Collector Grade is known for being a premiere publisher of technical firearms reference books, and I would be willing to argue that “Sturmgewehr!” by Hans-Dieter Handrich is the best book they have yet printed. The book was originally printed inn 2004, and by the time I started looking for a copy myself, it was out of print and the price had jumped to at least $250, when I could even find a copy. I could never quite bring myself to pay that much, and so I was very excited when I learned that an expanded second edition was in the works. Well, that second edition is available now, and it’s even better than I had anticipated.
What makes Sturmgewehr! such an excellent book in my opinion is how it tackles the story of the MP43/MP44/StG44 from several different angles in depth. It has the mechanical development of the gun from prewar experiments to the open-bolt MKb-42 trials guns to the production versions. But it also puts those guns in historical context, how they related to the other weapons being used by both Germany and other nations. It discusses how the design criteria of the Sturmgewehr were arrived at, in terms of logistics and manufacturing methodologies. It explains in detail the political disagreements and convoluted process of weapon design and adoption in Germany, including the three direct rejections of the concept by Hitler.
In short, it gives you the fully-rounded story of how the German military conceived and implemented a whole new class of small arms. In this way, it is really much more than just a book about a single gun’s history – what you learn reading Handrich’s work will give you insight into virtually all arms design programs of the 20th century, form the Chauchat to the 7.62mm NATO rifle trials to the SA80.
If you already have a copy of the original work, you will probably want this one as well, to get the addition 120 pages of information that have been added. And it should go without saying that if you don’t have the original, you should absolutely get a copy of this new edition before it also falls out of print! The price is $130, and it is available only direct from Collector Grade Publications.
Hi Ian,
Two comments:
I was very interested in the photo of a wire severing device. I don’t understand the principal and don’t see any advantage to this device as opposed to a common pair of side cutters. Maybe you could enlighten us on this device.
Second, at the bottom of your articles it states “what I am reading now”. You have listed “The General” for several months and I am sure it is just an oversight. We would love to have that feature updated.
Thanks again for the fine work you do.
Jim Kelly
I would think time savings is the major reason the wire severing device was invented. Advancing under fire, you come across a barb wire obstacle and need to cut through it. It seems it would be quicker to simply place the muzzle of your rifle against the wire and fire than to set your rifle aside, grab some wire cutters, sever the wire(s), replace the wire cutters in their pouch or pocket, grab your rifle and continue the advance. Several assault rifle designs have notched flash hiders that perform the same function, I would think weight savings could be added to those designs as well. Gives you wire cutting capability without having to carry an extra tool.
“Several assault rifle designs have notched flash hiders that perform the same function”
Example: Rk 62
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rk_62
Austrian Bundesheer: Stg.58 [FAL] and Stg. 77 [AUG].
“It explains in detail the political disagreements and convoluted process of weapon design and adoption in Germany, including the three direct rejections of the concept by Hitler.”
Which explain MP (sub-machine gun) designation, as it was used to hide true nature of this weapons. Also, if I am not mistaken, Hitler sometime interfere in arms development, of which one example might be Maus tank.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-german-prototypes/panzer_maus.php
Also, what later become Sd.Kfz. 181 tank was originally to use taper-bore gun which would be lighter than cylinder-bore used finally in smaller turret – it was called VK 36.01 (H), altering gun choice means bigger turret is needed and also hull geometry must be altered (it was too narrow to fit new turret), so it received “sponson” on each side (volume above tracks, browse for images of both tanks and compare their hulls geometry), which increased weight.
https://books.google.pl/books?id=5uoHBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=Tiger+taper-bore+gun&source=bl&ots=J3oq9lWLPj&sig=fNQumIsNL3OjCN5yoEefk2cEe_U&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP67DivqzWAhWjYpoKHQPTCqQQ6AEIJjAH#v=onepage&q=Tiger%20taper-bore%20gun&f=false
Wow. Although I have not seen a copy of this book, $130 sounds like a bargain. I’ll start saving up.
