Thanks so much for the great topic postings guys

Someone noted that the STG44 had similarities to the HK G3. While I don't physically know details, it's a well known fact that Heckler and Koch was started by Mauser employees who stole multiple concepts and files from a bombed Mauser factory to create their own company.

Excellent discussion.

tag to read latter

This is an area where I am very fortunate to have some intimate knowledge.  Eugene Stoner lived for much of his later life in my hometown of Palm City, Florida.  Due to my interest in firearms, a friend of mine's grandmother (who was very close friends with Mrs. Stoner) aranged for me to spend my 13th birthday at Mr. Stoner's house. I was a gun enthusist from a very early age and was able to appreciate the visit a great deal, although I've thought of a million questions in the years since then that I would have loved to have asked him.  He was an incredibly bright, friendly, and generous man- one willing to spend 4 or 5 hours on a Saturday with a bright-eyed kid.  He showed me some of his designs that never made production, he talked to me about the future of firearms design, and told me countless stories of the development of the AR-15, Stoner 63 system, etc.  While I was there he also showed me an aluminum prototype of the Colt All-American 200 handgun and showed me plans for "a new rifle that he was working with a guy in Vero to develop"- based on the design as I remember it, this was the SR-25 project and the "guy in Vero" was Reed Knight.  I feel quite fourtunate to have spent those hours with him and hold the impression that Eugene Stoner was quite a modest man who would have been more likely to understate his involvement in the AR project than to overstate it.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well, by the same token one could argue that the AK-47 was just a knock off of the SKS. How so? Not so. Simonov designed the SKS, Kalashnikov designed the AK47. The gas sytems are similar, but that's about it. By that time the gas piston was not a new idea. The cartridge calilber was not dictated bny the designers. The SKS was not a knockoff of the AK47.

I've heard that the SKS was a scaled-down version of an existing anti-armor weapon.  I'd say the AK47 was Russia's answer to Germany's STG (what was it called?).

When it comes down to it, much of firearms design is based on using known systems and modifying them for a specific application.  A trigger linkage here, a bolt design there, a locking lug from over there, a gas system from somewhere else.  It is the way you put them together that is innovative and thus inventive.

Stoner didn't invent aluminum alloy. Stoner didn't invent the rifled barrel, nor the box magazine, nor the concept of using escaping gas to operate the action of a firearm. But he and other engineers did figure a way to combine these and some innovative features to address a specific application.

The reason the AK and the STG 44 look outwardly similar is because, like many things, people arrived at similar solutions to similar ergonomic problems.  There are only so many ways to skin a cat.

Quoted: The reason the AK and the STG 44 look outwardly similar is because, like many things, people arrived at similar solutions to similar ergonomic problems.  There are only so many ways to skin a cat.

The Russians developed the AK47 in response to the STG from what I understand.  Even with the design differences, I still think the basic concept of an "assault rifle" was borrowed from the Germans.

Quoted: Stoner probably does get too much credit for designing the .223 cartridge from what I've read. That was primary Sullivan and Fremont. It was basically a refinement of the existing .222 Remington cartridge. Although they used an already existing cartridge I don't think it diminishes their achievement any more than it does Stoner's getting some credit for the design of the AR-15.

I have to pick nits with an otherwise outstanding post. The ballistics, twist, load, and other developement of the .223 occurred primarily at Aberdeen Proving Ground. The info they came up with at APG was given to Armalite (and thus Sullivan, Freemont, and Stoner) when they got a chance to save the AR10 concept by redesigning it as a .223. They only made very slight changes to the original specs, mostly for reliability. Armalite et al may get some credit for final tweaking, but the concept  was born and all the development took place at APG in the early to mid 1950's, even before the AR10 was tested and long before there was even a thought given to designing an AR15. General Wyman basically told Armalite to build him a gun like the AR10 that could fire "this" round.

Quoted: The reason the AK and the STG 44 look outwardly similar is because, like many things, people arrived at similar solutions to similar ergonomic problems.  There are only so many ways to skin a cat.

