9,96x1,2cm. PM 9,95x1,25cm. Then everything is very different. Including the shape of the sleeve, even if the TT sleeve is not crimped to a caliber of 7,62 mm at the end.
    Quote: tasha
    This is not only about small arms, but weapons in general.

    What about?
    In the rifleman, nothing was done but not quite successful. SG-43 (1943). More or less it was finalized only after the war (SGM).
    Well, what else can I remember PDM. But it’s extremely difficult to call him new.
    M-42 (1942) in artillery. The construction of the ultimate possibilities in the production of barrels, and the possibilities of the sleeve. In principle, such a rather cheerful and useful wartime ersatz. From the very beginning, like the pre-war 53-K, it was an "ambush PTO cannon"; could operate mainly from ambushes. Of course, in peacetime it was undesirable to use such a miracle.
    ZIS-3 (1942). Re-singing in the Soviet manner of the German Pak 97/38 arr. 1941 Of course, like any adapted product was rubbish. But Grabin and the technologists (collectively it was called "Director Yelyan") managed to turn it into a product of conveyor assembly. Therefore, the number of such guns was simply incredible. The Germans simply did not have enough tanks for them. But already in 1943. from a PTO cannon it turned into an "ambush PTO cannon". Those. took the place of forty-five and could fight German tanks mainly from ambushes. Which she did until the very end of the war. Therefore, the losses were enormous.
    OB-25 (1943). Zashibicheskaya thing under a cumulative projectile. Actually, the new shell is primary here. And only then the OB-25 appeared, as a device for throwing it. The shell began to be made because the actual cannon of the Red Army PTO (ZIS-3, at the same time was called "divisional") by that time had gradually ceased to cope with its duties. Actually, it was made to replace the ZIS-3 in the PTO.
    ZIS-2 (1943). Slightly altered Marshal Kulik Vanderwaffle mod. 1941 An awkward product, made in 1941. Soviet industry could not. In 1943. The USSR bought equipment from the United States and managed to start production. I had a lot of constructive problems, because from the very beginning it was done awkwardly, and in some places very strange. Therefore, it was released for a short time. But, like a wartime ersatz in 1943. was quite appropriate. For OB-25, it was a "competing firm", since was called upon to perform the same functions in the VET.
    72-K (more or less massively since 1943). It was a more adequate alternative to funny bzdyulka 61-K. Which is actually redone and adapted to another 49-K cartridge. But still, both were not a fountain. Although 72-K pulled on a small fountain.
  9. 2news
    2news 31 January 2016 21: 52
    0
    T-34 / 85 (1943). It is often snobbishly called a "new tank". In fact, I tend to view it as a variation on the SU-85. Those. in my opinion, this is an SU-85 with a turret. Those. SPG PTO with a turret. Not a tank. Although in the Red Army he was listed as an MBT.
    SU-76 (1943). T-34/76 took its place, which after the outbreak of war was assigned to the role of the main tank of the Red Army. Before the SU-76, they tried to adapt the T-60/70 there, but rather unsuccessfully. Despite a bunch of conflicting qualities, more or less was in place. No, the T-34/76, which at the final stage was redesigned into an infantry escort tank, would be much more in place. But it was used as MBT. Where he was, frankly, neither to the village, nor to the city.
    T-60 / 70. The wartime ersatz under the general title, "This is better than nothing." Especially there is nothing to stop there.
    KV-1С (1942). Very good medium tank. I am not afraid of this word, the best medium tank of the second half of 1942 and the first half of 1943. In the Red Army was listed as "heavy." Although after the advent of the Tiger (1942), the standards of the “heavy tank” shifted far beyond the weight of the KV-1C. There was nowhere to produce it, so after a year of small-scale production, its production was stopped. Sorry.
    KV-85, IS-1/2. We needed a heavy breakthrough tank. Therefore, in 1943-44 they tried to fill this niche. Successfully or not, I will not judge. How could, and filled.
    So, in short. Maybe he missed something, it happens. I did not consider aviation.
  10. tasha
    tasha 1 February 2016 09: 27
    0
    Only the diameter and thickness of the bottom are less similar. TT TT 9,96X1,2cm. PM PM 9,95X1,25cm. Then everything is very different.


