Third Party Press

Mauser Analysis of the SVT40

RyanE

Baby Face
Staff member
Going through my files, and I rediscovered this interesting document. Looked through my old posts and it looks like I never posted it? Don't know why.

This is an engineering and manufacturing analysis of the SVT40 performed by Mauser in October of 1941. The rifle provided to Mauser was Izhevsk 1941 rifle serial number CH167.

The 1946 dated note on the front cover states the document is secret, to be kept under lock and key, and not to be transferred around the KTA (I assume the Swiss Kriegstechnische Abteilung) without proper documentation. Interestingly, someone has censored the names of the Mauser engineers who conducted the analysis by cutting it out of the report.
 

Attachments

  • SVT#1_Page_1.jpg
    SVT#1_Page_1.jpg
    294.5 KB · Views: 58
  • SVT#1_Page_2.jpg
    SVT#1_Page_2.jpg
    283.3 KB · Views: 86
  • SVT#2_Page_01.jpg
    SVT#2_Page_01.jpg
    156.5 KB · Views: 59
  • SVT#2_Page_03.jpg
    SVT#2_Page_03.jpg
    216.6 KB · Views: 51
  • SVT#2_Page_05.jpg
    SVT#2_Page_05.jpg
    221.2 KB · Views: 42
  • SVT#2_Page_07.jpg
    SVT#2_Page_07.jpg
    191 KB · Views: 34
  • SVT#2_Page_09.jpg
    SVT#2_Page_09.jpg
    205.5 KB · Views: 27
  • SVT#2_Page_11.jpg
    SVT#2_Page_11.jpg
    229.7 KB · Views: 27
  • SVT#2_Page_13.jpg
    SVT#2_Page_13.jpg
    196.6 KB · Views: 29
  • SVT#2_Page_15.jpg
    SVT#2_Page_15.jpg
    158.4 KB · Views: 24
  • SVT#2_Page_17.jpg
    SVT#2_Page_17.jpg
    180.8 KB · Views: 25
  • SVT#2_Page_19.jpg
    SVT#2_Page_19.jpg
    237.7 KB · Views: 26
  • SVT#2_Page_21.jpg
    SVT#2_Page_21.jpg
    243.3 KB · Views: 27
  • SVT#2_Page_23.jpg
    SVT#2_Page_23.jpg
    218.8 KB · Views: 30
  • SVT#2_Page_25.jpg
    SVT#2_Page_25.jpg
    226.2 KB · Views: 26
  • SVT#2_Page_27.jpg
    SVT#2_Page_27.jpg
    224.4 KB · Views: 28
  • SVT#2_Page_29.jpg
    SVT#2_Page_29.jpg
    165.8 KB · Views: 57
  • SVT#2_Page_31.jpg
    SVT#2_Page_31.jpg
    178.4 KB · Views: 42
  • SVT#2_Page_33.jpg
    SVT#2_Page_33.jpg
    168.4 KB · Views: 30
  • SVT#2_Page_35.jpg
    SVT#2_Page_35.jpg
    176.2 KB · Views: 26
- Dossier reference code: E5150C-01#1971/203#57*

- Dossier title: Mauser-Werke, Oberndorf am Neckar, Beschreibung und Untersuchungsergebnisse des russischen Selbstlade-Infanteriegewehres Nr. 167, Mod. 1940 (Tokarew), Kal. 7,62

Swiss Federal Archives (SFA)
 
Good stuff! Even with the superior technology/design in their laps, Mauser still managed to pump out G41Ms through 1942.:facepalm:
 
That is good stuff, thanks for posting Ryan. I wish I understood German better. What was Mauser’s take on the SVT? As said above, they had a better gas system in front of them.....
 
I think from what I read their hands were tied initially as was Walther with the gas system design. Mausers attempts at the self loading rifle was a cluster. Maybe done on purpose as the K98k was a money maker.

Walter as we know finally tossed out the gas system restrictions and finished with the Gew43.


I think it would have gone against everything they stood for to out right copy any Soviet weapons. Even though they couldn't help themselves and stole many an idea from them.
 
That is good stuff, thanks for posting Ryan. I wish I understood German better. What was Mauser’s take on the SVT? As said above, they had a better gas system in front of them.....