A couple of gratuitous comments (I’m usually good for a few ;-))
1) I wish you had given us a longer look at the photo on the inside of the front cover, which showed three rifles, ranging from “dug relic” to apparently well preserved. I don’t mind admitting that my internal, emotional response was centered around how lucky we are, here in the US, to have not had war after war ravaging our continent. Not far away from where this relic was found there likely lies someone’s brother, husband, father, or son. It seems unlikely that much, if anything, will ever be known about either the rifle or the man who carried it.
2) The book seems indeed to be a treasure trove about the origins of what I believe to be the single most important development in firearms since the invention of gunpowder – the assault rifle.
It was not just mechanical evolution, but the strengths and limitations of humans, which led (over hundreds of years) to what appears to be close to the optimal small arm for battle. We could debate all day long, and sometimes do, about whether the M16, AK series, or which of a host of others are the best, but the truth is that all are pretty fine weapons. And deadly ones.
The impact of the modern assault rifle has literally changed the world. I have no idea what the next generation will bring (who does anyway?). But is seems that the assault rifle is here to stay, and this book appears to tell it’s story.
3) I agree with Jim – the wire severing device is very interesting. Maybe someday there could be a “Forgotten Weapons” video about all of the varied and strange devices that have been attached/combined with firearms over the years.
CG
“We could debate all day long, and sometimes do, about whether the M16, AK series, or which of a host of others are the best, but the truth is that all are pretty fine weapons. And deadly ones.”
There exist differences between inter-mediate cartridge rifles, however it should be noted that there of relatively importance for forces arming themselves for World War III – big scale war, in which tide of war would be turned by atomic/biological/chemical (ABC) weapons, massive tank and other AFV formations, flying vehicles and so on.
is: “(…)there of relatively importance(…)”
should be: “(..)there of relatively small importance(…)”
“no idea what the next generation will bring (who does anyway?)”
From observing past development of fire-arms, possible aims of new development might be:
a) increasing practical Rate-of-Fire (volume of fire)
b) increasing accuracy (increasing possible engagement range)
c) creating weapons as capable as existing, but lighter or smaller
All good points, Daewoo – I suppose that time will tell. I might say that the idea I was really trying to get across is that, when discussing modern soldiers on a modern battlefield, it probably doesn’t matter much whether they are armed with one or another of the (mature) designs of assault rifles. My point is that they all (or mostly all) have one, and have for decades, and likely will for decades to come.
A good example is the technology of caseless ammunition. There are lots of good reasons why this is a great idea. There are even more good reasons why nobody has been able to really make it work. I’m not saying we should give up on it – maybe next week some poor slob will say “Eureka” and figure it out – but I would bet that it isn’t coming anytime soon.
I agree with you in that WWIII and associated horrors such as CBW, nukes, and such are not likely to come anytime soon, nobody can deny that there are a lot of folks blazing away at each other, somewhere in the world, every day, with M16s, AKs, and similar weapons.
CG
As an optimist I think we should adopt all the Russian calibres personally, post haste. They’ve got enough of it, cut resupply issues. After we parachute in and zap their massed tank ranks with Davy Crocketts, in NBC suits obviously as it’s the end of the world.
“zap their massed tank ranks with Davy Crocketts”
Soviet/Russian tanks have commonly radiation protection, even that antique by modern standards – in fact main difference between Т-54 and Т-55 tank was that second has anti-atomic defense. Later Т-55А was introduced with improved atomic protection (hence А).
This system has two main method to improve crew safety:
– defense against blast-wave (pressure), for later T-62 tank it said pressure is roughly 10 lower than in free-air if tank was catch into blast-wave area
– prevention against radioactive particles to interior of tanks
is: “(…)10 lower(…)”
should be: “(…)10 times lower(…)”
No, no… I mean from a 1000 yrds away.
Do you think we’ll let you alone after vaporizing London, and us Moscow. There is a plan, and it involves fecking you up as much as possible in the aftermath. And doubtless vice versa; Nuclear war happening, isn’t a peace treaty.
“Nuclear war happening, isn’t a peace treaty”
Maybe just sum it up, with quote from one movie:
the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! (said by Dr.Strangelove)
“A good example is the technology of caseless ammunition. There are lots of good reasons why this is a great idea. There are even more good reasons why nobody has been able to really make it work. I’m not saying we should give up on it – maybe next week some poor slob will say “Eureka” and figure it out – but I would bet that it isn’t coming anytime soon.”