    I don’t know if it will increase
    Just in case, I’ll insert a link
    http://i2.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/013495/13495971.jpg

    As for the other parameters, we must proceed from the manufacturing process. Those. at some stage of production, the base of the 7.62x25 sleeve begins to turn into the 9x18 cartridge. And there is a change in parameters, maybe on pruning, maybe on a press-fit, I do not know.

    What about?


    I won’t even comment. I do not want to waste time.

    What's the point in categorical statements "all this is bad, designers suck, monkey copying." You are probably well aware of how many excellent samples of the same weapons (and not only in the USSR) did not go into production due to their low-tech, high cost, the need for a serious rework of production. Sometimes, of course, because of the need to solve political problems, sometimes because of intrigue. This is life and you can't go anywhere.
    Many of your views and considerations remained at the 90's level. When everything Soviet was recognized as bad simply because it was Soviet. Since then, more than 20 years have passed, the reasons for certain decisions have become clear, many documents have been disclosed, and serious research has been carried out. Maybe enough already mark the bones?
  11. 2news
    2news 1 February 2016 10: 28
    0
    Quote: tasha
    Those. at some stage of production, the base of the 7.62x25 sleeve begins to turn into a 9x18 cartridge.

    She cannot turn, because the initial shape of the blanks is different. PM has a straight sleeve. See picture.
    Quote: tasha
    When everything Soviet was recognized as bad simply because it was Soviet.

    You vainly fall into pseudo-patriotic tantrums. Moreover, this is actually so, everything Soviet in fact was of poor quality and design. And the USSR won the war not thanks to, but in spite of the weapons in service.
    Quote: tasha
    the reasons for certain decisions became clear

    I am not aware of such "good reasons".
    Quote: tasha
    Maybe enough already mark the bones?

    On the bones of the USSR? This must be done every day and hour. Because otherwise, society will again slide into this insanity. Fortunately, there are enough sclerotic praisers.
    If you mean the bones of those who died in the Second World War, then it was the leadership of the USSR that organized these bones. Arming the army and navy with weapons of WW1. And putting at the head of the crowds of untrained peasants armed with these "weapons" "correct boys" in red trousers. The Bolsheviks called it the Red Army. Those. army. In fact, it was an armed militia. Those. against a trained army (Wehrmacht) in 1941/42. mourning fought. Result 1941/42. you know. During this time, the militia had already trained a little and then it looked like a real army.
  12. tasha
    tasha 1 February 2016 11: 15
    0
    She cannot turn, because the initial shape of the blanks is different. PM has a straight sleeve. See picture.


    The initial shape of the blanks is the same - it is a cut down disk. Have you looked at the drawing? Did you see the size of the bottom? Match up?
    I can only assume that the sleeve takes its final shape at the stage of pressing the bullet, so the rectangular blank 25mm in length has become conical.

    I am not aware of such "good reasons".


    I think there is reason to think. And this is not a matter of pseudo-patriotism. Are you not interested in analyzing the history of the creation of one or another model of small arms to understand the reasons for this or that design decision? Yes, this is difficult, it is much easier to blame developers for lack of professionalism than to conduct serious research work.

    As for personal views on certain events of Soviet history, let us not touch them.
  13. 2news
    2news 1 February 2016 11: 43
    0
    Quote: tasha
    Have you looked at the drawing? Did you see the size of the bottom? Match up?

    I wrote to you from the very beginning that besides the size of the bottom there are no more matches. Even the flange cutout of a different configuration and size. In addition, the PM sleeve is cylindrical, and the TT has a pronounced taper.
    Quote: tasha
    that became a rectangular billet 25mm long conical.

    This does not happen. When crimping a dule, only the crimped part changes its size.
    Quote: tasha
    understand the reasons for this or that design decision?

    I basically always understand them. This is obvious based on many factors, it is enough to take a professional look at this or that sample. Therefore, I rarely use Internet "versions". I repeat once again, 99,9% of "technical information on the internet" is bullshit.
    Quote: tasha
    Yes, this is difficult, it is much easier to blame developers for lack of professionalism than to conduct serious research work.

