How The Assault Rifle Was Invented

During the First World War, the soldiers of all the belligerent nations carried rifles that were designed for accurate long-range fire.  Germany had its Mauser; France its Lebel; Britain its Lee-Enfield; Russia its Mosin-Nagant; and the United States its Springfield.  These weapons in general performed adequately for what they were designed to do.

But towards the end of the war it became clear that most infantry engagements took place at ranges that were well below five hundred meters.  The accurate bolt-action rifles of the day were designed for accuracy at much longer ranges.  Military innovators in Germany during the 1920s drew the obvious conclusion that other nations did not:  it would be better to design a weapon that replaced long-range accuracy with a portable, higher volume of fire.

By the late 1930s the German armaments industry had succeeded in developing what it called the kurz (“short”) round in 7.92-mm caliber.  A basic design by Louis Schmeisser was produced to fire the new cartridge; this design was called the Maschinenkarabiner 42(H).  This name was eventually changed to Maschinenpistole 43, or simply MP 43.  Initial trials conducted with the weapon proved to be a brilliant success, and soon the German Army found itself deluged with requests for it from front-line units.

rifle2

The Sturmgewehr 44

Apparently Hitler, who could be conservative in matters of infantry tactics, was initially opposed to the radical innovation that the new rifle represented.  But he could also be pragmatic where results mattered, and when it became clear that the MP 43 gave a qualitative edge over the Soviets, he was quick to change his mind.  The name of the weapon eventually became Sturmgewehr 44.

The Luftwaffe was also absorbed in the development of an “assault rifle” of its own.  The fruit of its labors was the innovative and highly advanced Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 (FG 42), which looked something like a hybrid between a rifle and a light machine gun.  It was a gas-powered weapon with a bipod, large plastic butt, and a side-mounted box magazine.  The side-mounted magazine was not precisely a success; it allowed dirt to enter into the mechanism and was prone to jamming.

rifle6

All in all, the weapon was effective but could never be produced in sufficient numbers to meet demand.  It deserves a place in the story of the development of the assault rifle, however, because it did influence small arms design after the war was over, especially the gas-powered action.

rifle4

The Fallschirmjägergewehr 42

Only about 7,000 FG 42s were issued by the end of the war.  Tens of thousands of Sturmgewehr 44s, however, were manufactured, and it proved to be a great success on the Russian front.

One glance at the Sturmgewehr 44 makes it clear that this weapon is the father of the modern assault rifle.  The sloping banana magazine ensures that the user can bring a large volume of fire to bear on his target.  Mass production was the original goal here:  the weapon is firmly constructed from sheet metal with pins and stampings.  The legendary Russian AK-47 is—to be blunt—simply a mass-produced knock-off of the Sturmgewehr.  German designers had wanted something that combined the best features of a traditional rifle with the automatic firepower of the submachine gun.

Submachine guns were widely used in combat in the Second World War, and they did what they were designed to do:  that is, to deliver a large volume of lead downrange at an enemy.  But they used pistol rounds (either 9-mm or .45 rounds) that could not deliver accurate fire beyond more than a very limited range.  The assault rifle was intended to solve this problem.

The “assault rifle revolution” changed how infantry engagements were fought.  No longer would squads of infantry have to rely on light or heavy machine guns for support at all times.  They could load themselves with magazines and strike out on their own, freeing themselves from the tether of supporting fire.

rifle7

The Soviet AK-47 copied the design of its German predecessor

There were even more innovations that came with the weapon.  An infrared night sight (called the Vampir) was made to be fitted to the rifle, but it does not appear to have been widely used.  Small arms historians even tell us that designers experimented with a curved barrel for the rifle that would allow a rifleman to fire around the corner of a building from a position of safety.  It was apparently made specifically for urban combat, but as far as I have been able to determine, it was never used in action.

What is certain is that the Sturmgewehr 44 was one of the most influential weapons to come out of the Second World War.  As noted earlier, it was the model on which the Soviet AK-47 and SKS was based.  Western nations were slower to accept the idea of the assault rifle, however.  The reasons for this may lie in traditional military conservatism in the US and Britain, as well as the fact that existing production facilities were already configured to churn out old-school weapons like the M1 Garand rifle.

It was inexcusable that US forces were not equipped with an assault rifle during the Korean conflict.  The Americans would have to wait until the mid-1960s, when the M16 rifle with its 5.56 mm round made its appearance, to catch up to what German engineers were doing in the 1940s.