I agree. Internally they are very dissimilar. The author Hans-Dieter Handrich of the recently published "Sturmgewehr" by Collector Grade Pub. disagrees with that view. He contends  that after the collapse of Germany, sometime in Oct. 1946 Hugo Schmeisser, the inventor of the Haenel  MP44/StG44 was forced to relocate to Izhevsk Russia to work at Plant 74 on the design that was to become the AK-47. He refers to Mikhail Kalashnikov as "the 27-year old former sergeant in the Tank Corps" in a manner, that although factual, smacks of long standing Russian-Germany emnity.
He goes on to say that Schmeisser was released by the Soviets in June 1952 to return to Germany and states "A comparison between the German StG44 and the AK47 reveals the obvious similarities"  
He also mentions the Soviets captured the GECO factory and confiscated the machinery and a vast quantity of 7.92x33 cal ammo and shipped it back to Russia. So what?  This is 45-46 he's referring to. The Soviet Cartridge was named M-43. His  patriotism to the Vaterland blinds his ability to do simple math. And that Soviet cartridge didn't just "spring" into being suddenly one day in 1943. It was in development a long time before that date.

He also stated in an earlier chapter that the Soviets were well prepared for the Nazi invasion of June 1941 and that it was to great credit that an inferior number of Nazi Divisions pushed a vastly superior number of Soviet Divisions, who were waiting for them, back to the suburbs of Moscow and the occupation of Stalingrad and Leningrad. While it is true the Soviets had the edge in personnel they were not in combat readiness. Although the Soviet GRU had given Stalin numerous reports of a very large Nazi build up of troops at the Polish Border, he refused to believe the obvious, that Hitler was going to violate the non agresion pact with the Soviets and invade them.
The Soviet Divisions were not on high alert and were beaten back and decimated. Stalin did not speak to the Russian population for over 4 weeks after the invasion. All news of the new war was issued by Foreign Minister Molotov. Stalin had suffered a nervous breakdown.  

All of this is well documented in numerous respected histories, yet this peace time Luftwaffe Capt of Air Controllers attempts to re-write WW II history.

I give his views on Schmeisser's contribution to the design of the AK-47 the same credence as I give his views on early WW II history on the Eastern Front.
Just because somebody writes a book it doesn't mean they are correct in all their views or statements. "Sturmgewehr" is a great book in classical Collector Grade fashion when Handrich sticks to the subject he really knows about: the evolution and history of the sturmgewehr.
His dalliences into the whys and hows of the battle itself only take away from his main subject matter.

I bought this book because I wanted to learn a lot more about the design and construction of this weapon and I knew this book would show me blueprints and photos of sub assemblies and innards you can only guess at when looking at a typical photo of the weapon.

I gave his remarks about the MP44 versus the AK-47 a lot of thought(I have been a "student" of the AK series for about 8-10 yrs) and my conclusion was there is not one major sub assembly between these weapons that are truly alike.


Just because they were both in-line, fired an intermediate rifle cartridge, were light enough to carry, and had controlable select fire function does not mean that the one copied the other.

Former Marine Melvin Johnson was working on an in-line design rifle and light machine gun in the 30s, but I don't feel that means that Schmeisser or Kalashnikov stole the idea from him.

Spade said something is consistant with scientific inventions compared to rival cultures all through history, yet is ignored by many who have axes to grind.
He said it much more succinctly than I did, but I hope you all will indulge me, I just felt like going with this.

And, back to the original thread.....Stoner did not get all the credit for the AR-15 or none of us would have ever heard of Jim Sullivan or Robert Fremont. All 3 deserve the credit and all are known to us.  

Great Info Malysh and a Excellent thread!!!

Thanks.
A lot of good posts here that are thought provoking. I've enjoyed this topic a lot.

"The Russian AK-47 was copied from the German MP44"
Its a urban myth that just won't go away.
If you go back and look at the 15 or so different prototypes that preceded the AK-47, you will see that there is no relation to the German MP-44.

Quoted: Thanks. A lot of good posts here that are thought provoking. I've enjoyed this topic a lot.

I know I enjoyed reading your well thought out and well researched posts. What forums are about

No matter what position is taken in a discussion, it is a pleasure to take part when people act respectful to each other and refrain from getting personal. It shows what everybody can do if they treat folks as they want to be treated.
Everybody wins in the end and we all learn at least a little something we didn't know before.
I have learned some great things in threads on this website.

Quoted: His original design, one of them, was in 30-06 using BAR mags.

Now that  would be something I would like to experience!