    Unprofessionalism and rushing from all cracks. Here are some examples. In 1936, the "Red Designer" did not know how to count the barrel (F-22). In 1939 they could not make a productive air filter (B-2). In 1940 they could not make a normal gas engine (CBT). In 1942 they were able to come up with a normal DT, they had to adapt German (ZIS-3). Back in 1951 they did not understand how the enemy's central nervous system (PM) should be affected. And this is after 4 years of war !!!!! These examples can continue indefinitely. These are the simplest examples and designs, long known and worked out in the world. The fact that the entire war of the Red Army and the Red Army fought virtually without anti-aircraft artillery, I do not touch. Because the normal anti-aircraft gun, too, could not be created. But there was a million and another option how to do it.
    Can you give examples of successful solutions? Write them if not difficult.
  14. tasha
    tasha 1 February 2016 12: 12
    0
    Unprofessionalism and rushing out of all the cracks. Here are some examples.

    Yeah. If you continue, at the same time the British adopt (stupidly copy) the Czech ZB-26, because they could not create their own. No less professional American designers gave their army such a worthless rifle that Congress had to intervene. By the beginning of the war they could not create an aviation cannon; it’s better not to talk about tanks at all.
    Do you understand the viciousness of such reasoning?
  15. 2news
    2news 1 February 2016 13: 02
    0
    Quote: tasha
    then at the same time the British adopt (stupidly copy) the Czech ZB-26

    You're not right. Bren is not a stupid copy of a Czech. A revised copy. I fully welcome this approach. The USSR should have done this, and not "reinvent its own wheel."
    Quote: tasha
    because they could not create their own.

    Could. It would take no less money, and certainly much more time.
    In addition, I already wrote to you, I do not put Bren above Lewis. Yes, Lewis has flaws, but Bren also has them. Just different. To the British, Bren’s flaws seemed less critical than Lewis’s flaws. This is their business. I have a different opinion.
    Quote: tasha
    No less professional American designers gave their army such a worthless rifle that Congress had to intervene.

    It is a pity that in the USSR there was no one to intervene in the insanity of the SVT-40 gunshot. Therefore, Garand pretty quickly corrected and used. And SVT-40 was sent to rest by the knee in the ass. And they fought with a bolt of the times of 1MB.
    Quote: tasha
    By the beginning of the war they could not create an aviation cannon; it’s better not to talk about tanks at all.

    I understood. You are not aware of the pre-war isolationism policy in the USA.
    Quote: tasha
    Do you understand the viciousness of such reasoning?

    Which ones? Yours?
  16. tasha
    tasha 1 February 2016 12: 32
    0
    I basically always understand them. This is obvious on the basis of many factors, it is enough to look professionally at one or another sample.


    Respect for you. Still, a little understanding that the designer works within the framework of the terms of reference, manufacturing cost, availability of materials, qualifications of workers, operational characteristics, the possibility of gross production and much more, it would be just wonderful.
  17. 2news
    2news 1 February 2016 13: 23
    0
    Quote: tasha
    Still a little understanding that the designer works within the framework of the terms of reference, manufacturing cost, availability of materials, qualifications of workers, operational characteristics, the possibility of gross production and much more

    What prevented Tokarev from making a normal gas engine "as part of the terms of reference"? But he didn't.
    What prevented Kotin, within the framework of the terms of reference, from making a normal gearbox for the KV, and not using the "reinforced" one from the T-28? And then push the KV into service without testing?
    What prevented Grabin from counting the F-22 barrel? Same as Tagunov (3-K), lack of knowledge? And why then sat in his chair, why didn’t the workers go to the workshop? By the way, Tagunov was shot. But Grabina, no. But the ZIS-3 barrel (1942) was already of normal thickness.
    Of course, customers were also weird. The apotheosis here was perhaps ZIS-2 arr. 1941 And pistol cartridges TT and PM, I already wrote about this. And 61-K. And much more. But the degradation of PS, it applies to all links. Including and those who make decisions.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. 2news
    2news 30 January 2016 19: 20
    0
    Quote: tasha
    Pay attention to the history of the TT cartridge and you will understand that economic considerations outweighed the shortcomings