Russian developed AGS-40 case-less grenade launcher actually entered production, description in Modern Firearms:
http://modernfirearms.net/grenade/rus/balkan-e.html
is out-of-date, this weapon was adopted as 6Г27 «Балкан» (ammunition for it: 7П39) and entered production in 2008
Well, OK. But my comment that you quoted was intended to address your points a, b, and c:
a) increasing practical Rate-of-Fire (volume of fire)
b) increasing accuracy (increasing possible engagement range)
c) creating weapons as capable as existing, but lighter or smaller
The primary advantages to caseless smallarms ammunition are pertinent to your points a and c – potentially very high rates of fire, and lighter weight weapons and ammunition (point b depends on too many other variables for me to make a guess). As far as assault rifles go, I am not aware of anyone fielding these weapons and none have advanced past, at best, the prototype stage. There is a good reason for this. They don’t work, at least not well enough for anyone who can afford the current other options cares to bet on.
While I admire anyone’s ability to research the daylights out of an obscure subject, there is no need to. There are plenty of examples of caseless ammo that worked for special applications. The main armament of an Iowa class battleship uses what could be considered (maybe by a stretch) “caseless” ammunition, and we have the Gyrojet, and rocket balls, and lots of other example (both successful and not).
None have worked for assault rifles, which is really what I was trying to say.
CG
“None have worked for assault rifles, which is really what I was trying to say.”
Yes.
I would say that (truly) case-less cartridge for small arms is over-hyped.
Possible solution might be just changing material of case from steel to polymer.
Or using quasi-case-less design that is semi-combustible cartridge case with combustible forward part and normal (metal) backward part, similar to Soviet 125-mm tank gun propellant unit.
Truly case-less design always have 2 main problems:
– uncontrolled firing of cartridge when rammed into chamber due to heat build-up in barrel (“cooking off”)
– gas-sealing of breech, which is important function of classic cartridge case
With disclaimer that first only apply to full-automatic weapons.
These can be solved, but at a cost of more complicated design.
It is worth that two examples of working case-less sporting rifles:
Daisy V/L and Voere VEC-91. None of them was automatic (self-loading) which resolve issue #1 and simplify issue #2. Production of first was stopped due to legal reasons, second also caused some debate of possible criminal usage, however it demise in U.S. was finally caused by high price of specialized cartridge.
Back to my original points:
a) increasing practical Rate-of-Fire (volume of fire)
b) increasing accuracy (increasing possible engagement range)
c) creating weapons as capable as existing, but lighter or smaller
In fact each of them can be attained without need of case-less cartridges.
a) might be reached by firing multiple projectile in same moment (like shot from shotgun) or with short-burst with high Rate-of-Fire (like in Russian AN-94) or using cartridge with stacked bullet (“duplex” or “triplex”) however that has inherent problem of difference between muzzle velocities of each bullet.
Somewhat similar in concept are MetalStorm weapons, however they are of limited useful as, presently, can not be feed continuously.
b) [approach No.1] can be achieved by increasing muzzle velocity, however brutal force approach of increasing powder charge has its limits and beyond certain point, is uneconomic as it need fast barrel wear (barrel is always costly element of weapon), to attain greater muzzle velocity without much complication of weapon taper-bore adapter installed to muzzle might be used – thus it would be basically scaled down British WWII-era Littlejohn adaptor.
It would need designing socket providing perfect alignment of barrel bore with device bore and ammunition with special (squeeze-able) bullet (and possibly some gas-system adjustment), but otherwise weapon might remain unchanged. Providing than adaptor might be attached/demounted easily weapon might still use normal cartridge, if it is more desirable to use such cartridge or supply of squeezable-bulleted cartridge is impossible. The only major problem of this solution might be users attempting to fire normal bullets through adoptor. I estimate that muzzle velocity of around 1500 m/s can be achieved using this method.
