Firearms XIII - Talk about all the guns - General

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50174631]The SVT is the same story - inefficient, but it works fine. Hail it as a great gun, because it's earned that title. Just don't call it an engineering marvel. :v:[/QUOTE] It was enough of one for the Germans to copy it, and I'd even say it's a better gun than the Garand. The problem with it is it needed to be cleaned to work, something the Russians weren't very skilled at. That's why the Germans and Finns loved it while the Russians hated it, they knew how to clean guns.

SVTs are [I]mechanically[/I] inefficient. In true Soviet style, this inefficiency gives them the brute force to truck through things that would break other rifles, but eventually leads to cracked stock wrists, battered receivers and other issues, rather than tolerating harsh conditions and hard use because of good engineering and smooth operation. But in the SVT's case, that's fine - because it was made to be cheap and easy to replace those bits when they go. That's what I mean by inefficient - and inefficient engineering is not [I]good[/I] engineering.

I've only ever heard of those being problems with the AVT, and that's only because of how many rounds it fires in rapid succession.

The original SVT suffered from broken wrists over time. They found out that AVTs wore the original SVT-pattern stock out faster because they had more rounds run through them, so the AVT stock was designed with a thicker wrist. When the AVT was discontinued they started putting the thicker AVT stocks on SVTs during arsenal refurbs. Many (most?) SVTs on western markets have AVT stocks - if you shoot yours a lot and haven't broken it yet, yours is probably an AVT stock.

It is indeed an AVT stock, it has the dual-safety-cutout. The stock is serial-matched to the receiver though, so it was probably put on during production at the factory. And again, even with the original stock I've not heard of any wrist breakages from the Canadian market at least. Though the SVT is not the only gun to suffer from such if it is the case, literally every wood stock gun from WWII has the potential for that issue. The "Ishapore Screw" for Enfields is a famous example of the Indians trying to mitigate cracked wrists that were apparently common among Enfields, and I've seen other wartime guns sold with similar modifications from around the world. Even modern wood-stock guns have this problem. It's an issue with the material rather than the design.

No that's fine and I'm not saying they're bad guns. My point is if they were [B]well-engineered[/B] they wouldn't be inherently self destructive. SVTs don't just break their stocks, they batter the receiver, wear out their gas ports, etc. They're good guns - they reliably throw bullets down-range and hit what you're pointing at - but they don't deal with excess energy very well. Something like the Vector is well-engineered - the moving parts don't wear on each other, the bolt doesn't hit stuff and batter it, extraction is clean and efficient. It makes use of every bit of energy from the cartridge. Yet in the field it suffers from debris jamming it up due to tight tolerances. This isn't a problem for the SVT or G3 because they have the brute force to blow straight through hang-ups. It's a Mopar V8 compared to an Italian V12. One is inefficient but powerful - [I]not[/I] well engineered but it works - the other is efficient and doesn't necessarily need raw power to work as well or better. The V8 shakes everything to bits, the V12 runs smooth on principle, both get the car moving down the road.

They aren't inherently self-destructive, the issue with cracked wrists is a problem with using wood as the stock material, because wood is organic and prone to breakages when put under stress. It's one of the reasons that production moved to synthetic stocks or the modification of stocks to reduce the stress on the wood. If you want a gun that doesn't deal with excess energy well, the M1 Garand literally breaks itself if you put modern ammo in it because of the design of the op-rod. When you look at the SVT, it's unfair to compare it to modern guns, you have to compare it to its competitors of the day; the G41 and K43, the Garand, and the AG-42. Of those, the AG42 and K43 are derived from the SVT, the G41 was stupid and broke itself all the time because of the ridiculous gas system and how hard it was to clean, and the Garand had to have the rounds down-loaded for it specifically and is limited in its capacity and effectiveness due to the way it loads, not to mention how it gives away when the shooter's empty with its distinctive "ping." The SVT was, arguably, the best engineered semi of WWII. It had a selectable gas system to control the strength of the blowback to ensure that the exact issues you describe didn't happen, it had a detachable magazine, and was capable of loading with the same stripper clips the Mosin did. I stand corrected on the AG-42. It had some similarities to the SVT in that it used a tilting breech-block, but used direct impingement with no gas adjustment and as such was picky on ammo, and suffered from rust issues.