    Let's see the story.
    In the 20s, the Bolsheviks in Germany bought a fairly large batch of Mauser-Bolos. I emphasize, not army Mausers. Not hunting Mausers. A Mauser Bolo. Which were a shortened hunting Mauser. Apparently they did not quite understand why Germany couldn’t make pistols with long barrels, and the Mauser-Bolos looked so much like cool real ones.
    This mistake had far-reaching consequences. The bullets for these Bolos were worth the money. Therefore, the Bolsheviks decided to buy a cartridge factory in Germany. A very sensible decision. But why was it to establish the production of hunting cartridges 7,62x25 mm TT there? No, these cartridges had to be released as needed. Shooted trunks, and their resource is known. Number Bolo, too. Release the batch and close the shop in the caliber of 7,62 mm for pistols forever. Because all over the world army pistols were made in caliber from 8,8 mm or more. And this is no coincidence. That's the army version of the cartridge Mauser 9 (actually 8,8 mm) x25 mm Mauser Export was produced exactly on the same sleeve as the TT cartridge. And the production of the liner has already been purchased. Set up bullet production in caliber 9 (8,8) mm and use it. The point is trifling. But no. There is no knowledge, only red pants. Therefore, TTs began to be made in caliber 7,62 mm.
    In this case, the protopip was just in caliber 9 (8,8) mm. Those. in a good way and did not have to redo anything. In addition to hard rubber pads on the handle. And the Mauser Export cartridge was slightly longer, which just made it possible to shorten an excessively long sleeve 25 mm long.
    A pistol cartridge 9 (8,8) x23 mm TT would be perfect. And the weapons on it, too. To this day!!!!!!
  20. 2news
    2news 30 January 2016 13: 23
    0
    Quote: tasha
    Why didn’t they begin to remake all the weapons of the Warsaw Pact countries under 7,62x45?

    From the unprofessionalism of decision makers on the arming of the army, apparently. In addition, the Germans were much steeper and authoritative Maine for the generals than the Czechs. Despite any victories over them.
    But if the RPD and SKS were remade under such a cartridge (i.e., to adopt the Czech concept of arming the infantry squad), then that would be very competent.
    True, then "the most brilliant and legendary weapon of all times and peoples" would have been left out of work. But it doesn't matter. Exactly the same, with this scenario, would be a bunch of DP + SCS. Agitprop was quite capable of it. Only in this case there would be every reason for such assessments.
  • 2news
    2news 30 January 2016 12: 50
    0
    Quote: 2news
    And so their StGs basically became the special weapon of the panzergrenadiers. Those. tank paratroopers.

    I forgot to add, and even for assault groups. Actually, this is where the name comes from, the assault rifle.
    1. tasha
      tasha 30 January 2016 13: 03
      0
      And so their StGs basically became the special weapon of the panzergrenadiers. Those. tank paratroopers

      Is not a fact. You never know what they write on the internet. It is also written there that the name of the assault was personally invented by Adolf Aloizovich, so that a warrior armed with an assault rifle would not think of a possible retreat.
    2. 2news
      2news 30 January 2016 13: 11
      0
      Quote: tasha
      They also write that the name of the assault was invented personally by Adolf Aloizovich

      And they also write that the development of such weapons was carried out in secret from Hitler. And this is under Nazism !!!! Yes, such "secretaries" would not have lasted an extra month at large. They would be quick to change the profile of their labor activity, in a concentration camp.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Threshkreen
    Threshkreen 29 January 2016 14: 08
    +1
    .22SMG seems not so much to American-180 as to remaking the Reising M50 software. Purely imho
  • bionik
    bionik 29 January 2016 16: 03
    +1
    For example, a detachable box magazine was proposed to be placed in a small receiving shaft with a characteristic extension at the bottom and side recesses, which makes it possible to suspect the use of parts of the MP-38/40 submachine gun.When I saw the picture (not yet starting to read the article), a certain resemblance to MP-38/40 immediately came to mind.
  • ANANATOLY PAULOV
    ANANATOLY PAULOV 29 January 2016 21: 23
    0
    SMG - submashine gun. That’s what the states call machine guns. Submachine guns and only submachine guns. And more precisely, a short-barreled automatic weapon of low power.
    1. 2news
      2news 29 January 2016 22: 01
      -1
      Quote: ANATOLY PAVLOV
      That’s what the states call machine guns. Submachine guns and only submachine guns.

      Hurray. This is how some Americans shout "Hurray".
      Quote: ANATOLY PAVLOV
      And more precisely, a short-barreled automatic weapon of low power.

