I have a question about bolt action rifles, maybe one of you "firearm enthusiasts" can help me with. Why did the German military still use bolt action rifles in WWII. I understand the main reason was financial. But I started thnking about other weapons- like the Winchester lever action- and started wondering if there was a different configuration that would have made firing faster and easier-like a pump action shotgun. This lead to more interesting questions. My current hypothesis is that the bolt configuration is the simplest (and therefor most reliable),as well as suitably durable for the force created by the army's cartridge of choice. Of course all of this had to be MASS produced under wartime conditions- and don't forget- Germany was under some pretty strict restrictions on what they could build for years. The bolt action rifle is still in service which leads me to believe it has a good record of reliability that brought German engineers to this design decision. The M3 is a case in point about the mass production aspect of weapons design. I was fascinated when I saw (history channel) the thing about those one shot pistols the US dropped into occupied France for resistance fighters. They were all stamped metal except for the barrel, and probably a breach loading mechanism (can't remember). They probably used a German caliber that could be more easily obtained, and I think they could be broken down and disguised as something else- which would explain why they didn't make much simpler shotgun shell zip-guns. I guess they didn't work for shheeoot- an effective range of MAYBE 2 meters- but the psychological effect was that, yes, YOU HAVE A GUN. The other question I have is about wooden stocks. Plastics were still being invented (I think "BakeLite" was the only mass produced variant at the time) and that leaves wood for a light, abundant, easily formable material. But jeez it seems like a lot of work. Of course, it helps conserve steel for barrels and receivers. Just wondering if anyone has ever been to a rifle factory and witnessed the process. Those are my questions- feel free to get technical. I have a passing interest in firing guns (can't get a tight group with a 92f or Glock, but gimme a 1911 and look out), but this design stuff gets my panties in a bundle.
P.S.-Yes, I know the 44 was an early AK, and Germany had some nice stuff- I'm asking about the decision process that lead to that situation. And if you think it's because Germans are better engineers: go to bed.

[QUOTE]
P.S.-Yes, I know the 44 was an early AK,QUOTE]

No sir. The German made MP44 sturmgewehr and the Russian made AK-47 are two different operating systems. The MP44 has a tilting bolt and the AK-47, and its clones, have rotating bolts. However they both use a gas piston.

Anyway, back to the question on bolt actions. It is much harder for a bolt action to jam than a gas operated firearm. Since you work the bolt manually, all you have to do is man handle it a little. Not just germany, but all participants of WW2, except for the United States) had a bolt action rifle for thier main battle rifle. The Mauser action is arguably the most rugged rifle action devised. Nearly all modern (hunting) bolt rifles are based on the Mauser pattern. Not to say all the others where inferior. Oh no, the British Enfield is strong and the action is quickly worked. The Russian Mosin Nagants, are rugged beast (Trust me I got four Mosin Nagants as of now). The Japanese Arisaka is said to be the strongest of the Mauser actions (minus the Last ditch T99 models of course.) Now the Italian Carcano, I cant speak much about it. My collection hasn't taken me there yet. But from what I have seen and heard, they can be a little dodgey.

A big factor as to why European militaries use bolt actions as their main battle rifle in WW2 was because, the officers in charge that was in WW1 had the mindset of "Well, we didn't have these when I was their age, what the hell do they want them for now." and that sentiment went along also with smgs...

However, Russia found the smg to match their current stlye of attack. Take a bunch of Ruskies, charge a German MG nest, and swarm. Not to mention how they would line up the troops, issue a rifle to one guy, and then give the next guy a stripper clip of ammo. 'When' the guy infront goes down, you pick your new weapon and continue.

Everyone didnt just use bolt actions, they had their share of smgs and semi-autos. for example, the Russian had the SVT38 and the SVT40 rifles, for smgs they had the ppsh.

The pistol you saw on the history channel was the Liberator. it was a single shot, breech loading .45ACP pistol. extra shells was stored in the grip. It didnt have to be chambered for a european/German cartridge because the sole purpose for the Liberator, was for the resistance fighters to go up, kill a German soldier, and then take his weapon. There was zip guns made and sent to the Pacific theater for the Philipino guerillas to help combat the Japanese.

As for the bakelite stuff, The germans knew thier **** when it came to weapon designs. The G3, which was the main battle rifle of the German military until 1997, was based on the Cetme rifle. The Cetme was a rifle developed in Spain, which in turn was based on the German sturmgewehr. As I said above, Most modern commercial made bolt action rifles are based on the 98 Mauser action. The American M60 general purpose machine gun, used during Vietnam, It was sorta based on the German MG42. If you open the feed tray you can see that they are very similar. The H&K MP5 is a small scaled down G3 basically. The German G36, it was the base for the experimental American XM8. And one cant forget the P38 handgun. The P38 was the first full powered military double action handgun. But the Germans dabbled in ground breaking stuff that wasnt really known about until after the war. they came up with the flying wing. Horten I think. They made jets. ballistic missiles. But bakelite 98k stocks are very rare now. I dont think I would put one on a 8mm carbine. Bakelight is brittle stuff. I like a good ol wooden stock. But the way a wooden stock is made is somewhat simple. They take a stock blank, which is a oversized block of wood, roughly in the shap of an elongated autoharp and put it on a lathe. the blank spins around and a blade shaves off what needs to be to get it into something that resembles a gun stock. then it would have been gone over by a person for sanding and inletted for the barreled action by hand, and then dunked into a vat of whatever that certain country use to finish their stocks. Russia use shellack, and alot of it! Everyone else use something like tung oil or a varnsih or boil linseed oil... But there are advantages of useing plastics in gun stocks. it dont rot. it dont swell in humid environments. chemical resistant. lighter. However, making it lighter would increase felt recoil. And it wouldnt be very good for butt stroking the enemy with it.