I'm not criticizing it or comparing it to modern guns. I'm not saying the Garand is great either. All I'm saying is they are not paragons of engineering. They are all very cool and interesting to play with and learn about but that doesn't mean they're well engineered. There's a distinction between being good and being well engineered. All of them get by with brute force alone and suffer for it over time. My C96 is a good gun, but over time the bolt batters the bolt stop which can snap and permit the bolt to launch into my eye socket. This is the result of an inefficiency. Parts of it are very well engineered, parts of it are very primitively engineered. The same can be said for the G3 and the SVT.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50174557]The weight and sturdy construction of a FAL means that when you run out of ammo, you can beat the commies to death with it like a bat. I'm fairly sure my dad has said exactly that to me before, he carried a C1A1 for about a decade in the army.[/QUOTE] Can confirm, have beaten commies to death with my 10lb rifle. [editline]21st April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;50174615]My SVT has handled shit that would probably break some newer semi-autos. I tend to have at least 1 split case a relay out of my SVT, and it's always the neck, but there's never any backblast. That's what I get for using Chinese surplus, but there's some guns out there nowadays that'd paint my face black if that happened. Not to mention the gunk that gets in it. Granted, that gunk does lead to the last-shot hold-open not always working, and to it being very sticky and not always disengaging. So when you talk about shit wearing out after 10-20 years, this thing's 74 and still going strong. It's no wonder the Germans copied it for the K43, and I think they took some inspiration for the G3 from it too, since the SVT was the first semi to have a fluted chamber (AFAIK).[/QUOTE] If I asked really nicely would you meet me at some obscure part of the American-Canadian border with an SVT-40? Pretty please? [sp]and maybe some weed[/sp]

Frankly I'd argue that the Vector has poor engineering as a service weapon given its intolerance to debris. It's a similar thing to the Ross rifle. The Ross was an amazingly accurate gun with tight tolerances, but in the field if it got dirty it was useless because of it. It was designed as a hunting rifle, not a service rifle. The Vector sounds similar. They make use of everything they can to make it efficient, but if it can't hold up in the field as a service weapon then that makes it a bad gun. There's a reason that service rifles have a bit of leeway and a bit more power, and that's to overcome the issue of debris that inevitably get into the action and can mess it up. If the Vector can't handle that then I'd say it's a poorly engineered service weapon. When talking about the quality of the engineering you have to think about the role of the gun and how well it can fulfil that role. The Vector may seem well-engineered from a technical standpoint, but from a service standpoint from what you've said I'd say it's rather poorly engineered. A similar thing can be said about the G41, from a technical standpoint having the gas port near the chamber is very interesting, but from a service standpoint it makes the gun hard to clean and when rust from corrosion sets in around the gas port, it can weaken the chamber walls and break the rifle. The SVT has in its design features to mitigate the beating the receiver takes from the cycling of the bolt in the form of an adjustable gas system. It has a muzzle break to reduce muzzle climb and help with recoil by dispersing some of the gas so not all of it pushes backwards when the bullet exits the barrel. If I were asked to point out the weakest point on an SVT I'd say it's the gas system, mine was prone to loosening until I got the proper gas system adjustment tool and cranked down on the part that unscrews. After that it went from loosening after 20 rounds to holding up for a good 200 before needing another tightening, which is a very easy thing to do.