      How small?
  • ANANATOLY PAULOV
    ANANATOLY PAULOV 29 January 2016 22: 17
    0
    A weapon using pistol cartridges of a caliber no more, if I am not mistaken, 6.35. But I can clarify if it is interesting to you. I know for sure that neither Thomson nor M4 belonged to SMG.
    1. 2news
      2news 29 January 2016 23: 29
      0
      Quote: ANATOLY PAVLOV
      I know for sure that neither Thomson nor M4 belonged to SMG.

      Hm. But what about the very term SMG? Indeed, as far as the legend says, the term itself was first applied to Thompson. And personally, I believe in it, because the necessary rate of fire in those days could be obtained only on weak cartridges. Carbine and pistol. Automatic Carbine (machine gun carabiners) was completely out of place then, they began to be mass-produced only after 2MB. And weapons on weakened rifle cartridges (later called intermediate) were made mainly in the form of LMG (handbrake), but not very massively. All that remains is weapons on pistol cartridges. Given that Thompson is a fairly ancient design (this is not a flaw), I readily believe that the term SMG was coined for him.
      I can even assume that SMG at first could actually be synonymous with machine pistol (MP). But already in the 50s, the serial Cristоbal Kirali (on a carbine cartridge) fell into the SMG category. And in the 60s M16 (on an intermediate small-caliber cartridge). Therefore, SMG has actually ceased to be synonymous with MP (submachine gun).
      By the way, M4A1 is actually really not SMG, I already wrote about this here on the branch.
      Quote: ANANATOLY PAULOV
      A weapon using pistol cartridges of a caliber no more, if I am not mistaken, 6.35.

      Well, it’s not at any gate.
      1. ANANATOLY PAULOV
        ANANATOLY PAULOV 30 January 2016 00: 02
        0
        I won't argue about Thompson. But you yourself made a reservation "legend" although, as it seems to me, even if this is not a legend, which I do not exclude, this does not in the least contradict what I said about Thompson. After all, the same thing happened with the term "assault rifle". Mkb (maschinen karabiner) for political and propaganda reasons named "assault rifle" gave the name to a whole family of weapons. Although the only thing that unites them is that they are all the main automatic (and not so) weapons of the infantry and other troops. And what about your surprise at the calibers. Currently, this abbreviation is used in the states to designate a pneumatic weapon that shoots in bursts.
        1. 2news
          2news 30 January 2016 00: 36
          0
          Quote: ANATOLY PAVLOV
          The "assault rifle" gave its name to a whole family of weapons.

          Still more correct "subclass", in my opinion.
          Quote: ANATOLY PAVLOV
          Although the only thing that unites them is that they are all the main automatic (and not so) infantry weapons

          Well, why only automatic? Are there many automatic weapons that are not NW? There, the whole point is in the performance characteristics, and specifically in the effective destruction range. For all joint joints, it is approximately the same. And it differs from this indicator of other subclasses.
          Quote: ANATOLY PAVLOV
          Currently, this abbreviation is used in the states to designate air guns firing bursts.

          Already pneumatic. And the sun in the states around which revolves? what
          1. ANANATOLY PAULOV
            ANANATOLY PAULOV 30 January 2016 01: 10
            0
            And who knows what they’re spinning around. We don’t understand them. But believe me, I'm not at that age to lie. Last year I had the first, and I hope for the last time to visit the states. In Arkansas, I went out of curiosity to an arms store. Immediately explaining to the seller that I would not buy anything from them, even if I wanted to. Finding out who I am and where he came from, he called the owner. The owner, a fanatic of weapons, was very friendly and talkative. At first glance, I was interested in the real Atchison, or rather its caliber. On the label is SMG. cal. .177. But this is pneumatics! Yes. He confirmed. And he explained: in some states, automatic weapons cal.22LR are allowed in civilian use. It is sold as SMG. Not self-loading - automatic. In states where there is a ban on automation, pneumatics are fired in bursts under the acronym.
            1. 2news
              2news 30 January 2016 01: 43
              0
              Quote: ANATOLY PAVLOV
              I had the first, and I hope for the last time to visit the states.