Read More: Contemporary Art Reflects Our Cultural Degeneracy

152 thoughts on “How The Assault Rifle Was Invented”

  1. M1 Garand and M14 likely wouldnt leave you hanging, so its not as though the USA was lacking in that department too much. Oh ze Mauser bolt action, a classic.

  2. The Germans did invent a curved weapon, a modified StG44 known as the Krummlauf.
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kcgXo3mlpPQ/U6RjnpEmhzI/AAAAAAAABfM/cL5m5wLEn5o/s1600/rthetghdrfdf.jpg
    It was a very creative invention, and worked, although the barrel had a short life and the weapon ended up being impractical. After 100 shots or so, the weapon was useless. Much like the Great Gustav railway gun, which is the most massive gun to ever be produced, it was an engineering success but proved to be rather impractical (The Gustav took a crew of a couple of thousand to position, maneuver, and operate, and its barrel was also destroyed fairly quickly in action, although the effects, as seen at Sevastopol, were devastating).

      1. I am not. I vaguely recall hearing about the weapon on some “Superweapons of the Nazis” type tv special and don’t recall any use by infantry in battle, although there are several references to the Elefant Heavy Tank Destroyer being outfitted with Krummlaufs with a lesser angle (30 degrees or so), implying they were used for armored vehicle defense:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krummlauf

        1. “although there are several references to the Elefant Heavy Tank Destroyer being outfitted with Krummlaufs..”
          Doubtful as only 3 were ever built and none saw combat. The things were so heavy the rail bridges could not support it.

    1. Ahem, the Paris Gun was the largest cannon ever created. It was used in the great war to lob projectiles from the German lines to Paris. The shells, when they were in flight, went outside of the atmosphere during their trip. These were the first sub-orbital projectiles from the human race. The original weapon was dismantled when the cost of using it was greater than the effect that it had on the allies. In other words, it was not cost effective.

      1. Haha, I really wish I could witness some of that warfare. All sides were obsessed with creating the most destruction possible, even as you say to the extent that the weapon caused more harm to the user than the enemy. It’s amazing to think about how much effort, money, manpower and lives went into the destructive business of destroying fellow Europeans, and in the end, the borders didn’t even change that much. But it did usher in radical social changes that would permanently alter the course of western civilization.
        While the Paris gun fired at much higher velocity and longer range, it fired a 238mm 106kg shell (over a mile per second), whereas the Great Gustav fired 800mm 7,100 kg shells (1/2 mile / second). Though the Gustav shells were far heavier and larger, the Paris gun fired at a range almost 10x greater with super high velocity. Even then, it took over 3 minutes from firing for impact with the target. That’s pretty amazing.
        Here’s an 800mm shell next to a Soviet T-34:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav#/media/File:80cm_Gustav_shell.jpg

      2. Ahem, the Paris Gun was the largest cannon ever created.
        Not even close. Schwerer Gustav was five times the weight, had a barrel five times as long, and lofted a projectile seventy times the weight of the Paris Gun’s. The only place it came up short was in muzzle velocity, which was about half that of the smaller gun.

  3. Notice the term “assault weapon” is not used in this article. That is because assault weapon is a term the liberal globalists created out of thin air to scare people into giving up their gun rights.
    Assault rifles are rifles that can fire full auto and semi auto. Assault weapons are black guns that look scary or deemed unsafe in the state of california. You can bet your paycheck, every single time a news report comes on tv and the reporter says assault weapon, you will be shown a stock video clip of a full auto gun sprayimg away. This sleight of hand trick is the primary method the media uses to ban normal sporting rifles that they label as assault rifles.

    1. Assault rifles also generally fire “intermediate” rounds. The bullets are roughly the same size as those used in full-sized rifles, but the brass is shorter and carries less powder. This makes the recoil easier to handle (a big deal for rapid-fire use) and lets soldiers carry more ammo. The bullets don’t go quite as far, but as Quintus pointed out you don’t need that extra range in most combat situations.

    2. Thank you! The media should know better, but of course, that’s not their main job…

    3. I’ve noticed the new trend in the news is reporting all guns as “Automatic Machine Guns”. One local news reporter actually said the shooter had an “Automatic Rifle and Pistol”. I believe that was for the Dallas shooter.
      I guess it’s just asking too much that our MSM report factual information instead of hyperbole.