Here you go. A pic of the AK-46 #1 prototype.
I don't see any resemblence to the German MP-44

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well, by the same token one could argue that the AK-47 was just a knock off of the SKS. How so? Not so. Simonov designed the SKS, Kalashnikov designed the AK47. The gas sytems are similar, but that's about it. By that time the gas piston was not a new idea. The cartridge calilber was not dictated bny the designers. The SKS was not a knockoff of the AK47. _DR is 100% correct, BTW.  I was too pooped to give this point of Knight of the Olde Codes the attention _DR gave it.  The only thing the SKS and the AK-47 have in common is the gas piston, period. Not even the lockworks have any similarity. BTW: Kalashnikov studied the M-1 Garand and the M-1 carbines design features and incorporated the Garands basic trigger and hammer design, and a very similar 2 lug bolt from the M-1 carbine in his AK-47. I don't think Dr. K. has been overcredited for his achievements, either. To this day he talks of John Garand as one of his great influences in arms design. If you can come up with a totally new invention that doesn't borrow from the existing body of knowledge of the items that came before it, I would love to shake your hand!!!

he is not 100% correct, he made a mistake in the red portion

Quoted: The AK47 was a rip off of the WW2 German Sturmgewehr, the worlds first assault rifle.

The worlds first assault rifle was the M1 Carbine Paratrooper.

ETA: It features.....
         pistol grip
         folder
         intermediate cartridge (almost)
         detatchable high cap magazine
         

lt557,
Sorry, but no go.  Folding stock doesn't mean anything.  What is necessary that isn't present in the M1 is selective fire.  The M2 on the other hand would be our first assault rifle, but it wasn't adopted until mid 1945.  So it predates the AK47, but not the Stg44.

Quoted: lt557, Sorry, but no go.  Folding stock doesn't mean anything.  What is necessary that isn't present in the M1 is selective fire.  The M2 on the other hand would be our first assault rifle, but it wasn't adopted until mid 1945.  So it predates the AK47, but not the Stg44.

Adopted in 45, invented prior to.

Quoted: The Federov Avtomat came out in 1916.

This one's the grand daddy of them all. Fedorov designed it to use the Japanese 6.5 mm cartridge.
He was ahead of his time. He knew without field trials that a 30 cal, full size military round would be uncontrolable in auto mode, so he searched around for a cartridge that could still be lethal but not have the recoil of the typical 30 cal. military rifle cartridge of the era. He settled on the 6.5

This rifle was adopted on a limited basis by the Russians and saw use in the Russo Finnish wars(2 or 3 of them, can't remember).It had a long barrel and wood stocks.  It didn't look that much different  than a Mosin or  a Mauser, but it had a box magazine which protruded from the bottom of the rifle in front of the trigger. Eventually the Soviets dropped it.  It was very expensive to produce and moderately durable in the field.

In the fifties and sixties, they used to joke that the Russians say they invented EVERYTHING! TV, Radio, movies, pennicilin, a cure for the cold,  you name it.  
But, 2 things they weren't bullshitting about were the first assault/battle rifle, and the first earth orbit satellite.

Quoted: Quoted: lt557, Sorry, but no go.  Folding stock doesn't mean anything.  What is necessary that isn't present in the M1 is selective fire.  The M2 on the other hand would be our first assault rifle, but it wasn't adopted until mid 1945.  So it predates the AK47, but not the Stg44. Adopted in 45, invented prior to.

The German army contracted C.G. Haenel to produce a prototype mid-range cartridge "machine carbine" in May 1938. The design was finalized by 1943.

The M2 carbine hardly precedes this.

Quoted: Quoted: Well, by the same token one could argue that the AK-47 was just a knock off of the SKS. The AK47 was a rip off of the WW2 German Sturmgewehr, the worlds first assault rifle, Kalashnikov denies it was a copy, but it's hard to deny the truth when it's right in front of you.

yea, it looks like an AK to me, NOT

About the only thing it has in common is the longstroke piston.  The lockwork is different, and overall design is different.

Wait they both have "banana" mags........Dr. K Musta Robbed it!!!

Back on topic, the AR15 does have some design elements that are extremely novel, most notably for me is the incorporation of a barrel extension that takes the brunt of the force from recoil.  This design feature allows the rest of the gun to be made out of lightweight materials that prior designs could not use due to the lack of durability against recoil stresses.  

Quoted: I think the request that led to the development of the M1 Carbine was put out in '38, then shelved until '40, design was finalized soon after Pearl Harbor.