              I do not think that one rule can be made from one particular case. Moreover, the weapon could well be on the rate of SMG (80-100 rounds per minute).
              PS. And why "hope for the last"? What did you dislike so much?
              1. ANANATOLY PAULOV
                ANANATOLY PAULOV 30 January 2016 02: 18
                0
                Yes, in general, I agree with you. I do not dot the i. Dumb stubbornness is not my quality. But, as they say, truth is born in a dispute. Of course, if this is a dispute, and not the abuse of bazaar women. I have a request for you, if you have such an opportunity and desire, understand this issue in more detail. Now about my trip to the states. In general, being for a long time somewhere away from home, I miss my village, where I grew up and where I finally got over 10 years ago. All my life I hung around the world and this business trip romance by the very tailbone. Moreover, the states are a special issue. I won’t say they treated me badly there. Not at all. Especially in Texas. Real men live there. But, but ... In a nutshell, this can not be explained. Do not consider me intrusive, but I have one more request for you. I am a new VO person. I want to drop an article here about my close acquaintance with the M16. Please read if there is a desire and your opinion about the article. On Sunday I’m printing it. Thanks in advance.
                1. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 30 January 2016 02: 26
                  +2
                  Better not let anyone, but immediately throw off in. The people will figure it out.
                2. 2news
                  2news 30 January 2016 02: 33
                  0
                  Quote: ANATOLY PAVLOV
                  Please read if there is a desire and your opinion about the article.

                  OK no problem.
      2. 2news
        2news 30 January 2016 02: 38
        0
        Quote: 2news
        But already in the 50s, the serial Cristоbal Kirali (on a carbine cartridge) fell into the SMG category. And in the 60s M16 (on an intermediate small-caliber cartridge).

        Not quite correctly wrote the sentence. It would be more correct: But already in the 40s, the serial StG44 and AK-47 (on an intermediate cartridge) fell into the SMG category. And in the 50s, the serial Cristóbal Kirali (on a carbine cartridge). And in the 60s M16 (on an intermediate small-caliber cartridge). And in the 70s, the AK-74 (on an intermediate small-caliber cartridge).
        1. ANANATOLY PAULOV
          ANANATOLY PAULOV 30 January 2016 03: 05
          +1
          I will try to argue with you a little. In the 19th century and early 20th century, self-loading pistols were referred to as automatic; now the name automatic pistol refers to a different weapon. Everything in the world is changing, so is the classification. And about the "machine". It seems to me that a submachine gun and an assault rifle are different types of weapons. I repeat this my opinion. In my article, I touched on this issue. I hope you will read it. Now about GOST. AK-assault rifle Kalashnikov, PPSh-submachine gun Shpagin, submachine gun! PPS-submachine gun Sudaev, submachine gun.
          1. 2news
            2news 30 January 2016 11: 24
            0
            Quote: ANATOLY PAVLOV
            In the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th, self-loading pistols were referred to as automatic. Now the name automatic pistol refers to another weapon. Everything in the world is changing, classification too.

            Are you hinting that SMG at first meant a submachine gun, and now it's not just that? I have to disagree with you. The fact is that SMG is a term characterizing the rate of fire of a weapon (see the ruler, there are also LMG, MMG and HMG). The fact that at the first stage ONLY submachine guns fell into the SMG category does not mean that SMG should be translated (but they are actively and everywhere translated) like a submachine gun. A submachine gun is a machine pistol (MP). Therefore, associating the term SMG ONLY with submachine guns in our time is not correct. It is more correct to translate the term SMG into Russian as "machine". It already includes PP, and all others with suitable performance characteristics.
            Quote: ANATOLY PAVLOV
            It seems to me that an assault rifle and an assault rifle are weapons of a different class.

            These are different characteristics. Automatic (SMG) is a characteristic of rate of fire. Assault rifle (AsR) is a characteristic of a subclass of weapons based on the range of effective destruction.
            For example, the AK-74 is SMG and AsR. And M16A4, this is SMG, but not AsR, but AR. And PPSh, this is SMG, but not AsR, but MP. Etc.
            Quote: ANATOLY PAVLOV
            Now about GOST. AK Kalashnikov assault rifle, PPSh-Shpagin submachine gun, submachine gun! PPS-submachine gun Sudayev, submachine gun.