  4. “The legendary Russian AK-47 is—to be blunt—simply a mass-produced knock-off of the Sturmgewehr.”
    Not true. The Kalashnikov only bears some cosmetic resemblance to the StG 44, and while the decision to produce such a weapon was certainly inspired by the German rifle, the workings are different as it was designed by a wounded Soviet tankist during the war.

    1. Oh, I think it is true. Without the StG 44 sitting in front of the Russians, the AK-47 never would have happened.
      See this link: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/03/14/designed-ak-47/
      One poster on a different forum said it best:
      “That said, it seems pretty clear that Kalishnikov heavily borrowed from the STG-44. The two main pieces of evidence:
      1) The overall design and form of the weapon is very, very similar. In fact, people who don’t know much about guns often mistake a STG-44 for an AK-47.
      2) Hugo Schmeisser, the man who designed by the STG-44, was captured by the Russians in 1945 and forced to work on weapon design for them. Schmeisser was not allowed to go home until 1952. Those seven years Schmeisser was working in the USSR match up pretty neatly with the development of the AK-47.
      Kalishnikov denies to this day that he copied the STG-44. And in a literal sense, he is correct. There are significant differences. On the other hand, the similarities are obvious even to someone who knows little about guns.
      My personal view: Kalishnikov should get credit for significantly improving on the German STG-44. But would he have invented the AK-47 if the Germans hadn’t invented the STG-44? I doubt it.”
      Read more: http://illyria.proboards.com/thread/29125#ixzz4E9H7KkEQ

        1. Quintus hate to ask it throught this channel but i dont know any other way to contact you what happened with the ROK podcasts i truly enjoyed them but last time i checked umm it seems like you took a hiatus to say the least.

        2. Nah, they dug him up last year. Cycled the action a few times and he was just fine.

      1. Makes sense. The Ruskies couldn’t come up with a real bomber in WW2 until they captured those of ours (some ally…) that landed there.
        Kinda like how China’s spying technology advanced significantly after wussy Dubya let them “kamikaze” into our spy plane and have unfettered access to its electronics 🙁

        1. Stalin was more interested in a deuce and a halfs than our planes, he wasn’t looking to fight an air war. We offered them to him but but he wanted trucks for the ground war. And the Russians had the best battle tank of world War 2 hands down.

        2. I really have to question that as Stalin captured our planes in WW2, reverse engineered them, and then went well out of his way to show off his knockoff planes to us.
          If we were going to simply give him our planes, why would he go through all that trouble?
          When Stalin paraded his Tu-4s over American dignitaries after the war, it would’ve been hilarious if they’d responded with a “We would’ve given you a B-29 if you’d only asked us.”

        3. It was a show of might. We offered up the same help to Russia as we did all other allied nation’s, some a little others took all. But Stalin new his war was going to be waged on the ground because his greatest asset was man power but his war machine was still being reassembled in the east, he new he needed troop carrier’s for a mobile mechanized resistance and trucks are what he chose to take from us. He already had adequate tank busters for air power. And if you look at the Russian military and civilian sectors you’ll see rebrands of German and American equipment still in production today.

        4. BTW & FWIW, Wiki explicitly states that we refused to give Stalin a B-29 in the war, which is a tad surprising as socialist FDR was a huge fan of the USSR, doing for them what 0bama recently did for Cuba 🙁
          It’s not particularly mighty to showcase a knockoff though. The phrase “Chinese knockoff”, for example, has always been derogatory.
          Showcasing a knockoff of the B-29 post-WW2 seems akin to the Chinese rolling out a knockoff of the iPhone 4 today: it’s not useless, but it’s behind the times.

        5. With significant portions of the design coming from American engineers that were unable to sell them to their own military because they were too “different”.

        6. A show of “we got them also” was effective enough to bring the war dogs of the west to heal. Stalin wasn’t happy with the west over the butchers bill Russia had to pay against Germany and the way the west didn’t charge in when he wanted. He also aware of the age old animosity within Europe and between Russia and European countries. He knew Paton and Monty would’ve loved nothing more than to continue the war into Russia but the west and Ike had had enough of war, you can see this when you examine the allies push into Germany. Ike explicitly says let the Russians finish the job when his generals were baying for more blood. So Stalin needed a show of whatever might he could muster to ward them off.