The M1 carbine is a semi-auto though, so it doesn't count

The M2 didn't show up until late in the war.

Heres some stg. 44 pictures:

Quoted: I think Stoners greatest and very original design was the Stoner 63 weapons system ............

Stoner didn't design the Stoner 63 either - that was Sullivan and Fremont.   Stoner 'did' design the Stoner 62 which was in 7.62.  In his long career, Stoner only designed two weapons in 5.56 and neither was ever produced.  

Stoner just didn't belive the 5.56 was adequare for military use.



5sub

Quoted: But Most people, Even those in the "know" don't normally know about Sullivan or Fremont, Whenever one hears the history of the AR15 talked about it's always said Stoner, The others are seldom mentioned, let alove given credit. Don't you find that to be true?   Quoted: Gene Stoner was L. James Sullivan and Robt Fremont's boss at ArmaLite. These 2 fine designers have received and deserve plenty of credit for the AR-15. So does Gene Stoner. He didn't just get all the credit, he also put time in helping design the rifle. He was sent to the Aberdeen AR-15 rifle trials and the Army Arctic trials in Alaska. This was not  just a case of the boss getting to go to the big meetings, he was intimately involved in all phases of the major design sub assemblies and they had to be approved by him as well. ArmaLite was not adverse to sending the assistant engineers out in the field, either. They sent both Gene Stoner, and another assistant, Art Miller to Holland at separate times during the start up for the manufacturing of the AR-10. Miller helped greatly in the conversion of the dimensions from SAE to metric. No small task. Stoner probably does get too much credit for designing the .223 cartridge from what I've read. That was primary Sullivan and Fremont. It was basically a refinement of the existing .222 Remington cartridge. Although they used an already existing cartridge I don't think it diminishes their achievement any more than it does Stoner's getting some credit for the design of the AR-15. Stoner designed the lockwork of the AR-15 rifle, This includes the trigger, hammer, disconnector and selector lever. It was not merely a scaled down AR-10 lockwork. The US Patent Office  copies shown in referrence books  clearly credit Stoner with these designs. I find it doubtful that he would have robbed Sullivan and Fremont of the credit for these assemblies had they designed them. If Stoner, in your words, was "credited so totally with the AR-15"  I don't think we would have heard as much about Sullivan and Fremont as we have. I also think that either one, or both of them would have made some bad comments about Stoner in all the years that have gone by. I have never personally read a bad comment from either of them about Gene Stoner. There was an interview/article about Sullivan in an old Small Arms review where he states that Eugene Stoner was the inventor of the AR-15 but that he and Fremont were the designers, and goes to some length to explain what he feels are the differences between an inventor and a designer. If you want a copy of this article, you can email me and I will be happy to send a copy to you. It was very interesting!  If Sullivan felt Stoner should have credit for this invention, who am I to argue with him?? Who are we to argue with him? The AR-10 and AR-15 stocks were never bakelite. They were hand wrapped fiberglass, and later on, something Colt's called Fiberite. The Swedish Ljungman gas system, and also the French MAS, lacked a major design feature that Stoner solely invented by himself. The rotary bolt he invented had gas ports in it so that during recoil, these ports would rotate  to a closed position and the gas pressure would start to decline in the bolt and carrier.  Stoner felt this meant the rifle didn't need an adjustable gas port. There are pros and cons to the lack of the system being adjustable, of course. I agree with you that Stoner didn't DESIGN the AR-18. But, using the definition that Sullivan uses, he did INVENT it. Take a good look at Stoner's AR-16 and tell me that Sullivan didn'nt use it as a pattern for the AR-18. They are almost the same weapon except that the mag well is a little different and the caliber is different.  Internally they are almost identical. ArmaLite did not design the AR-18 as a fall back in case the US gov didn't adopt the AR-15. They developed it for lesser industrial countries, so that they could manufacture under license, a rifle made of carbon steel where main sub assemblies could be welded together, instead of aluminum forgings which were tricky to manufacture and far more expensive than a stamped steel receiver. They did offer the design to the US government, of course. All weapons inventors study the great inventions that came before them. Many try to improve upon what has come before them. This includes Sam Colt and everybody else, including Mikhail Kalashnikov. Even the great Browning studied earlier designs. But Browning I think is at the top the heap and light years beyond any weapons inventor the world has ever known. No way to prove this, but I bet Mr. Stoner would have been uncomfortable being mentioned in the same sentence with Browning. The Stoner 62 and 63 systems were  great inventions! Too bad they were never adopted by the gov., except for the limted use of the SEALS. Thanks to several military rifle authors we can all discuss the 3 driving forces of the AR-15 rifle together and we know of all 3: Stoner, Sullivan, and Fremont.  It would be a disservice if any of these 3 brilliant men were not known, or credited in the history of the AR-15. Thanks for bringing your opinion on this topic, whether we agree or not. It's a valid question to discuss. And the more it's discussed, the more Sullivan and Fremont will be remembered for their large contributions.