            According to GOST, the submachine gun is a machine gun firing pistol cartridges. Everything is generally true.
        2. ANANATOLY PAULOV
          ANANATOLY PAULOV 30 January 2016 03: 10
          0
          I will try to argue with you a little. In the 19th century and early 20th century, self-loading pistols were referred to as automatic; now the name automatic pistol refers to a different weapon. Everything in the world is changing, so is the classification. And about the "machine". It seems to me that a submachine gun and an assault rifle are different types of weapons. I repeat this my opinion. In my article, I touched on this issue. I hope you will read it. Now about GOST. AK-assault rifle Kalashnikov, PPSh-submachine gun Shpagin, submachine gun! PPS-submachine gun Sudaev, submachine gun.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • ANANATOLY PAULOV
    ANANATOLY PAULOV 29 January 2016 22: 32
    0
    Can I have no emotions? Jupiter, you are angry, that means you're wrong. We talked about SMG, a class of weapons according to the American classification. By A M E R I K A N S K O Y! And for no other. I know very well and by hearsay that most countries have their own classification. So your exertions are not clear to me. The elderberry garden, and the uncle in Kiev.
    1. 2news
      2news 29 January 2016 23: 33
      0
      Quote: ANATOLY PAVLOV
      Can I have no emotions? Jupiter, you are angry, that means you're wrong.

      Where are my emotions visible? They are not visible, because they simply do not exist.
      Quote: ANANATOLY PAULOV
      So your exertions are not clear to me.

      It happens.
      1. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 29 January 2016 23: 55
        +2
        If in your opinion the AK-47 is a misunderstanding, then explain to us, unreasonable, why at the end of the Vietnam War the Americans threw M-16s and grabbed exactly this "misunderstanding".
        And write the article all the same. For the articles, as I understand it, they will not ban.
        1. 2news
          2news 30 January 2016 00: 53
          -2
          Quote: Mordvin 3
          then explain to us, unreasonable, why at the end of the Vietnam War the Americans dropped the M-16, and grabbed exactly this "misunderstanding".

          Oh, that you not only grabbed, but also killed each other for AKMs. Only here, weapons experts everywhere were stupid. Well, American, that’s understandable. Instead of adopting miserable copies of AKM (where quality can come from in the USA), they foolishly took the M16A1, a little poked it and built the M16A2. Well, stupid, that’s understandable.
          The "smart Soviet specialists" behaved in a very strange way. After watching the results of the use of the M16 in Vietnam, they immediately poured the beautiful AKM into the trash (the Americans shot because of it), and instead made some kind of weak resemblance (on purpose, of course) to the M16A1. And all why? Because pests.
          Well, seriously, the M16 was adopted instead of Thompson's SMG (automatic) on the post-war cartridge .45 ACP + R. At the same time, M16 (then M16A1) was also automatic, i.e. SMG. There were no plans to replace the M14 with the M16. However, having tested the M16 in practice, it was decided to make a single weapon to replace the M14, too. This weapon eventually became the M16A2.
          But Thompson was separately replaced nevertheless. M4A1 is called. The problem there is that this is not SMG, the rate of fire did not come out. This is very frustrating for Americans.
          Quote: Mordvin 3
          And write the article all the same.

          I have already written a little. In the previous paragraph. repeat
          1. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 30 January 2016 01: 21
            +3
            And for me, the AK-47 is better than the AK-74, and all this (caliber reduction) was done to save color, and for the sake of lightening mass. Just don’t tell me about the initial speed, and the recoil momentum.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. 2news
              2news 30 January 2016 02: 09
              -1
              Quote: Mordvin 3
              and all this (reduction in caliber) was made from the economy of color, and for the sake of facilitating mass

              In order to get weapons from the ersatz of wartime (StG44 ideologically underpinned the AK-47). Even with a slightly weakened TTX. If you noticed, then analogues of the AK-47 were not produced anywhere in the world. Only in Germany during WW2, but there it was a necessary measure. And this is no coincidence. The release of a 7,62x39 mm cartridge and weapons on it was a great mistake of the USSR. A lot of money, effort and money was actually wasted. Since the 70s of the last century, such weapons were abandoned, gradually replacing it with what is better (AK-74).
              Quote: Mordvin 3
              Just don’t tell me about the initial speed, and the recoil momentum.

