Profile of GreenDevil

Jump back to quoted post18 Dec 2013, 02:40 AMMazerRackham

I have a really hard time with 2 and 3. Have you ever broken these weapons down? Do you actually go shooting? Have you ever machined anything yourself – particularly gun parts?

If you said no to any of these I really don't think you should be citing those. The only people who would have any business citing those facts would be the soldiers or engineers who designed or used those weapons. Everything else is conjecture from arm-chair gun experts.


Range -- The Germans were notorious for their far superior optics. Again if you had done your homework you would know the "weak" point of the SVT-40 was actually its sights. I would argue that the G43 would be more successful in farther ranged engagements simply due to the superior iron sights. The superior iron sights of the German weapon coupled with their superior optics has me thinking you pulling all of this stuff out of your ass.
Stopping Power -- The German gun used a 7.92 or 8mm bullet so stopping power goes to G43.
Complexity -- As it turns out EDUCATION, as it always does, had everything to do with the effectiveness of the SVT-40. The Russian equivalent of the "Marines" never had any problems with the "complex" gas operated system. Why? Because they were better educated, and thus were able to care for, and maintain, and use their guns to stupid good effectiveness. Giving the SVT-40 to conscripts was like giving an AK-47 to a caveman. Complaints about complexity are to be expected.

The guns, the G43 and SVT40, were identical in terms of complexity yet you heard Russian soldiers bitching because they weren't very well educated.