Well engineered doesn't translate to good in all scenarios, either. The Vector's action is efficient and slow-wearing when it's clean, so it's well engineered. It doesn't tolerate abuse very well, though, so it's not ideal as a service weapon in a dirty environment. Nobody will call a Hi-Point well engineered but we can all begrudgingly agree they tolerate abuse and neglect. Everyone will agree a Luger is well engineered because of its fine clockwork action but they don't do very good when abused or dirty. A Tec-9 is neither well engineered nor good in practice. A Glock is both, as much as I dislike Glocks for ergonomic reasons. The G3 is good in practice, but not finely engineered. The SVT-40 is the same in that sense - they both rely on brute force to muscle through hangups. In the G3's case this brute force is sufficient to reshape cases, smash them and then fling them to the next star system. That's all I'm trying to say. And I'm saying that because HK tends to build well engineered guns and the G3 is not one of them. It doesn't qualify as a positive example of "German engineering" in my opinion.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50174559]I have semi automatics much older than any G3 that haven't worn themselves out enough to begin pulling the shit G3s pull when they get to be 10 or 20. It's an inefficient design with a lot of little moving parts that can wear out and cause funky shit like: case destruction. Yes, it will shoot fine and run fine with those parts beginning to wear out. I'd rather have a G3 than many weapons on the market today. I'm not bagging on the G3, I'm [I]just saying[/I] that it's not a paragon of German engineering. It does its job, it excels at doing gun stuff, it just does so in a roundabout and inefficient manner. The platform was born from bandaid fix after bandaid fix that eventually came full circle and began working fine.[/QUOTE] What issues are you having with a G3 you own thats 20 years old? Keep in mind that a lot of semi-automatics that are older than a G3 weren't in constant use and spent 90% of their lifetime in a crate covered in grease. [editline]21st April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50174894] If I asked really nicely would you meet me at some obscure part of the American-Canadian border with an SVT-40? Pretty please? [sp]and maybe some weed[/sp][/QUOTE] Said this before and I'll say it again; best way to make money in America right now would be to smuggle $300 SVT-40's over the border from Canada and sell them for 2 grand a pop in the US. Not advocating this at all, just sayin'

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50174894]Can confirm, have beaten commies to death with my 10lb rifle. [editline]21st April 2016[/editline] If I asked really nicely would you meet me at some obscure part of the American-Canadian border with an SVT-40? Pretty please? [sp]and maybe some weed[/sp][/QUOTE] I'd rather not go to federal pound-your-ass prison for gun smuggling thanks.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50175288]I'd rather not go to federal pound-your-ass prison for gun smuggling thanks.[/QUOTE] Bruh no one will know we can meet up somewhere secluded in the woods or some shit and just like bump into each other and be like "woah a Canadian" 'Holy shit an American' then you can 'forget' your SVT-40 leaning against a tree and I can 'accidentally' drop $300 in your hands and then maybe we also fuck who knows, it's all an accident :v:

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50175295]Bruh no one will know we can meet up somewhere secluded in the woods or some shit and just like bump into each other and be like "woah a Canadian" 'Holy shit an American' then you can 'forget' your SVT-40 leaning against a tree and I can 'accidentally' drop $300 in your hands and then maybe we also fuck who knows, it's all an accident :v:[/QUOTE] If you're in America and Dacommie is in Canada and you guys are having sex while on different sides of the border, is it still gay?

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;50175665]If you're in America and Dacommie is in Canada and you guys are having sex while on different sides of the border, is it still gay?[/QUOTE] No. It becomes a diplomatic accord between America and Canada. An exchange of 'natural resources' if you will :v:

So I've got an opportunity to get a Mauser C-96 carbine kit. It's one of the old century guns that was never completed, and it's a frankenstien to say the least. Thing has an M1 Carbine barrel pressed into it (which isn't reamed) and the only thing it has is the stripped upper with barrel, the lower with grip cut off and modified along with a forend mount, and the unfinished wood furniture. The guy whose offering it wants $300, any input? This would be for shit's and giggles, there's absolutely no collector value you in it what so ever.

That sounds drastically overpriced at $300. I bet it would be fun finished off, though. Any pictures? I'd like to see what it looks like.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50177986]That sounds drastically overpriced at $300. I bet it would be fun finished off, though. Any pictures? I'd like to see what it looks like.[/QUOTE] Sadly I don't. It's in ok shape, the frame and upper are a bit rough finish wise but the barrel is more or less "new"