              I won’t talk about N / A. And I’ll definitely say about the recoil momentum. The fact is that the recoil momentum of the AK-47 is 7,12 kgm / s. It is a lot; balancing such an impulse is unrealistic. In addition, the design features of the AK are superimposed on it. Therefore, in fact the AK-47 weapon is more likely not automatic, but self-loading. Those. this is a self-loading rifle on a weakened rifle (i.e. intermediate) cartridge with a range of effective destruction of 3/4 of the norm + in automatic mode it is actually a submachine gun with very good performance characteristics (1/4 of the norm of a full-fledged army weapon). In one bottle.
              The AK-74 is completely different. This is a full assault rifle. Without any vials. With a range of effective destruction in all fire modes, approximately 3,3 / 4 of the norm. Unfortunately, the TTX of a full-fledged automatic rifle, like that of the M16 prototype, could not be obtained. This is because even a not-so-large recoil impulse of the AK-74 4,60 kgm / s could not be balanced normally then. But, nevertheless, progress is evident. AK-74 is better than AK-47 in almost everything. I can’t remember the indicator by which the AK-47 would be better.
  • tasha
    tasha 30 January 2016 10: 05
    0
    Robert Walker in "Cartridges and Firearm Identification" (available at Amazon.com for $ 93.22 wink ) writes that SMG is also MG, but for cartridges that are TRADITIONALLY considered pistol (9х19, .45 ACP, 7.65 Tokarev, .380 ACP and .22.) But he cautiously adds that the creation of intermediate cartridges in the late WWII period (5.56х45 later) led to much controversy and POSSIBLE the need to extend the term SMG to intermediate-caliber full-auto firearm. So there is no clear certainty yet.
    1. 2news
      2news 30 January 2016 11: 07
      0
      Quote: tasha
      But he cautiously adds that the creation of intermediate cartridges in the late WWII period (5.56x45 later) led to numerous disputes and, POSSIBLE, to the need to extend the term SMG to intermediate-caliber full-auto firearm.

      With small-caliber it is clear. But what about the AK-47 on a cartridge of 7,62x39 mm? And with the Cristobal M2 on the cartridge 7,62x33mm? Both are unambiguous SMG. At the same time, DE Cristobal (1166 J), I recall, this Automatic Carbine (carbine-machine gun) is quite naturally smaller than even the AK-74. It's me that Cristobal is even closer in class to PP than AsR.
      But the AK-47 with its 1991 JE DE at any gate. And also SMG. But just the case of intermediate-caliber full-auto firearm. So I don’t know why Walker is arguing with himself. And why forgets about the normal caliber. Yes, such weapons are now dying. But it was, you can not argue with that.
      PS. Urgent send me $ 93.22 laughing Then I will finally be imbued with Walker's ideas and "I will not write nonsense," as one boorish user wrote to me here.
      1. tasha
        tasha 30 January 2016 11: 34
        0
        Both are unambiguous SMG.

        Why do you think so? What is your definition of the term SMG? Clarity.

        Again.
        The term SMG now is a mashine gun under a pistol cartridge. It is possible that over time AK-47 will be called that. Now in all English literature AK-47 SMG is not called.

        I left you a comment there from 07: 52 above.
        1. 2news
          2news 30 January 2016 12: 20
          0
          Quote: tasha
          Why do you think so? What is your definition of the term SMG? Clarity.

          Quote: 2news
          Yesterday, 13: 57
          SMG means an automatic weapon with a combat rate of 80-100 rounds per minute.

          My first comment on this thread.
          Quote: tasha
          The term SMG now is a mashine gun under a pistol cartridge.

          No. Mashine gun under the pistol cartridge, this is a machine pistol (MP). SMG is an indicator of rate of fire, not a subclass of weapons. It is stereotyped perceived as synonymous with MP due to the fact that at first SMGs were ONLY MP.
          Quote: tasha
          Now in all English literature AK-47 SMG is not called.

          It is not customary to name weapons by rate of fire. Since about the middle of the last century, automatic weapons have rarely been made not of the SMG level. All these strange products such as ABC or DP-27 (BAR in the American version) are a thing of the past. SMG is a kind of standard for individual automatic weapons. Although "perversions" occur periodically.
  • gross kaput
    gross kaput 31 January 2016 10: 00
    +1
    Lord found with whom to argue smile 2news is an old Voshny Troll, this nickname is already the 8th in a row because either he falls into deep minus or the administration bans him. About this adept of the Kuptsov sect with an extremely "unconventional" view, first of all, at domestic weapons, one can only say that either he is mentally ill and himself believes in the nonsense that he carries, considering it his "secret knowledge" or he understands that he is talking nonsense but deliberately trolit VO - in any case, you shouldn't talk to him and "feed" him.