As I read it, I looked for such an analysis and was disappointed. It seems that the report confines itself to simply description and performance. In ours we often make comparisons, to include deployment, conditions of employment (night, poor weather, carrying, BL, etc). It seems that they either did not have anything they would compare it to, or that they (more tellingly) did not want to compare it to anything. Perhaps they knew that they had a pretty simple design in front of them, while overly long and heavy, but were told not to do so. As I said, disappointing.
But thanks, nonetheless to Ryan for finding and posting such a glimpse inside their thinking! Sometimes what is left unsaid speaks louder than what was said.
 
As I read it, I looked for such an analysis and was disappointed. It seems that the report confines itself to simply description and performance. In ours we often make comparisons, to include deployment, conditions of employment (night, poor weather, carrying, BL, etc). It seems that they either did not have anything they would compare it to, or that they (more tellingly) did not want to compare it to anything. Perhaps they knew that they had a pretty simple design in front of them, while overly long and heavy, but were told not to do so. As I said, disappointing.
But thanks, nonetheless to Ryan for finding and posting such a glimpse inside their thinking! Sometimes what is left unsaid speaks louder than what was said.

The report also elaborates on workmanship and manufacturing requirements. It is noted that many parts, although stamped, needed additional welding and reinforcement. It was also noted that the bolt was of lesser surface hardness which was assumed to be acceptable as the bolt material generally seemed to be of high quality steel. The entire front sight assembly was deemed over the top as it required multiple complex operations to manufacture.
And yes, Mauser had no leg to stand on after birthing the G41(M). But then again, they also gave the world the grandfather of the G3, so I guess we're even here.
 
Why would any firearms engineer advance a Bang principle semi-auto system over a gas/piston arrangement? I could see doing so if that was all there was, but by the time the G.41s were designed there were successful gas/piston weapons tested, adopted, and fielded, such as the AVT/SVT and M1.
 
As I read it, I looked for such an analysis and was disappointed. It seems that the report confines itself to simply description and performance. In ours we often make comparisons, to include deployment, conditions of employment (night, poor weather, carrying, BL, etc). It seems that they either did not have anything they would compare it to, or that they (more tellingly) did not want to compare it to anything. Perhaps they knew that they had a pretty simple design in front of them, while overly long and heavy, but were told not to do so. As I said, disappointing.
But thanks, nonetheless to Ryan for finding and posting such a glimpse inside their thinking! Sometimes what is left unsaid speaks louder than what was said.

Thanks Matt, +1 on your last observation.
 
Cool doc, thanks for posting it. It's interesting to see the process of T&E'ing captured equipment at that time, even before the idea and use of intermediate cartridges came into play.

Excerpts from U.S. Army Intelligence Bulletin, 1946.

https://www.lonesentry.com/articles/tokarev_m1940/index.html

Another neat document! It's ironic that even with being able to pick and choose from aspects of other contemporary designs, US Ordnance still went forward with a modernized, magazine fed M1 Garand :googlie
 
I did get a booklet printed up from this document if anyone is interested.
 

Attachments

  • 73C9FA8C-E4B5-49E6-9DFF-A4624E8310A5.jpg
    73C9FA8C-E4B5-49E6-9DFF-A4624E8310A5.jpg
    349.6 KB · Views: 28
  • A258F0C5-475C-481B-80BF-F9F74EF4A997.jpg
    A258F0C5-475C-481B-80BF-F9F74EF4A997.jpg
    281.4 KB · Views: 27
  • 4B0EF14A-827A-469F-8346-56271CBE61AE.jpg
    4B0EF14A-827A-469F-8346-56271CBE61AE.jpg
    290.8 KB · Views: 27
Cool doc, thanks for posting it. It's interesting to see the process of T&E'ing captured equipment at that time, even before the idea and use of intermediate cartridges came into play.



Another neat document! It's ironic that even with being able to pick and choose from aspects of other contemporary designs, US Ordnance still went forward with a modernized, magazine fed M1 Garand :googlie

Being new to this world, what is the problem with the M1 design?

Thanks
 
Not a problem, but like alot of rifles of it's era, the M14 still fired a full power (vs. intermediate) cartridge. It has issues with full auto controllability, finicky sights and being an upgrade to the M1 rather than a design built to reflect newer and more current battlefield realities. A USMC Vietnam vet I knew hated the M14, and he killed paper and people with it, but vastly preferred the M16 and later M4 platforms.
 
Not a problem, but like alot of rifles of it's era, the M14 still fired a full power (vs. intermediate) cartridge. It has issues with full auto controllability, finicky sights and being an upgrade to the M1 rather than a design built to reflect newer and more current battlefield realities. A USMC Vietnam vet I knew hated the M14, and he killed paper and people with it, but vastly preferred the M16 and later M4 platforms.