I don't think I'd pay $300 for it, but knowing how prices for anything C96 go, that's probably what it's worth. Since you are planning to reproduce parts for the C96, a lower receiver with the carbine stock cuts could be worth taking measurements from to make sure that they are consistent with pre-existing parts... rare as they are. If the wood furniture is unfinished as in hasn't had a finish applied, that could also be duplicated for sale. Then you'd be able to produce and sell new carbine kits, which would probably sell like hotcakes.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50178056]I don't think I'd pay $300 for it, but knowing how prices for anything C96 go, that's probably what it's worth. Since you are planning to reproduce parts for the C96, a lower receiver with the carbine stock cuts could be worth taking measurements from to make sure that they are consistent with pre-existing parts... rare as they are.[/QUOTE] That's the thing, the lower and stock are modified. The grip on this one was cut off, flattened, then drilled and tapped for a stock mounting screw. It would be more in line with the original carbines made 100 years ago. The stock is more or less a rough cut out, still has sharp corners and such.

That's what I mean - you'd be able to duplicate accurate-ish original carbines, which currently aren't really available on the market for less than a few grand. [editline]21st April 2016[/editline] Speaking of C96 carbines, I think this must be the aesthetic apex of the C96 system. [img]http://i.imgur.com/xZqwzLq.jpg[/img] [url]http://jamesdjulia.com/item/1268-369/[/url] So pretty.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50177921]So I've got an opportunity to get a Mauser C-96 carbine kit. It's one of the old century guns that was never completed, and it's a frankenstien to say the least. Thing has an M1 Carbine barrel pressed into it (which isn't reamed) and the only thing it has is the stripped upper with barrel, the lower with grip cut off and modified along with a forend mount, and the unfinished wood furniture. The guy whose offering it wants $300, any input? This would be for shit's and giggles, there's absolutely no collector value you in it what so ever.[/QUOTE] I have no idea what I just read so I'm going to say if it would make you happy and you have $300 to throw around, do it. Maybe talk him down to $200 tho [editline]21st April 2016[/editline] Alternatively, meet me and DaCommie1 at the Canadian Border with the $300 and get an SVT-40 and also participate in a 'diplomatic 3-way' [editline]21st April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50178073]That's what I mean - you'd be able to duplicate accurate-ish original carbines, which currently aren't really available on the market for less than a few grand. [editline]21st April 2016[/editline] Speaking of C96 carbines, I think this must be the aesthetic apex of the C96 system. [img]http://i.imgur.com/xZqwzLq.jpg[/img] [url]http://jamesdjulia.com/item/1268-369/[/url] So pretty.[/QUOTE] Jesus christ I didn't think the C96 could get any sexier and then you post this. Fuck me that's glorious. Why have I never heard of or seen this before?

You can keep your "natural resources," thanks.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50178866]You can keep your "natural resources," thanks.[/QUOTE] But what if I want to import yours? :v: [editline]21st April 2016[/editline] Cmon Commie don't throw away hundreds of years of diplomatic relations, come enjoy a night of international congress with me :smug:

Sorry, but it seems like relations have broken down. If you go and try that I think I'm gonna have to go all War of 1812 on you.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;50169155]Nuclearannihilation has a PTR91, and from shooting it myself it's fucking awesome. The thing throws brass so far forward its like a secondary projectile.[/QUOTE] My name gets called and I'm out of hibernation. Yes I like my PTR very much it touches me in places you wouldn't imagine

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50178849] Alternatively, meet me and DaCommie1 at the Canadian Border with the $300 and get an SVT-40 and also participate in a 'diplomatic 3-way' [/QUOTE] Oh don't tempt me. If it wasn't illegal as fuck I'd be all over that.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50178947]Sorry, but it seems like relations have broken down. If you go and try that I think I'm gonna have to go all War of 1812 on you.[/QUOTE] Dude I just want an SVT-40 and to suck some foreign dick why you gotta be like that. [editline]22nd April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50178976]Oh don't tempt me. If it wasn't illegal as fuck I'd be all over that.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure it's not illegal to fuck Canadians.

You have to perform the traditional mating ritual first which involves soaking yourself in no less than 1L of maple syrup, catching a Canada Goose with your bare hands, and then ritually sacrificing it to Sir John A. MacDonald by drowning it in Canadian whisky then drinking its blood. Else you will be sentenced to 10 years hard labour as a hockey coach to middle-schoolers.