        7. I am talking about tanks. The T34 had a suspension designed by an American. I believe there were other parts designed by Americans as well. The sloped armor was all theirs and a vast improvement. Also, the basic simplicity of the design led to easy mass production. Quantity has a quality all its own.

        8. Christi suspension. They brought Christies tank and later copied the basic elements for the T-34. They used vast numbers of Sherman’s as well it was well liked though not quite as good in the mud due too narrower tracks. The Sherman was a better built more comfortable tank.

        9. Who would be intimidated by the Russians demonstrating that they’ve almost progressed to where the Allies had been several years before? Would Apple be intimidated if a Chinese sweatshop rolled out a knockoff of the iPhone 4?
          AFAIK, Russia (unlike Germany & Japan) was not on the cusp of developing its own nukes, making their B-29 knockoff a lot less intimidating than it could’ve been.
          The Ruskies couldn’t mount a defense against us after WW2 as the only way that they were able to mount their (pitiful) defense against the Germans & Nips during WW2 was because of massive amounts of US aid.
          If Japan hadn’t screwed the Germans over by taking all their pressure off Russia (poor Krauts never could pick good allies), it’s probable that the Ruskies would’ve fallen even with our aid. If Hitler hadn’t been a strategic moron, it’d gone from “probable” to “certain”.

        10. Yes, the only flaw that could truly be found with the T34 was that it was not user friendly. The main asset of the Russian army was it’s almost unlimited supply of men but that also was a flaw in their thinking as they didn’t realize that a seasoned tank crew was more valuable than 20 tanks, so they didn’t make them with that in mind like the other militar designers of the time.

        11. Left wing (((Traitors))) in the US weapons program handed the Soviets the core of US nuclear weapons technology. This included in depth knowledge of how to implode a sphere of plutonium symmetrically in such a way that it doesn’t distort as it collapses and so rapidly becomes a super critical mass rather than ”fizzling”.
          Without this advance the Soviets and Chinese would probably not have dared fund the Korean war as their own program would have been much slower.
          Likewise for Moles and (((Traitors))) in the US State Department: they ensured that Mao Reds were given the credit for fighting the Japanese successfully (they did no such thing, had a strategy of avoiding contact) while Chang Kai Chek’s Nationalists spilled their blood. This resulted in US Military aid going to the wrong people, that prolonged the war and it also meant that instead of the people who made Taiwan an astounding success running main land china the murderous reds did. See M Stanton Evans’s bio of Joe McCarthy “Black Listed by History”

      2. The AK-47 looks almost exactly the same as the StG 44, same type of lower power ammunition, same curved magazine, similar sights etc. Hard to tell apart. The concept clearly came from the Wehrmacht and deep research they had done.
        The mechanism is different in the AK-47 and has legendary reliability, that’s for sure.
        The Germans also had the rival Mauser Sturmgewehr 45 or StG 45 which was significantly lighter, used a different mechanism (Roller-delayed blowback as used in modern Heckler and Koch guns) that likely would have taken over from StG-44 but had the same assault rifle form.
        It’s said that Hitler himself named the StG44 storm gewher (assault rifle)

      3. The greatest leap forward in my opinion from the stg44 to the ak47 is the gas piston system.

      4. The question is whether or not the AK-47 is a copy of the StG 44. Given that there are some fundamental differences, I’d say it isn’t. It’s like saying that the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams are copies of each other because they both are the same kind of tank.
        Soviets did steal a lot of technology from the West, but in the main their hardware was fully designed indigenously. Compare this to China where pretty much everything they build is directly copied from Soviet hand-me-downs and then augmented with pilfered trinkets.

      5. Hey QC I just saw in some gun magazine a company is making the stg-44 version again..Don’t know if it’s and EXACT copy. think it will be a modernized version..

    2. Soviet have knack on taking Western designs and improving them greatly. Good example for this is Russian/Soviet Watchmaking. After acquiring valjoux 7743 chronograph tooling (to make nukes), they created creating the Poljot 3133 mechanism. The 3133 has increase jewel count for higher bph to increase accuracy of the watch, shock protection, and date mechanism. Signigicant improvements to the older valjoux 7743 movement and one of the most popular chronograph mechanism in watch world today.

      1. I would like to get a Russian field watch similar to those made by Hamilton & Seiko. Can you advise on brands & where to buy, if possible?

