7.62x51 vs. 7.62x39

[Ownerus]

Basically, the Russians know how to make practical, effective, and cheap weapon systems. Better than any other country in the history of firearms.

No, more accurately, they made adequate arms in huge numbers over many decades without significant changes or improvements. Made essentially with slave labor. So now they are cheap for us to buy and the fact that they used archaic (esp the M1891 variations) designs over many years is assumed to mean they were really good. The MN rifle was a decent design of it's era but really not that simple to manufacture compared to other designs. Nor are it's ergonomics anything to write home about. Even the vaunted AK design, which is really just a packaging job of other existing technology of the day, is only good (reliable and relatively easy to manufacture) at the expense of weight and accuracy. Every design is a trade-off but I think the Russian stuff gets more credit for super wonderfulness than is objectively justified.

As for the diameter question of the OP, pretty much all the stuff's been covered but to try to condense, the diameter callout can be the bullet diameter, the groove diameter (usually approximately the same), or the bore diameter (usually .008-.012" smaller than groove diameter) or some approximation thereof. OR some name that just sounds good. For instance a .44 Mag bullet is .429, a .44 cap and ball revolver ball .451, a pretty big difference but hey, "Forty Three Magnum" doesn't quite have the same ring does it?

Then of course to add to the confusion are the rounding issues. Is .300" 7.62mm...or 7.61mm...or 7.63mm? Yes at that many decimal places. Ultimately you have to study the particular cartridge/firearm.

 

[SurvivalistSong]

No, more accurately, they made adequate arms in huge numbers over many decades without significant changes or improvements. Made essentially with slave labor. So now they are cheap for us to buy and the fact that they used archaic (esp the M1891 variations) designs over many years is assumed to mean they were really good. The MN rifle was a decent design of it's era but really not that simple to manufacture compared to other designs. Nor are it's ergonomics anything to write home about. Even the vaunted AK design, which is really just a packaging job of other existing technology of the day, is only good (reliable and relatively easy to manufacture) at the expense of weight and accuracy. Every design is a trade-off but I think the Russian stuff gets more credit for super wonderfulness than is objectively justified.

As for the diameter question of the OP, pretty much all the stuff's been covered but to try to condense, the diameter callout can be the bullet diameter, the groove diameter (usually approximately the same), or the bore diameter (usually .008-.012" smaller than groove diameter) or some approximation thereof. OR some name that just sounds good. For instance a .44 Mag bullet is .429, a .44 cap and ball revolver ball .451, a pretty big difference but hey, "Forty Three Magnum" doesn't quite have the same ring does it?

Then of course to add to the confusion are the rounding issues. Is .300" 7.62mm...or 7.61mm...or 7.63mm? Yes at that many decimal places. Ultimately you have to study the particular cartridge/firearm.

Time for another friendly debate


Yes, I fully agree with you that the better way of saying it is they made adequate weapon systems in huge numbers. But the wonderfulness of com-bloc/eastern european/soviet/russian weapon systems is that they are cheap and the ammo plentiful.

Why?

Because of, like you said, "slave" labor. That is the wonder of a communist/socialist labor force. You can produce goods at such a low cost, which translates to being able to produce millions upon millions of them. Sure, it's not good in a humanistic view... but when it comes to producing weapons, it is a wonder by itself.

The MN was not simple to manufacture compared to other designs? It is my understanding that the mosin was one of THE simplest bolt action rifles to manufacture during both world wars. And when the russians lowered quality control during WWII and made design compromises like making round receivers, high wall, etc... it only took 5 man hours to manufacture a complete mosin rifle. I've disassembled a mosin nagant rifle in the past when i owned one (completely stripped it to about 70%), and it completely amazed me how simple each mechanism within the rifle was. It's loose tolerances, which at an engineering standpoint is bad, gave it legendary reliability. If anything, the German mauser was much harder to manufacture due to its tight tolerances.

As for the AK being a packaging job of existing technologies of the day, you could say that about any weapon system. Even the famed "first assault rifle" german StG 44 was just a packaging job of the various submachine guns of the day modified to accept a intermediate rifle cartridge. I would say the only common rifle of today that wasn't a repackaging job was the american M16, since no other gun used polymer/plastic and the Stoner bolt carrier design was pretty goddam unique.




Now I'm no gun expert by any stretch of the imagination, so I may be wrong about a lot of the things I've stated, but I would like to think there is a certain element of "wonderfulness" to russian weapon systems that can compete to the "wonderfulness" of say... german firearms of that time period.

 

[trainsktg]

No, more accurately, they made adequate arms in huge numbers over many decades without significant changes or improvements. Made essentially with slave labor. So now they are cheap for us to buy and the fact that they used archaic (esp the M1891 variations) designs over many years is assumed to mean they were really good. The MN rifle was a decent design of it's era but really not that simple to manufacture compared to other designs. Nor are it's ergonomics anything to write home about. Even the vaunted AK design, which is really just a packaging job of other existing technology of the day, is only good (reliable and relatively easy to manufacture) at the expense of weight and accuracy. Every design is a trade-off but I think the Russian stuff gets more credit for super wonderfulness than is objectively justified.

