TexasCHLforum.com

WheySmart wrote:I have fired 7.62x39 several times and the recoil is not even really noticeable, it kicks barely enough to bump fire in my experience. I don't know about the AR's 5.56 round though, I have never shot that before. From what I have heard it is about the same.

The 5.56 round kicks a little in an AR15/M16 if everything works right. It's when it DOESN'T work right that it kicks quite a bit. I had an M16 that was "adjusted" in BCT back in the late 70's that gave me a pretty good smack when the buffer assembly was jacked up and wouldn't let the bolt recoil properly. The DI had everyone fire one round like that so we'd know what the buffer assembly did when it was working right. I don't know AKs, but I understand they have a similar assembly to reduce the recoil the shooter feels.

WheySmart wrote:
You are wrong in stating the mp43/44 was developed that early, they were made during the middle-later part of the war (around 1942, were not issued to troops until late 1943.) and they are also the same gun. It is still a mystery as to why they changed the name to mp44, mp43's and mp44's are identical...wierd huh?

When you state a change in cartridge are you really stating caliber? The first really successful assault rifle was the AK47 and it's design is made to "work" at ranges up to 300yds where normal combat takes place, in order to reduce recoil one tihng that would help would be to decrease the charge, not increase...I think you must be speaking of the change from the mp44's 7.92mm slug and the smaller 5.56mm and 7.62mm, correct me if I am mistaken.

And thats the reason I changed my example to the Thompson, the BAR lacks semi-auto.

Sources:
Small Arms of World War II by Chris Chant

I used a different source with this text:

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as00-e.htm (4th paragraph)

The next step in this history was made by Germany - in the 1930's, theybegan research to develop a medium-power cartridge, which would be much lighter than 7.92mm German and easier to fire accurately in full-auto mode. This development led to the 7.92x33mm cartridge (Pistolenpatrone 7.92mm). The Germans developed some weapons designs for this load, including the MP43 and Stg.44, but this was too late for Germany... Further development of such designs was made by German engineers in Spain, and later in West Germany, and led to the HK G3/G41 family of battle&assault rifles.

I mis-read this to imply that the MP43 & MP44 were developed in the '30s, when in fact it says that the cartridge development that lead to the MP43/44 started in the '30s. My mistake.

Yes, I was referring to the change from earlier cartridges of various sizes such as the 7.92x33mm cartridge to the 5.56x45mm (e.g - M855 & predecessors) & 7.62x39mm (Soviet) or 7.62x51mm (NATO) cartridges as the final development in the process that lead to modern assault rifles in the form we know them now. Most people rate the effective range of the AK47 at about 400 meters (450 yards) and the M16/M4 at somewhere between 450 and 600 yards (that is why I said "ranges up to 600 yards"). That would be a round that is smaller (requiring less charge as you said) but increasing the effective range (as compared to the .45 ACP round, for example).

In fact, the recoil of an unbuffered M855 round can be significant. I had supposed that the same was true of the 7.62x39 round, but since I've never fired one, my knowledge of this is limited. The design of the mechanisms in the gas operated bolt (e.g. - M16/M4/AK47) as opposed to blow-back (e.g. - the Thompson) or manual bolt, combined with the smaller projectile reduces the recoil of the shot, and helps improve accuracy even with a higher velocity round and a longer effective range.

FWIW, Wikipedia has a pretty good discussion of the differences at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgewehr_44

WheySmart wrote:

G.C.Montgomery wrote:

WheySmart wrote:Actually I read an article about a machinist who was manufacturing the full-auto receiver and selling them on the black market...got caught and, as the story goes, he is serving about 15 years.

It has to be based on ammo too though since guns like the BAR can fire...wait, it has full auto and slow auto...does that count as selective fire? It fires a full power .30-06 rifle round so it dosn't meet ammo requirements, but does that firing capablility count? What does burst fire count as?

Ok, guns like the Thompson can fire semi-auto and full-auto. It COULD be considered an assault rifle but is obviosly different from an AK, the ammo is a very important part of the definition.

Actually, the BAR is considered a "light" machinegun. Seems like later models only fired full-auto. And the Thompson, being a pistol caliber firearm, is called a "sub-machinegun." Neither, in that case, could really be called an "assault rifle."

Yes, exactly. That is why neither count as assault rifles...don't fire the intermediate round, it is an important aspect to consider when categorizing a weapon.

Some of the several models of Thompson are either fully auto only or semi-auto only, in which case they wouldn't qualify under my definition, but you are correct that many of the models are select fire.


M1927 with 50 rounds drum (semiauto, new manufacture, with 16" barrel)
(source: http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg29-e.htm)

The Thompson is considered by some to be an early model of assault rifle (very similar to those developed by the Russian Col. Federov & Germans with the MP43 and early MP44 in the '30s) that was abandoned for other models that were more reliable, or fired cartridges that were effective at longer ranges (up to 600 yards), or that had a more controllable recoil (and thus better accuracy) like the AK47 and AR15/M16/M4. I would argue that it is more of a hybrid weapon or an experimental design in the earlier development phases of the form. In a way, asking if the Thompson is an assault rifle or a submachine gun or a machine pistol is sort of like asking if the rapier is a short sword or a long sword.

Since the developers also went to smaller caliber rounds (typically 5.56mm or 7.62mm) at the same time, I suppose that the bullet caliber could be considered PART of the definition, but my personal opinion is that the select fire property is a primary property, and the caliber of the rounds used is a secondary property that was adopted to enhance the effectiveness of the design.

As to the BAR, I bet anyone shot with one feels assaulted...

But seriously, the BAR shoots only slow burst/fast burst (approx. 450 or 600 rpm), not semi-auto, and therefore fails to qualify under the disputed definition. If it had a semi-auto mode in addition to the ones mentioned...

Liberty wrote:

Mithras61 wrote:Generally (to me), an assault rifle is one that has three positions on its fire selector - safe, semi-automatic and automatic.

Some folks think the AKs and ARs available these days are assault rifles, but unless they fire both semi- and fully automatic, they aren't (and no, being able to squeeze off a single round on a weapon designed for fully automatic fire doesn't count...). Yes, the ammo carries some weight, but if it isn't selective firing, it isn't an assault rifle.

would it be fair to call such rifles "Wannabee Assault Weapons"

I suppose that with some advanced smithing (or even a good lower receiver) they could become an assault rifle, so I guess "wannabees" is about right.

Generally (to me), an assault rifle is one that has three positions on its fire selector - safe, semi-automatic and automatic.

Some folks think the AKs and ARs available these days are assault rifles, but unless they fire both semi- and fully automatic, they aren't (and no, being able to squeeze off a single round on a weapon designed for fully automatic fire doesn't count...). Yes, the ammo carries some weight, but if it isn't selective firing, it isn't an assault rifle.