        1. You can search on ebay for Poljot Aviator with inner ring dial that is still available. This watch is hand winding and has 50m water resistance. If you want some recent, check on Vostok brand, which is still in production. Combination of hand winding models and automatic winding models. In my opinion, get Vostok since they are still in production and reasonable price.

        2. Thanks. You must be a horologist with all of that technical knowledge. Vostok is the brand I’m looking into. Need something to go with my vintage ushanka & Soviet era wool coat. Not to mention my shashka & Marakov 9mm for good measure.

  5. If you like your assault rifle, you can keep your assault rifle.

  6. Leonard Read’s famous essay, “I, Pencil,” talks about how pencils come into existence through a decentralized, spooky process in the free market that no one understands. He must have known how systems of central planning in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union produced complex tools like assault rifles which actually worked – but pointing to those as counterexamples to pencils would have undercut his argument.

  7. Wow, simply amazing that the US troops didn’t have assault rifles in Korea, not until the 1960s. German technology was so advanced. I credit the discoveries and advances of German science and technology (both those feeling Nazi Germany and kidnapped through Operation Paperclip) as propelling the US to its position of world power. What we are witnessing now is that advantage evaporating, as that generation dies off.

    1. US troops had 30 cal semi autos, which in the hands of a man are earth shattering. The M16 wasnt a huge leap

      1. Maybe a huge leap backwards.
        What’s stuck with me was an episode, Mail Call IIRC, where R Lee Ermey demonstrates that most all M-16s are engineered with sub-par parts because accuracy isn’t a high priority sticks with me.

        1. I agree, but for jungle warfare Im not sure the M14 was great. Worthy no doubt, but a jungle is short range stuff. Im a walnut stock and blued steel type of guy.

        2. M16 weren’t properly fitted for jungle environment and need more upkeep to be functional. The M1/M14 were design to be use and abuse with minimum care. They may weight more, but they were reliable compare to M16’s at the time.

      2. The 30 cal m-1 was not liked at all. intended for backline troops- cooks, tankers, etc. With roundnose lead as required, it was very ineffective overall and not preferred on the front line.

        1. Rifle cartridge, detachable magazine, one man portable, full auto.

        2. The BAR M1918 is niether a submachine gun nor an Assault Rifle, it’s a light machine gun. The Madsen (from 1902!) could also be considered a rifle then…

        3. That doesn’t make it an (assault) rifle. The Madsen (from 1902!) could also be considered a rifle then…

        4. Bout 20 pounds. ARs would be weighted for standard troops to carry easiy- 7-8 pounds max.

      1. Wasn’t sub. Sub means pistol cartridges.

        1. Looks a bit too big and the calibre as well to be light! I’m a gun noob anyways

    2. M-14
      M1 Paratrooper in .30, detachable magazine.

    3. I disagree with the authors statement about the US not having assault rifles. The US had the M1/M2 carbine, which could fire semi automatically and fully automatically respectively…

      1. The ballistics of .30 carbine were pretty dismal. It wasn’t suitable for the 100-300+ meter ranges that assault rifles were intended to cover effectively.

        1. The Russians used a 7.62 (though with different length) in the AK-47, and I think most people would consider the AK-47 an Assault Rifle.

        2. The 7.62×39 is a lot more powerful and flat-shooting than the 30 carbine. The bullets are heavier, have better ballistics (the 30 carbine is round nosed like a pistol bullet) and are driven several hundred fps faster.

        3. I was confusing what you meant by 30 calibre. 30 calibres is the same thing as 7.62 mm, so I was just mixing up the 33mm vs 51mm part.

        4. it can be confusing- diameter of bullet vs length of the cartridge case. for example, there are many lengths of 7.62 caliber rounds.

    4. There was a lot of sordid politics involved in weapon choices after WWII.
      The British and FN had developed a promising intermediate cartridge in .280, but many senior US officials refused to consider anything that wasn’t .308, and tried to undermine any non-American cartridge development. The Americans essentially shoved the overpowered 7x62x51 down NATO’s throat.
      Similar foolishness went on with the selection of the M14, which while a fine rifle was obsolete before it even went into production.

      1. If it was obsolete when it went into production how come it is still in use in the US military. It may not be the firearm of the standard infantry man, but is does have niche uses.

        1. It was obsolete for its intended purpose as a general infantry rifle, based on the types of engagements that the military was actually dealing with in SE Asia and what the Communists & friends were fielding. It was also technologically archaic, made of intricate steel parts fitted and bedded to a traditional stock. Accuratizing and maintaining a whole lot of M14’s requires a lot more skill, expense and time than a modular design like the M16.
          It’s a very fine rifle, and like you say it’s still valuable in niche applications.