That little was heard about Stoner and Fremont is really the fault of no one.  Stoner was Chief Enginer and then, as now, got the lions share of the credit just as he would have received the blame had the rifle failed.  The press wants simplicity, one person to talk about and that's what ArmaLite gave them.  On the other hand, Colt tended to omit Stoner AND ArmaLite from their press releases.

*Jim Sullivan has actually addressed this issue and the above are his (paraphrased) thoughts on this matter.


5sub



BTW, who has heard of Art Miller ??  Mr. Miller was the designer of the AR-18/AR-180 and the AR-17 shotgun.



*Sullivan also designed the Mini-14 and the Model 77 for Bill Ruger.  To the best of my knowledge, Ruger gave Sullivan no external credit.

Quoted: Quoted: Well, by the same token one could argue that the AK-47 was just a knock off of the SKS. The AK47 was a rip off of the WW2 German Sturmgewehr, the worlds first assault rifle, Kalashnikov denies it was a copy, but it's hard to deny the truth when it's right in front of you.

I always hear this from people who don't know anything about either gun.

Quoted: History channel says ak was a copy of a german gun. They took over a german plant and found the plans. Stoner came up with the idea of the .223. At first the .222 was to be used.

crock of !@#$.

The AK47 is not a knockoff of the STG44, but to say it's design was not influenced by it is a lie.

The AK47 would likely not exists if it wasn't for the STG44.  The later conflicts the russians were in would likely see a 7.62x54r SKS, or something simliar be developed.

The germans made the STG44 to be a weapon that was decent for midrange distances and decent at short distances, but not perfect for either, and not effective at very long ranges, which aren't as common in modern combat.  The M1Garand was not useful for close quarters battle, and the thompson sucked for long range.  The M1 carbine was headed in the right direction, but not quite there yet.  Russians had the same problems, subguns and long guns, but nothing that worked very well in both applications.

The STG44 was the first weapon that was capable both CQB and long range combat, it used a intermediate cartridge that was bottlenecked like a rifle allowing a shorter action and easier to handle magazines.    Russians had bottlenecked pistol cartridges, heck they invented the concept for bottlenecked cartridges in general, but they never made the leap an intermediate round.  The assault weapon concept was "borrowed" by both the americans and the russians.  Russians got their design completed and issued first.

Gunman0,
I usually try to be polite, but posting without having read the previous 4 pages really makes your opinion fairly stupid and useless.  We've posted names & dates for Russian efforts to come up with an "Assault Rifle" dating back to WWI.  The M43 7.62x39mm was adopted in 1943, but research on the design began before the war.  You harp the same old mantra that because the AK47 was created after the Stg44, and they look similar, it must be a copy.  I will concede that Kalashnikov may have been influenced by the general layout, but even that is hugely speculative.  The only design features that distinguish the Stg from earlier submachineguns are the cartridge, gas operated rather than blowback, and a gas tube/piston above the barrel.  Jeez, do some research!

For all you semi-brained people who want to say Kalashnikov copied the Stg, please explain why he "copied" it, but then chose to change the receiver layout, recoil spring system, fire control system, magazine retention method and the safety/selector.  I know, its a copy.....only different.

The M1 Carbine was headed in the right direction?  Maybe so, but only after the fact.  It was spec'd, bid and designed as a more effective replacement for the .45acp M1911A1 pistol, not the M1 Garand rifle.  The fact that troops pressed it into service as an alternative rifle, and it met the performance and design characteristics of the "assault rifle" (M2 only) doesn't mean it was a conscious decision to create a weapon between SMG and full size battle rifle.

Try doing some research before posting your opinion.  You'll look smarter.