b) [approach No.2] is to achieve greater muzzle velocity, by using discarded-sabot technology, like in British WWII-era 17-pdr AT towed gun. It don’t need altering weapon design, but some problems with manufacturing discarding sabot, which would give high accuracy might be problematic. This solution would probably give more expensive cartridges per example than b) [approach No.1]
b) [approach No.3] is to include ballistic calculator (computer) and range-finder into weapon, however this does many a lot of additional delicate parts and would increase mass
b) [approach No.4] is to use guided bullet, however creating guided bullet for existing rifles/assault rifles is extreme complex technical task. To ease it, I would suggest using new weapon which would be in fact small launchpad rather than rifle and would fire rocket(or otherwise)-propelled fin-stabilized guided projectile of bigger caliber (say 20 mm) than now used bullets, this would give more volume for steering system and would expose said system to smaller g-force as rocket has lower acceleration.
c) can be achieved by usage of lighter (less dense) materials (polymers seems to be trendy nowadays) or using another general layout like so-called bull-pup, Uzi-style magazine-in-grip would also give similar effect, but would require short-enough cartridge, such cartridge might be creating as so-called folded ammunition like: http://weaponsman.com/?p=18214
but classic cartridge (with shorter and fatter case) would pass also
21 pages of table of content alone!
And for all that, U.S. Ordnance kinda dismissed the 8x33mm kurz-patrone… “Meh. Just an improved SMG.. Nothing to see here… Move right along.”
Spanish, French, UK, Belgian experiments with the cartridge would be fascinating too, insofar as it was studied postwar, while the Stg.44 itself was used in limited roles in the DDR/Nationale Volksarmée, the JNA paratroops, the ALN/FLN in Algeria, etc.
Did anyone catch the page turning by the Erma M35? Was that in the 9x25mm Mauser export caliber or what?
Nur zur Info: Das Buch ist unter dem Titel “Sturmgewehr 44: Vorgänger, Entwicklung und Fertigung der revolutionärsten Infanteriewaffe” auch auf deutsch erhältlich.
Vielen dank, guten punkt
CG
What kind of amazes me how much attention is given to importance of Sturmgewehr. Why? Because it was first in a sort of new type of firearm?
But then, if you look at it from greater time prospective, it appears that large volume burst fire has clear disadvantages (inability to maintain point of aim, excessive ammo use, accelerated wear and so on) and current development appears to be in direction of greater reach type of semi-automatic rifle. They are called “designated marksman rifle” to mask the departure.
“They are called “designated marksman rifle” to mask the departure.”
These 2 types of weapon co-exist. Most visible difference is that assault rifle is supposed to be “every man” weapons when said “designated marksman rifle” is to issued to selected. Both co-exist having own advantages and disadvantages.
Well put Daweo
btw, I observe new RF forces small arms development. There is attention to allegedly starting mass production of AM17 (I suppose “malenkiy avtomat”) in addition to SVCh, which may qualify as ‘designated marksman rifle.
Thus with AM17 which is the latest reiteration of “sturmgewehr” we may see demise of AKSU.
“(I suppose “malenkiy avtomat”)”
In fact it seems to stands for автомат малогабаритный. This design is being said to be derived from much earlier МА by Dragunov:
http://weaponland.ru/load/malogabaritnyj_avtomat_dragunova_ma/21-1-0-661
If it would go to into production, that would be next (after KEDR sub-machine gun) “resurrected” design of E.V.Dragunov
Also it is worth nothing that new AM17 has not burst fire more (only FULL, SINGLE and SAFE).
I will just one, hmm… strongly worded, comment from here: https://pikabu.ru/story/malogabaritnyiy_avtomat_am17_5326198
[answer to question about lack of 3-burst mode]:
Потому-что она нахуй не нужна. Через две недели активного использования даже полный дебил начинает сам делать отсечку на заданное количество выстрелов.
I would just assume any translator would allow understanding of main point.
is: “(…)I will just one(…)”
should be: “(…I will just quote one(…)”
It is sort of a favourite to say in reviews regarding German WW2 high-tech weapons that Hitler was to blame for the late operational implementation. While it actually has little to do with the whims of a single person. Up to the middle of 1943 the Germans were in control of the general direction in which the war was heading and no real reason existed to replace the K98 rifle en masse with another grassroots level weapon. Same as there was no haste to replace the BF109 fighter plane with something like the ME262 jet fighter or to add a superheavy tank like the Maus to the tanks already in the field. You do not change horses in the middle of a race you are winning.