    5. Let’s put it this way. There would never have been any US space program had it not been for Operation Paperclip!

  8. US deserves credit for fielding M1 Garand-semi auto .30-06 that you could also beat an elephant to death with if used as a club. 8 rnds of semi auto beats a Mauser bolt in combat.

    1. M1 Garand was a hell of a great firearm.

    2. Also superior to the Japanese Army’s bolt action rifles during the Pacific War. I’m eternally grateful for that.

    3. The Garand M1 was by far the best rifle of WW2. The German squad of 10 men was built around their superb MG34 (or MG 42) aircooled machine gun with one man carrying the gun and the other the tripod (which was heavier) though it could be fired without the tripod. The Mauser 1898 rifle for the rest of the squad was good, they were there mainly to support the MG34/MG42.
      The Germans introduced semi automatic rifle the G43 (in 1943) which as standard (unlike the Garand M1) had telescopic sights (4X) it was a reasonable weapon. I suspect a squad would have ended up with an MG34/42, two G43 with the rest StG44/45 assault rifles.

    1. My son has fired one of those a few years ago. He was a range master at a boy scout camp before they went “homo”, and a scout master had a load of Class III’s that he brought out every night after the normies went to bed.

    1. That is beautiful. The whole video. Reminds me of men and their stories and knowledge when I was growing up.

      1. When I was in college, there was a guy in his 80s (could have easily passed for 59) who was the maintenance man for my tiny apartment. He was on a team that tested a recovered German Jet engine, and they took it to a lab and tested it. They were trying to test its limits and tolerances. He said there was nothing they could do to that engine to break it. Every test they put it under ended up destroying the testing equipment and still the engine purred away.

  9. If Shillery Clinton wins the election and democrats take control of congress you can bet your last paycheck that the days of civilian gun ownership will be on the way out.

    1. If the leftwing statists want to spark an outright rebellion in this country, that would be an excellent way to go about it.

    2. They can’t take SHIT from us. If they could have, they would have already.
      110+ million gun owners.
      1.47 million combined military
      Yeah, we win that argument.

        1. We haven’t won, the end has only been put off, all it will take is a dem majority and a couple of Supreme Court appointments.
          All of you who say you don’t vote because it doesn’t matter should keep that in mind.

        2. No victory on earth is ever permanent, but I just want to say amen to what you said on voting. It’s not always good and bad, sometimes it’s better or worse. Choosing the best option you have isn’t selling out your principles it’s adhering to them.

        3. Yep, voting for a pro gun candidate is better than sitting on the couch whining about it.

        4. The problem is finding a pro-gun candidate.
          For example: Joe Manchin, US Senator from WV, made a campaign ad that featured him affixing 0bama’s absurd regulations and literally shooting them with his rifle. He said therein he’d fight for the 2nd Amendment rights and was endorsed by the NRA.
          Ever since he first arrived in DC he’s been carrying 0bama’s water and chipping away at the 2nd Amendment 🙁

        5. ONE more liberal SC appointment, and it’s all over. They will eviscerate the 2nd, just as they have the rest of the bill of rights so far, backing most of the patriot act and other absurdities.

      1. They won’t go door to door, they will start with another assault weapon ban that doesn’t have a sunset clause, a limit on ammo, all kinds of restrictions on storage and transport, one little piece at the time.
        I have been hoping for a long time that we would all stand up and say enough of this but, fat people who are entertained don’t revolt.

      2. there are barely more than 110 M adults in the US. So you think gun ownership is 99%+?? I think not. It’s still millions of course, but I would guess (without checking) that it’s probably 25-30% of adults, max.

  10. We can go back even farther. The assault rifle was invented when a bunch of people trying to load black powder faster figured out the cartridge.
    The first “30 round extended capacity magazine” capable of firing “1000 rounds a minute” (t. libspeak) existed before the 2nd Amendment was even written. Liberals have yet to demand Windbüchse control.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
    Firearms are archaic technology. We’ve changed very little except making them more reliable. Liberals are still only scared of the black ones.

  11. Where is luke?

    You should include info that differentiates ak47 and akm.

    Anyone know where to get a decent mosin nagant at a good price?