This topic has irked me so I pulled out my small arms history books and started digging.

The German assault rifles of WWII, starting with the MKb42 and culminating with the Stg44 are unarguably the first successful assault rifles.  The M1 Garand was the first successful semi-automatic rifle adopted for military service.  But just because they were the first successful examples of their type, doesn't mean they were necessarily the first attempts.  The following somewhat blur the line between rifle and assault rifle, but it proves that the desire far predated the successful engineering result.

In 1900, Captain Cei-Rigotti of the Bersagliere invented a gas operated, select fire carbine that used 10, 20 or 50 rd detachable box magazines in 6.5x52mm Mannlicher-Carcano.  The bolt was very similar to the later M1 carbine.  It had a simple selector lever for safe, semi or full auto.  It had problems with accuracy and jamming, but it shows the thought process.  1900 folks, 1900.  Before WWI.  Some will say that 6.5 x52 is a full size rifle cartridge, but with a 2400fps muzzle velocity, it doesn't seem far off in power from the 7.62x39 or 7.92x33 cartridges.

The Mondragon semi-automatic rifle was conceived in Mexico in the 1890s, patented in 1907 and placed into production by SIG in Switzerland because Mexico didn't have the production capacity.  It was adopted by Mexico in 1908 in 7mm Mauser with an 8 round magazine.  But, SIG also produced it with a 20 rd magazine and Germany used some of them with a 30rd snail type magazine as an aviator's weapon in WWI.  Semi-auto only.

Quoted: Gunman0, I usually try to be polite, but posting without having read the previous 4 pages really makes your opinion fairly stupid and useless.  We've posted names & dates for Russian efforts to come up with an "Assault Rifle" dating back to WWI.  The M43 7.62x39mm was adopted in 1943, but research on the design began before the war.  You harp the same old mantra that because the AK47 was created after the Stg44, and they look similar, it must be a copy.  I will concede that Kalashnikov may have been influenced by the general layout, but even that is hugely speculative.  The only design features that distinguish the Stg from earlier submachineguns are the cartridge, gas operated rather than blowback, and a gas tube/piston above the barrel.  Jeez, do some research! For all you semi-brained people who want to say Kalashnikov copied the Stg, please explain why he "copied" it, but then chose to change the receiver layout, recoil spring system, fire control system, magazine retention method and the safety/selector.  I know, its a copy.....only different. The M1 Carbine was headed in the right direction?  Maybe so, but only after the fact.  It was spec'd, bid and designed as a more effective replacement for the .45acp M1911A1 pistol, not the M1 Garand rifle.  The fact that troops pressed it into service as an alternative rifle, and it met the performance and design characteristics of the "assault rifle" (M2 only) doesn't mean it was a conscious decision to create a weapon between SMG and full size battle rifle. Try doing some research before posting your opinion.  You'll look smarter.

Be polite and read my damn post then.  The only thing I discuss is the damned cartridge choice.

Where did I state it was a copy?  If you are going to sling shit, try reading the post you are bashing first.  I stated it obviously influenced them by their choice in cartridge.  If you look at latter Russian conflicts such as in Afghanistan, a 7.62x54r rifle with a longer barrel would have been a more obvious choice, but they were influenced by the success of the STG44 in WW2 by excelling in CQB and longer range encounters.  Heck, by the time Afghanistan came along they had even fielded the AK74, which was influenced by our 5.56 decision.  Of course in todays world more M1A(M14s) are being issued as well as heavier grain projectiles for our conflict there as have relearned that they are better suited to that long range high visibility mountain combat environment.  Your discussion of designs that were unsuccessful frankly doesn't matter as those designs wouldn't be influencing other's designs since they failed in the first place.  And the Russians, although they don't admit it, obviously designed the M43(7.62x39) after being influenced by the Germans who were fielding Mkb42's in 1942, and MP43's in 1943, and eventually STG44's in 1944.  Until they saw the German's intermediate cartridge, they were still making SKS's that beat themselves apart since they were unable to handle the 7.62x54r.

The M1 carbine was a step in the right direction, and designed as such.  It was made to be issued to troops that would otherwise only have less effictive 1911s.  They wanted to give them something with a little more range and power than a pistol, without the weight and bulk of a full size rifle.  That was the official military design requirements.  If they had just wanted to replace the 1911 the much cheaper and easier to mass produce M3 would have been given to them as an identical cartridge 1911 replacement, or another pistol.