Keep in mind that it costs millions if not billions to switch over to another weapon system. Resources you could have used to produce more of the stuff you already have. Exactly what the Soviets did, they were actually phasing in a self-loading rifle, but stopped it to produce more of the Moisant Nagant. So with the T34. It was outperformed by the German Tiger, but the Soviets didn’t replace it and went on to produce more T34’s than the Germans could have hoped to knock out. When the Germans realised that they faced a desperate situation it forced them to dust the cobwebs off stuff that actually existed since before the war. The British had a jet-powered aircraft as well and would have replaced the tried and trusted Spitfire with it, if they were not in the shoes of the Germans. Strangely everybody understands this and nobody blames Churchill for its status as a low priority project.
It is also a favourite to say it is a question of too little too late. These weapons could have made a difference to some battles and one can speculate as to the damage done by a thousand ME262’s armed with the 50mm nose canon at say the D-day landing, but on the Eastern Front Stalin had an unlimited supply of men and from the moment the Americans started pumping war materials into the colossus called the Red Army, it would have taken an act of God himself to save the day for the Germans.
Thus all these cliches boil down to a failure to see the bigger picture at best and to a repetition of same old same old at worse .
Exactly what the Soviets did, they were actually phasing in a self-loading rifle, but stopped it to produce more of the Moisant Nagant. So with the T34. It was outperformed by the German Tiger, but the Soviets didn’t replace it and went on to produce more T34’s than the Germans could have hoped to knock out.
Sorry, but I must clear some points:
– Mosin rifle, or 3-line rifle or Pattern 1891 rifle, but not Moisant.
– T-34, T dash three four not T34 which would denote another tank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T29_Heavy_Tank#Tanks_of_comparable_role.2C_performance_and_era
– T-34 was not replaced, but its turret was replaced firstly early turret (“dumpling”) with other form (“hexagonal”) to finally being replace by bigger turret providing space for 85-mm gun
– production of new tank started and it was adopted: namely IS heavy tank
Guten tag Herr Tiger tank… Meet 100mm SU self-propelled AT gun… On a T-34 chassis.
This might be the most interesting forum exchange I have ever participated in. My hat is off to Daewoo and Denny (and everyone else too) for the research and legwork. Many good points here. I apparently have some reading up to do.
Daewoo brings up an especially good point, in that while purely caseless ammunition for smallarms hasn’t gotten very far, there are other alternatives which could offer a lot of potential.
Thanks guys
CG
Now I am going WAY out on a limb, but perhaps the caseless ammo concept could be addressed with an approach to the chemistry end of the propellant. It would have to be:
1) Physically and dimensionally stable enough to hold it’s shape for shipping, and running through the gun
2) Chemically stable enough to not cook off, or unduly break down over time (but still ignite reliably when the time comes)
3) Reasonably inexpensive to produce and fabricate
4) Provide good and repeatable ballistics
Pretty tall order, in my opinion. However, what if a propellant could be devised which could be electrically ignited, eliminating the need for a pesky metallic primer, and also take up only a very small volume compared to modern smokeless powders? Then only a small dab or disk on the back of the bullet (or even inside a shallow cup at the base, which would protect it from damage during shipping and firing) would do the trick. If it would produce an acceptable coefficient of expansion and good ignition, it could be thought of as similar to a rocket ball, but without the deep hollow. Obturation would still be an issue, but perhaps one which could be overcome with a creative breech arrangement.
Just a thought
CG
“electrically ignited”
Voere sporting rifle used electrically primed case-less cartridges:
http://www.cartridgecollector.net/57-x-26-voere-caseless
beyond removing need of firm setting need in classic primer for proper working, it gives other advantage, mainly much smaller than between trigger squeeze and activating cartridge, as there is no need for hammer to rock/striker to slide.
is: “(…)mainly much smaller than(…)”
should be: “(…)mainly much less time than(…)”
Great link, thanks Daewo
CG