Actually, there is alot of good subtle engineering in the Communist rifles. My favorite to point out is the 7.62x39 round with its distinctive tapered case. The taper makes it much harder for a fired case to get stuck in a corroded chamber. This is a good thing for a combat weapon owned by a soldier from a poor country, or one cut off for a long period of time from logistical support. When the M16 was first fielded, its reputation as a Jamomatic (to the detriment of many dead GIs) was earned by the tendency of the straight walled .223 round to stick in those early non-chromed chambers which pitted quickly in the wet environment.

Now, one rifle that IMHO equals an AK for reliability and simplicity is the French MAS 49/56. It features a direct impingement system, is extremely light and accurate, and has a return-to-zero scope system. If they French had chambered it in 7.62 NATO instead of 7.5x54 French and supplied it with a 20 round magazine instead of a 10, the G3 and M14 would have been stillborn. (Century rifles chambered in 7.62 NATO don't count...they worked fine before those gorillas got ahold of them.)

Keith

 

[SurvivalistSong]

Yup. There's a reason why the AK-47 design has spawned countless variations and weapon systems for the russian/east-bloc military. These include the RPK, PSL, dragunov (to some extent), etc.

 

[Ownerus]

The MN was not simple to manufacture compared to other designs?

Just dismantle and examine the bolt for instance. Multiple parts and a number of internal trepanning and broaching processes that are not simple. Once it's properly tooled, you can build anything. That doesn't mean it's a simple design. Most of the Mauser derivatives, especially the Arisaka, are quite a bit simpler.

...I would like to think there is a certain element of "wonderfulness" to russian weapon systems that can compete to the "wonderfulness" of say... german firearms of that time period.

True. And that element is quantity. I think it's attributed to Stalin..."quantity has a quality all it's own"

 

[trainsktg]

Although the Russians were building more tanks in a month than the Germans were building in a year, there is no dispute that the T34/85 was the best medium tank of WWII. Mass quantity doesn't necessarily mean poor quality.

Keith

 

[SurvivalistSong]

Just dismantle and examine the bolt for instance. Multiple parts and a number of internal trepanning and broaching processes that are not simple. Once it's properly tooled, you can build anything. That doesn't mean it's a simple design. Most of the Mauser derivatives, especially the Arisaka, are quite a bit simpler.



True. And that element is quantity. I think it's attributed to Stalin..."quantity has a quality all it's own"

Well I've disassembled both mauser and mosin bolts before, and if my memory serves me correct, the mosin bolt design is indeed alittle more complicated than the mauser bolt design since the mosin design has a rotating bolt head that rotates with the bolt body (may be wrong on this). I did a little more research on this topic, and apparently there are 3 major bolt designs: 1.) Mosin 2.) Mauser 3.) Lee-Enfield. All modern day bolt-action rifles use some variation of these 3. (ofcourse there are exceptions like the straight pull mannlicher m95 steyr, which i've also owned before and LOVED, but the ammo for it was ridiculously expensive, so I sold the rifle ).




Yup. Quantity. Like I said, commie/socialist workforce can do wonders when it comes to military production. And the thing is, since it was under communist philosophies, no private entities greatly profited from all this arms production. Unlike capitalist nation-states such as america that had and still has a large military-industrial complex that makes a few people in the country extremely wealthy.

Now I'm not praising communist philosophies... I'm only explaining why my firearms collection consists 75% of soviet/russian rifles and handguns

I personally like the indestructible feel and design of russian firearms. And yes, the drawback is extra weight, but I appreciate the feel of stamped steel and wood after holding my polymer-filled AR-15.

 

[Ownerus]

Yup. Quantity. Like I said, commie/socialist workforce can do wonders when it comes to military production. And the thing is, since it was under communist philosophies, no private entities greatly profited from all this arms production. Unlike capitalist nation-states such as america that had and still has a large military-industrial complex that makes a few people in the country extremely wealthy.

To the extent the military industrial complex exists in the US, it essentially IS the Soviet system where wealth, favors and privileges go to the politically well connected. Stalin and his henchmen were extremely wealthy in real terms. As for their system "working wonders", don't forget that the US supplied HUGE amounts of war material to the USSR during the war without which Hitler would likely have eventually run over them. As for their "low cost production", perhaps if you measure it by the number of rubles spent by the government but not if you measure actual cost. The cost is actually extremely high, it's just transferred onto the backs of the sacrificial workers. Ask the surviving Ukrainians about the wonderful communist industrialization.

No, the free market system runs circles around socialism/communism. And it does it without starving to death huge swaths of the population. Look at the vast amount of innovation in firearms in America compared to Russia. Look at the M1 Garand if you want rugged and dependable. A rifle vastly superior to anything in the world in it's time and developed at least partly during the Great Depression (again, without starving to death millions of Americans). Also look at all the work of Browning, J.D. Petersen, etc. to see the results of free men in a free market.