So, I would say your opinion is "stupid and fairly useless".

Gunman,

You quoted my post, but you didn't look at the details.  Specifically, the Soviet M43 cartridge design started before the war began.  The design committee started work on the intermediate cartridge in 1939, 2 years before Germany invaded Russia and 3 years before the early 7.92x33mm Haenel MKb42s were airdropped to an encircled unit.

This is getting fairly silly.  There are plenty of legitimate examples of blatant copying of foreign designs by the Russians.  Hell, when they copied the B-29, the one they were using for the reverse engineering had repaired battle damage and they reproduced the damage and the repair!

But it is intellectually and historically dishonest to take our dislike of communists and deny them the credit when they actually did come up with a superior design on their own.

This is directed to you only in part.  The part that isn't is directed to those who are still incapable of examining facts for what they are, not what they want them to be.

1.  The desire to come up with a select fire rifle was around a long time before Germany came up with the Stg or the USSR the AK47.  From 1900 - 1942, there was a halting progression towards the goal.

2.  Without a doubt, Germany was the first to pull it all together in a successful package.  That basic package is still the same, but aside from the caliber, the outward appearance features had already been established by the SMG.  The 1921 Thompson had the same basic design.  Pistol grip.  Detachable box magazine.

3.  History records Russian efforts to develop a select fire rifle using an intermediate cartridge since 1916.  This predates the Stg.

4.  The M43 cartridge design began in 1939, well before the introduction of the 7.92x33mm.  I'll grant that there is a remote possiblity of copying by the Russians, but it takes a belief in a lot of ifs that haven't been proven, even in part.  Germany began development in 1938.  IF the Russians had a spy in that branch of the German arms development and IF they immediately concluded that it was the way to go, then conceivably they could have started their own research in 1939.

We may have copied both in part.  The 7.92x33mm was basically a shortened 7.92x57mm.  Keeping the bore diameter made it cheaper to produce the barrels, an important consideration in a war.  The Soviets did essentially the same thing, keeping the same bore diameter.  We shortened the .30-06 to come up with the .308/7.62x51mm.

I submit that the evidence shows concurrent development of the 7.92x33 and 7.62x39mm cartridges.  If Kalashnikov was influenced by the Stg44, it must have been peripheral only since only the basic layout is the same while all other design features were different.

Gunman, I may have been overly harsh with you, but I've been beating up against this myth for years now and I'm getting cranky.  Do your research, check the dates and the details and if I'm wrong, I'll eat crow.

Wasnt the topic in question wether or not Mr. Stoner was credited so totally with the AR-15 when he didnt design it?..... And isnt this the AR-15 forum?..... just curious....

Quoted: Quoted: I know my posts are too long but I try to be informative and helpful. Who told you that nonsense? Have you guys ever been to the General or Hometown forums and seen some of MY screeds? Talk about long-winded......sheesh. Malysh, seriously, your posts are well researched and well-presented. Thanks for contibuting.

Helldog - That's very kind of you to say. Thanks very much.

Quoted: Gunman, You quoted my post, but you didn't look at the details.  Specifically, the Soviet M43 cartridge design started before the war began.  The design committee started work on the intermediate cartridge in 1939, 2 years before Germany invaded Russia and 3 years before the early 7.92x33mm Haenel MKb42s were airdropped to an encircled unit. This is getting fairly silly.  There are plenty of legitimate examples of blatant copying of foreign designs by the Russians.  Hell, when they copied the B-29, the one they were using for the reverse engineering had repaired battle damage and they reproduced the damage and the repair! But it is intellectually and historically dishonest to take our dislike of communists and deny them the credit when they actually did come up with a superior design on their own. This is directed to you only in part.  The part that isn't is directed to those who are still incapable of examining facts for what they are, not what they want them to be. 1.  The desire to come up with a select fire rifle was around a long time before Germany came up with the Stg or the USSR the AK47.  From 1900 - 1942, there was a halting progression towards the goal. 2.  Without a doubt, Germany was the first to pull it all together in a successful package.  That basic package is still the same, but aside from the caliber, the outward appearance features had already been established by the SMG.  The 1921 Thompson had the same basic design.  Pistol grip.  Detachable box magazine. 3.  History records Russian efforts to develop a select fire rifle using an intermediate cartridge since 1916.  This predates the Stg. 4.  The M43 cartridge design began in 1939, well before the introduction of the 7.92x33mm.  I'll grant that there is a remote possiblity of copying by the Russians, but it takes a belief in a lot of ifs that haven't been proven, even in part.  Germany began development in 1938.  IF the Russians had a spy in that branch of the German arms development and IF they immediately concluded that it was the way to go, then conceivably they could have started their own research in 1939. We may have copied both in part.  The 7.92x33mm was basically a shortened 7.92x57mm.  Keeping the bore diameter made it cheaper to produce the barrels, an important consideration in a war.  The Soviets did essentially the same thing, keeping the same bore diameter.  We shortened the .30-06 to come up with the .308/7.62x51mm. I submit that the evidence shows concurrent development of the 7.92x33 and 7.62x39mm cartridges.  If Kalashnikov was influenced by the Stg44, it must have been peripheral only since only the basic layout is the same while all other design features were different. Gunman, I may have been overly harsh with you, but I've been beating up against this myth for years now and I'm getting cranky.  Do your research, check the dates and the details and if I'm wrong, I'll eat crow.