Wow, I typed alot! Well, I hope this helps you in your quest for knowledge. I wouldnt say gun nut, but I am definatley a firearm enthusiest. I collect military surplus firearms, mostly from the WW2 era. and for anyone else that cast thier eyes upon this, I am open to corrections, as this is not about me being a know it all, but for the education of the original poster.
-Kentuck

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kentuck,

don't listen to kentuck..he doesn't know ANYTHING about firearms..

LOL..Kentuck..think you have earned a special avatar title

Aww shucks...

As the newly appointed Official BIA Forum Armorer, I assume the duty of maintaning my WW2 era firearms to the best of my ability and to take them out and have fun with them.

Funny how I go from TFNG (The F'n New Guy) to official armorer in less than a week.

Thank you,
Kentuck

well..in the previous gun posts..I noticed you have your knowledge down straight.

oh and don't wander off too far with those guns..we meant "I assume the duty of maintaining my WW2 era firearms KNOWLEDGE to the best of my ability"..lol

quote:

Originally posted by WE_STAND_ALONE:
well..in the previous gun posts..I noticed you have your knowledge down straight.

oh and don't wander off too far with those guns..we meant "I assume the duty of maintaining my WW2 era firearms KNOWLEDGE to the best of my ability"..lol

It's easlier to learn with tangible objects
Plus they are an investment, They can only go up in worth...

quote:

Originally posted by Kentuck:
Aww shucks...

As the newly appointed Official BIA Forum Armorer, I assume the duty of maintaning my WW2 era firearms to the best of my ability and to take them out and have fun with them.

Funny how I go from TFNG (The F'n New Guy) to official armorer in less than a week.

Thank you,
Kentuck

Welcome Kentuck!

Great info and I hope you keep it coming.
Here's my welcome gift to you:

http://claus.espeholt.dk/mp44.htm
http://claus.espeholt.dk/Spa_kurz.html
http://claus.espeholt.dk/

"Knowledge is power. Be powerful."

"You write 'Born to kill' on your helmet and you wear a peace symbol on your amrmor. Is that some kind of sick joke?!"

Thank you for your welcome and the links.

- Kentuck

Welcome Kentuck, it`s good to have you onboard.(DarkAutumn, you keep him busy talking, i`ll check and see how much money he has on him, you know he has to pay into the mob....er umm...I mean the general fund) Your just the kind of guy we were looking for.

Firefight: Roger Wilco!

Kentuck: So buddy... How's the wife & kids?

I can't really add to what Kentuck said. He covered all the bases and some of the outfield, too. LOL!

I will just repeat the comment that it was't that Germany was lacking a semi-auto battle rifle, it was that the U.S. was the ONLY country to have one as its general issue. Germany wasn't behind the technology, but the U.S. was ahead.

Of course the Germans did have the G43 rifle in 8mm and the FG42 select-fire paratrooper rifle. Both were fine weapons, but neither was extraordinary and even if it had been, Germany simply didn't have the industry or resources to change their entire battlefield armaments DURING the war.

The Soviets did, as mentioned, find that the submachine gun could be a choice weapon for the type of fighting they found in Stalingrad and elsewhere. It was far superior to the rifle. They tried to find a happy medium, and came up with the SKS-45. The SKS was fielded with a few select, experimental units at the end of the war and proved excellent. It was phased in after WWII but -- clearly -- was quickly replaced in most front-line units by the AK47.

Kentuck and I share a passion: military surplus weapons. I am no gunsmith but I too have a modest collecton of WWII small arms (rifles and carbines, anyway) uncluding Mausers, (mostly) Mosin Nagants, an Enfield and of course an M1,an SKS or two, a Swiss K31, among others.

I spend a heck of a lot of time and money finding, buying, and shooting them. I may not be an expert, but a gun nut I am, for certain.

I'll be glad to throw my thoughts in as well to any gun-related question. Maybe kentuck needs a associate.

Tom

The wife, you mean Lady Smith, lol. Atleast RoyalWolf will know what I meant by that...

hmmm an associate? Maybe you can be my apprentice/gopher, go for this go for that... Hand me a WW2 Russian armorer's hammer (a rock) - inside joke from the forums I frequent. http://www.surplusrifle.com

-Kentuck

Kentucky!
Are u saying that the AK 47 is not a copy of the Sturgewehr 44?
If yes. I have to disagree and be stuborn, and say that the AK 47 is copy.

If i misunderstood and u meant that the actiopn is somewhat different than, OK.

quote:

Originally posted by gustave.jany:
Kentucky!
Are u saying that the AK 47 is not a copy of the Sturgewehr 44?
If yes. I have to disagree and be stuborn, and say that the AK 47 is copy.

If i misunderstood and u meant that the actiopn is somewhat different than, OK.

The Sturmgewehr 44 was somewhat of a inspiration for the Mikhail Kalashnikov, designer of the AK-47. Their gas system is similar. They both use a gas piston which connects to the bolt carrier, and a gas tube over top of the barrel.
However, the operating difference is that the Sturmgewehr 44 uses a tilting bolt, like that of the MAS-49, the SKS, the SVT40, and the FAL.

The AK-47 on the other hand uses a rotating bolt, like that of the M1, M1A1, and the M3 carbines, the Sig 550, the K31, the M1 Garand, and the M1941 Johnson.

But yes, the operating innerds (the action) are different.
Even Mikhail Kalashnikov himself denies that it is a copy of the German SGT44. A direct copy atleast, mayn firearms from all over the world share operating principles and features.

No problem in being stubborn, heck if no one was stubborn, no one would take a stand on what is right and what they believe in.
"Those who stand nothing, will fall for anything." - I forgot who.