I do understand what you're saying, I just think it's based on a misconception created by the fact that soviet arms are available to US cheaply over the last couple of decades.

I personally like the indestructible feel and design of russian firearms. And yes, the drawback is extra weight, but I appreciate the feel of stamped steel and wood after holding my polymer-filled AR-15.

I like them too but for different reasons. I find them historically interesting and being inexpensive to us now doesn't hurt either but they tend to be clubby and a bit awkward. They fall short in most areas when compared to their American contemporaries. The M16/AK debate being somewhat of an exception due to the insertion of politics into the M16 leading to premature adoption.

 

[trainsktg]

To the extent the military industrial complex exists in the US, it essentially IS the Soviet system where wealth, favors and privileges go to the politically well connected. Stalin and his henchmen were extremely wealthy in real terms. As for their system "working wonders", don't forget that the US supplied HUGE amounts of war material to the USSR during the war without which Hitler would likely have eventually run over them. As for their "low cost production", perhaps if you measure it by the number of rubles spent by the government but not if you measure actual cost. The cost is actually extremely high, it's just transferred onto the backs of the sacrificial workers. Ask the surviving Ukrainians about the wonderful communist industrialization.

No, the free market system runs circles around socialism/communism. And it does it without starving to death huge swaths of the population. Look at the vast amount of innovation in firearms in America compared to Russia. Look at the M1 Garand if you want rugged and dependable. A rifle vastly superior to anything in the world in it's time and developed at least partly during the Great Depression (again, without starving to death millions of Americans). Also look at all the work of Browning, J.D. Petersen, etc. to see the results of free men in a free market.

I do understand what you're saying, I just think it's based on a misconception created by the fact that soviet arms are available to US cheaply over the last couple of decades.



I like them too but for different reasons. I find them historically interesting and being inexpensive to us now doesn't hurt either but they tend to be clubby and a bit awkward. They fall short in most areas when compared to their American contemporaries. The M16/AK debate being somewhat of an exception due to the insertion of politics into the M16 leading to premature adoption.

All good points. The Soviet Gulag system, with its arbitrary arrest quotas, was essential in keeping millions of people available as a cheap labor pool. And they certainly required massive amounts of materiel aid during WWII to keep on fighting. But they still were capable of innovation. Although the Garand is an excellent weapon, its en bloc clip was somewhat of a throwback to other clip fed rifles like Mannlichers. And if you try to run a round heavier than the standard M2 Ball, you'll break the oprod. At the same time, the Soviets were fielding a semiautomatic rifle chambered in 7.62x54 with a 10 round detachable box magazine and an adjustable gas system. This allowed for quicker reloads with 25% more shots between reloads and the use of any battlefield-pickup 7.62x54 without fear of breaking the rifle. Of course the SVT has its own problems, but unlike the M16 which, because of the politics involved, was somewhat of a beta model when it was introduced, the Soviets were already fighting on their own soil and it was deemed expedient to not correct the SVT faults and instead concentrate on continued production of the Mosin Nagant.

Keith

 

[Ownerus]

Certainly the M1 clip is not the be all end all. But I think one has to look at the M1 en bloc clip in the context of it's time. It allowed every round of rifle ammunition to be issued already in the clip economically and the individual clip is much simpler than a box magazine. Remember, the "other guys" were fielding hand cranked five shot rifles at the time.

As for the "you'll break the op rod" issue. I consider that largely an internet myth. There were issues of op rod failure on earlier models due to a sharp corner on the op rod in the area near the hooks (metal fatigue and stress risers weren't well understood at the time) but that was corrected by adding a radius to that spot. In terms of personal experience, as a foolish yoot long ago, not knowing much about burn rates etc., I loaded some 180 gr bullets with 4320 (too slow) and fired them in Dad's Garand. The high pressure point was too late in the barrel time and really spiked the op rod. It jerked the rim off of the case (several times before my dim-bulb brain decided something was amiss) but did not bend, much less break the op rod. Not saying it can't happen but the M1 gas system is nowhere near as fragile as the internet era has made it out to be.

Being a contrary old so and so, I'd also disagree with the contention that the SVT is faster to reload. It may be equally fast until you run out of loaded magazines. The 20% increase in capacity would be of little value at that point. I recall reading in "Band of Brothers" an account of one firefight where Captain Winters himself fired something like 450 rounds from his M1. Not having to stop and refill box magazines might not have been that great of a disadvantage.

Granted, the SVT was fielded as an underdeveloped rifle but looking at the design, I doubt it could ever be truly robust in the way the M1 was. The fact that it required a fluted chamber to allow reliable extraction displays a lack of proper timing in the gas system which is part of why it required an adjustable gas port to fine tune for different ammunition. A historically interesting rifle nonetheless.

Apologies for the thread hi-jack and sorry for being so long-winded but I do enjoy the conversation.

 

[trainsktg]

No apologies necessary. I certainly get a lot more from exchanges like this than the more typical 'US is The Best, Everyone Else Sucks' banter.



Keith