SVT40 Markings

[Bugelson]

I find SVT-40 being a beautiful "art deco-spirit" design and one of my favourite rifles ever estethically and as shooting experience. But as an instrument of war it sure leaves something to hope for.

Really poor connection between the receiver and stock is the thing that I wonder most. I should think that tovarish Tokarev could have come up with more robust design even if aiming for light weight. And about the maintenance, well it's no big deal when you clean it at your back yard when sun is shining and birds are singing. But try to pull that through in a pitch black basement in Stalingrad when your fingers are freezing in -20ºcelcius and you have not slept for four days. Not that nice. I can imagine the conversation in that basement:

Ivan: Suka bljad!!
Vitali: What?
Ivan: I dropped the gas regulator of my Tokarev and can not find it anymore.
Vitali: Nice one. Hopefully you are good with that bayonet of yours!


An about the desirability and price of the rifle it just seems that you guys in the US have to put some serious cash on the table to get even a refurb SVT-40 nowadays. Sure SVT-40s are not cheap here in Finland either but $700-800 for a refurb is quite a price comparing how cheap guns are in the US in general.

By the way how much do you have to pay to get a good M1?

[Junk Yard Dog]

The SVT40 did have a leg up on the garand in the magazine department, sure they are fragile but back then they could replace em quick. The Magazine of the Garand is a silly and overly complicated design. I find it amazing that such a clever guy as John Garand couldn't figure out how to implement a simpler style of magazine into the rifle, it took him over 10 years to design the gun the idea must of crossed his mind at some point. When the Japanese copied it the first thing they did was put in a clip fed magazine like the Arisaka. That is really my only beef with the M1, it is a rifleman's rifle that's for damn sure.

Everyone is finding SVT40s lately... I feel like I need to jump on the bandwagon.

Money and resources, the Garand was developed during the great Depression when the military budget was stretched to develop the new rifle at all. There was no money to supply not only hundreds of thousands of Garands, but magazines as well, the clip was much cheaper, and it worked well. As soon as the military could they rectified the situation with the M14, but by then they could justify the expense and money was available. The Garand was supposed to have been a .270, but the design was changed because the military had millions of rounds of .30-06 left over from the Great War that needed to be used up, they couldn't afford to waste it.

[target]

The originals were in .276 Pedersen which was a decent round from what I've read but the military wanted a .30 and most of the other rifles in competition with the Garand couldn't stand the pressures generated from the change. That and like you said the military had vast stocks of .30-06 but from what I've read the 150 grain m2 ball round was not adopted until 1938 and I thought the Garand required the lower power M2. So it seems that the old stock would of been used up in machine guns and the bolt guns since the Garand didn't like the heavier 172 grain m1 ball. I think there were two reasons they did not want to switch to the .276 one being logistics, it is much harder to supply two different calibers for the machine guns and rifles, and the second being the tooling already existed from the M1Ball and it only needed some slight tweaking to make the M2 ball where the .276 would require in some cases complete replacement equipment.

What I am wondering is why they didn't use a more traditional internal magazine like in the M1903. They could of upped the capacity by 2 that way all the soldier needed to do was charge the rifle with 2 chargers, he could of also loaded rounds individually. Jams would of been easier to clear and I believe the rifle would of been somewhat more reliable.

A good Garand would set you back 700-1000 depending on condition, if the gun hasn't been monkeyed with by an arsenal then expect to pay more and also expect to pay more for harder to find manufacturers. I've never done business with the CMP so their prices are probably much different from what I am used to seeing at gunshows and such.

[Junk Yard Dog]

The 30's were a decade of innovation in every part of life despite the horrors of the depression, look at the advancements in just the areas of aircraft during that time. That was an era were new and innovative sold even if it didn't always make sence. The old stocks of ammo would have been loaded on '03 strippers or in Browning belts, they would not have taken them down to load Garand clips. The original run of Garands were gas trap models before the gas cylinder was redesigned, not all that many rifles were produced before 1940 when things started to get serious and the military knew full well we would be in this war before it's over. Odd or not, the eight round clip worked, and for awhile confused the hell out of the Enemy. In the early days on the 'canal the Marines were armed with five shot '03 rifles, the Japanese had a similar weapon and were used to it. Then along comes the army to back up the Marines, and they have eight shot Garands, The Japanese would count off a mans five rounds and then rush him thinking he was reloading, bad mistake. The GI's used this to their advantage by pausing after five rounds so the Japanese would think he was empty and show himself. The noise the clip makes when ejecting was lost in the sounds of combat happening all around. In the end the Garand proved to be a superior weapon to the Arisaka and the Mauser, later during Korea it bested the Mosin as well.

[Bugelson]

Despite all the shortcomings SVT-40 was a fearsome weapon in right hands.



Corporal Potka

In three days during the battle of Tuulos (August 1941) corporal Potka (Jaeger Battalion 2) shot 24 enemies (only confirmed ones counted) with captured SVT-40.

[desdem12]

[Junk Yard Dog]