    1. Bought my son and daughter both 91/30’s two years ago, for Christmas. $120.00 a piece, a total steal. The boy’s rifle was from the 1930’s and my daughter’s from 1940’s when the Huns were just 1-2 miles from the factory. Good rifles.

      1. I can remember when they were a lot cheaper but that’s still very reasonable for a weapon that with reasonable care will last forever.
        Many moons ago I purchased a SMLE at Roses department store for 69 bucks…..wish now I had bought them ALL. Couple of years after that bought a NEW Chinese SKS at a gunshop for 79 bucks,wish I had bought a truckload of those too.

    2. I’m here. I don’t have a monopoly on firearm articles on here, and I’m happy as long as the content is good, which this one is.
      I got a cosmo’ed Mosin from Bud’s in Lexington KY for 159 a couple years ago. Jefferson did better than me.

  12. I have had the pleasure of seeing and holding an StG44 and also seeing it taken down.
    The one I saw was a bit rough on the outside but the internals were of excellent machining, a lot like H&K.

  13. Had the pleasure of qualifying with the HK G36 back in 2009 while on a joint training mission with the German Army. Liked it alot better then the M4.

  14. Quintus, I’m quite impressed. Good article. You seem to be a man of all seasons.
    Western nations were slower to accept the idea of the assault rifle, however.
    The M-14 design team began with prototypes in 1945, using the M1 Garand action as the base design (called the T44 I think? Or T48?).
    Just took a few years to catch on. The M1 Garand was itself revolutionary, being semi auto with a clip (I used that term correctly, btw) of rounds. Beat the hell out of bolt actions.
    I also wonder where the BAR falls into this?
    Full props on pinning the origins of the assault rifle though, although I dislike that term.

    1. The YouTube vids of seen of the BAR say that it was way to heavy to fire standing up or from the hip. It was simply too heavy. A great weapon in WW1 certainly.
      The German FG42 could easily be fired standing or from the hip because it was light. The problem of barrel lift in full auto was dealt with by having a straight stock that lines up with the barrel and raising the sights. This gets rid of barrel lift but the recoil is still too great for really effective aiming, except maybe with a bipod. The StG 44 reduced barrel lift and recoil by with a slightly reduced length bullet and reduced charge. This allowed firing from the hip without excess barrel lift and recoil degrading accuracy.
      The M14 in full auto had too much recoil and barrel lift to be effective in the assault role.
      The US had decided that high power rounds were essential, else a British 0.25 inch round might have become standard NATO. This was possibly a better compromise than the 0.223 that is used in the M16.
      The Germans didn’t produce many FG42 but they did get a lot of G43 semi automatics and StG44 in service. Had they have promoted the StG44 earlier (it was available much earlier) and had their semi-automatic G41 worked (it was a failure due to a bad specification) it certainly would have slowed the war in their favour. The StG44 was well liked and gave German troops a big advantage it seems, having it 1-2 year earlier is reasonable since the research goes back to the late 20’s and early 30s.
      Of course in WW2 the Garand M1 was available in quantity from the outset.

  15. It’s good to see articles like this on ROK. They’re interesting and they set this website apart from all the other generic pickup sites. The Germans had some incredible scientists and engineers during WW2.

  16. If there is something that has brought parity between the peoples, it is indeed the assault rifle.

  17. Just out of curiosity is the picture at the top an actual WW2 color photo or a re enactment?

    1. A huge amount of photos from WW2 are in color.

      1. It just looks a little too clear to be a color action shot from those days.
        I’ve never seen very many photos of German troops with stg44s at all. Every television show I recall seeing that it was mentioned in always shows the same short film clip of a soldier walking down a muddy ditch with one.

  18. I’m a bit perplexed by non-US armies carrying long-range small arms back in “the day”.
    As far as I’ve ever heard, non-US forces have never been about long range fire. It was about the (supposed) manliness of getting right up into “can’t miss” territory and blazing away with your foe, some more modern interpretation of chivalry or some nonsense.
    Additionally, Per an old NRA article on the subject, the European armies believed that simply teaching aiming the rifle, beyond “point at the enemy” would-somehow-break the chain of command as it’d engender independence and thus recalcitrance in its grunts.
    Meanwhile, the US embraced guns as, up through Theodore Roosevelt or so, we were a nation weaned on ’em; The aforementioned NRA article mentioned that Revolution-era colonists could drive a nail into a tree by firing a musket ball into it from range.