If you want to be super accurate, read this page.
http://guns.connect.fi/gow/QA4.html

This site discusses how the russians got ahold of the GeCo cartridge(a runner up to the Polte Versuchspatrone 38 round eventually used for the STG44) from Germany, and copied that round invented in 1935 with only a few minor changes.

Up until the Russians knew the germans were using intermediate designs, the government threw out any ideas for non-7.62x54r rifles.  They had too much of a surplus to see any other cartridge as being reasonable.  And the fact they only tinkered with the design until 1943, when they designated it a military caliber shows they adopted the "I'll believe it when I see it philosophy."  Which is not a bad idea.  If they had gotten reports of germans with intermediate cartridges being slaughtered, then have not wasted extra development time and costs.  And no Russian rifles used the M43 caliber until 1944 when a few SKSs were sent out for field tests in the eastern front.  Until then SKS's were 7.62x54r.  And new designs even in 1941(thus the SKS41) were not using an intermediate cartridge.  It wasn't until after the war that the SKS45(7.62x39) really started production.

And Federov fell out of favor with his designs early on in the timeline, way before Nazism and Hitler.  His designs did not influence M43 cartridge development.

Excellent link.  I'll trust the author was stating fact when he described the case dimensions as essentially identical to the GeCo cartridge.  My major source, Edward Ezell even noted that there was a good possibility that Soviet spies obtained samples of the GeCo cartridge.  The move to an intermediate cartridge and a select fire weapon was started before WWII.  The M43 cartridge may have been copied from the earlier GeCo round, but it wasn't a copy of the German M-43 cartridge.  Certainly the German experience with the Stgs proved the concept as it was adopted by everyone else eventually.

Quoted: Excellent link.  I'll trust the author was stating fact when he described the case dimensions as essentially identical to the GeCo cartridge.  My major source, Edward Ezell even noted that there was a good possibility that Soviet spies obtained samples of the GeCo cartridge.  The move to an intermediate cartridge and a select fire weapon was started before WWII.  The M43 cartridge may have been copied from the earlier GeCo round, but it wasn't a copy of the German M-43 cartridge.  Certainly the German experience with the Stgs proved the concept as it was adopted by everyone else eventually.

That's all I'm trying to state, no it wasn't a copy, but it also wasn't a complete random coincedence of development either.

When people say the ak47 was a copy of the STG44, they are incorrect, but when people state the that the russians came up with the ak47 completely on their own never refrencing the stg44 design or combat record, they are also incorrect.  Yes they had all of the pieces developed in previous guns, so did the japanese, and the US.  But, the germans were the first to put the pieces together in an effective package and put it to use, and the russians learned from them.  They developed their own gun to meet a similiar criteria that the STG44 provided for the germans.  Would the Russians have arrived at an AK47 type weapon on their own, if the germans had never made any assault rifles?  Probably, but my guess would be not for another decade or more.  And if WWII hadn't happened, there might not be ak47s, m16s, or any assault rifles even today.  Not to say that the idea wasn't there, but the wartime reference for combat until WWII was WWI, and in that war high-powered bolt action rifles with 1000+ meter ranges proved to be the most combat effective armament for the infanty.