I think both the M14 and the (current) M16 platform are very good performers for their intended purpose. The M14 was designed for rifleman to engage the enemy at medium to long range with the ability to make
aimed shots on individuals. The long barrel, refined sights, and full power cartridge all make sense in that context. Now move the battlefield to Vietnam, where the visibility and distance to enemy may be measured in a few feet, not hundreds of yards, and all those attributes can be liabilities. The M16 platform with its light weight and full auto capability, made possible by a smaller, low recoil cartridge was designed to meet the needs of this new battlefield. Fast forward three decades or so, and the long range capabilities of the M14 were sorely missed in Afghanistan and Iraq. The range limitations of the M16 platform were enough of a concern for the military to pull many of the remaining M14s (thousands were dumped in the ocean during the Clinton administration) out of storage and reissue them on a limited basis as DMRs. The military made many modifications to the M16 platform to increase its effective range, usually involving changes in barrel profile and length, hand guards, and optics, and probably most important, different bullet designs and weights. I have a friend in the SEALs and I know he carried a MK12 during one of his deployments in Iraq and was happy with it. Despite its evolution, the M16 in .223 is never going to have the same range capabilities of a full power cartridge. Having said that, most engagements are not going to require 400 yard+ range capability, and the current M4 is a better choice for broad deployment than an M14 would be, in my opinion.
I think liking or not liking the M14 versus the M16 depends on large part on when and where either was issued. My brother joined the Marines in 1964. Trained and qualified expert with the M14, and carried it to Vietnam. He speaks very highly of it. Admittedly, long, heavy and semi only, ( in the USMC at that time only the squad automatic rifleman, the former BAR man, was issued a full auto version) the thing that mattered to him was, it was reliable. His unit was re equipped in country with the original M16 platform. He did, and still does, despise it, and said most of his unit felt the same. I think from listening to him, that some of it was just bias against its appearance. With its plastic furniture, to him it looked like a toy, not a real rifle. But his dislike for it is also based on his field experiences. He said the rifles routinely jammed. We know now that much of the problem was not the fault of the rifle, but was caused by the ammunition issued. The military used a different powder than what was used in the rifles development, and even in its early field use by SF troops. Whatever the cause, his early experience with the M16 created a perception he continues to carry, the M16 is junk. No amount of argument about the rifles continued development through its various versions, or many years of successful use will change his mind.

I am not a veteran, and do not pretend to speak from any pretense of authority, but I think all evidence points to the current M16/M4 platform as being about as good as any general issue rifle available. It is never going to be a long range champion, and I think the military has accepted that and until the M/16 is replaced will simply supplement with specialty weapons.

Please excuse my overly long and probably boring post, I should have just said, I think they are both good, one better than the other depending on circumstances.
 
Runner,
That's a very good recitation of the reality of the debate. I can tell you that I've shot decent sized hogs and javelina with both AR and M1A. There is a definite difference between the two rounds striking a hog. I've spun some around with a 7.62 NATO, anchoring some like they were struck by lightening. I've hit them solid with 5.56 and a puff of dust rises off their flanks and they run off. I've dropped them too with an AR. Overall, if I had to carry something it would be an ACOG equipped M4A3.
Cheers,
HB
 
Runner,
That's a very good recitation of the reality of the debate. I can tell you that I've shot decent sized hogs and javelina with both AR and M1A. There is a definite difference between the two rounds striking a hog. I've spun some around with a 7.62 NATO, anchoring some like they were struck by lightening. I've hit them solid with 5.56 and a puff of dust rises off their flanks and they run off. I've dropped them too with an AR. Overall, if I had to carry something it would be an ACOG equipped M4A3.
Cheers,
HB


I have never fired an M1A, but I used to (long ago) shoot competition with a M1 Garand. I liked it, and was impressed with its capabilities. I was lucky enough to get some early instruction from a USMC rifle instructor, and through him, use of the old range at Fort Knox Ky. We shot at 1, 2, 4, and 6 hundred yards, with issue sights, and I shocked myself at how well I shot. Getting the one on one professional instruction was huge. When I strapped in the sling in prone position, he grabbed the sling to test the tension, and said take it in two notches, I told him that was not possible, I was wrong, it was, and I shot very consistently at 600 yards.

If I had to carry something today, my choice would be very similar to yours, if I did not have access to a suppressor, unfortunately I don't own one, I would prefer a 16 inch barrel and a 1 to 6 variable power optic.
 

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top