    1. Long range rifles could be used in volley fire. A number of troops would fire on an area. They might not be able to aim for individual targets, but a number of them firing together would likely hit something or someone. If the enemy were massed together, volley fire could be devastating even at long range.

    2. Wut??
      European armies, prior to assault weapons, generally always carried bolt action longer range rifles.

      1. But they weren’t able to make proper use out of them.
        Seems rather pointless to have your soldiers lug rifles built for long-distance accuracy around when they weren’t being trained to take advantage of the weapon’s true potential.
        With the lack of a gun culture there, and their brass’ fear & disdain of general marksmanship-or even aiming-in the ranks, the best they could get out of these guns is to have their centuries-old “volley fire in the general direction of the enemy” technique have more effectiveness over longer distances. 🙁

    3. I own a Jap 6.5 Arisaka rifle from WWII. It has a 31.5 inch barrel, is zeroed for 300 meters, and has a crazy site for volley fire for distances over 1000 meters.
      Sure it makes for a very long spear when you add a bayonet, but I think it was really made for shooting Russians and Chinese from long distances in the open plains of Manchuria.

      1. Was the average Nip able to take advantage of that 300 meter range?
        Other armies had long distance rifles, but I’m led to believe that they were like making a city dweller use a F350 as his daily driver.
        I believe the point of the NRA article was that (until the leftists put a damper on it), the average American had >= firearms skill than even the sharpshooters of foreign armies due to our rather unique “gun culture” and different philosophy.
        If that rifle was made for mowing down Ruskies in Manchuria, I think they missed the mark.

    4. I think you are confusing the 18th century with with the 20th century…. Guns and gun tactics had changed a lot, and the European armies did not do that because they thought it would break the chain of command…

      1. Maybe, but this was in effect through WW1 at least 🙁
        It took ’em that long to break free of the shackles of tradition, shackles that the USA, due to its “gun culture” was never bound by.

  19. Not to brag, but I am related to John T. Thompson, inventor of the Thompson submachine gun. I have a letter to my grandfather from his cousin written in 1906 describing Thompson as a colonel in the US Army and that he was writing a chapter for Encyclopedia Britannica on small arms. This was some 10 years before he embarked on development of the Tommy Gun. Our common ancestor lived in Kentucky about 1800 and had fought in the Revolution with William Clark, he of Lewis and Clark fame. OK I’m bragging. It’s the internet, it’s all about me. What else is there, really?

      1. Well, I sold my house in New Mexico and moved to Texas where I am studying how to make it big on the internet. Right now am developing a novelty lamp prototype (think “lava lamp” only better) so have not had time to offer my unique perspective on all the important topics facing us today.
        In honors of moderator recognition I am offering my managerial classic “Employment Game” free to ROK readers from July 13-15. If the promotion hasn’t started try again in a few hours :
        https://www.amazon.com/dp/B017A8NMZ4

    1. Slightly mistaken about William Clark. His brother was George Rogers Clark, who led some campaigns against the British in what was then referred to as the Northwest (Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana). My 3rd g-grandfather participated in his victories at Vincennes and Kaskaskia and was given lands in northern Kentucky after the war. When William Clark descended the Ohio river at the beginning of his epic journey my ancestor helped him through that part of the country.
      By coincidence my dad moved to that area in 1969 long before I uncovered the ancestral connection. I once met a fellow at a bar who had a bunch of Indian arrowheads that he had dug up in the Springfield, Ohio area near where Clark had defeated the Indians at their massive settlement of Piqua. He told me that you could find arrowheads by looking through any plowed field near a stream. The flint for them came out of a pit mine near Athens, Ohio, which was traded heavily amongst the Indians throughout the midwest.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Rogers_Clark

  20. It was indeed inexcusable for the US to not have an assault rifle issued during the Korean war – the M1 was essentially an overweight self-loading hunting rifle. They would have to wait until 1959, when the American military went with the M14, supposedly because it was similar enough to the M1 that it could be manufactured at a cost savings. In spite of outward appearances, this proved to be untrue and the M14 was definitely not a cost savings, especially when considering its very short life as a front line battle rifle. Meanwhile there was a much better alternative in use by NATO and other countries, the FN-FAL. Of course, US brass couldn’t live with themselves by using some funny foreign rifle, so it was ignored.

    1. The M14 is still around and being used – but it’s a Battle Rifle with a full-powered cartridge. It’s a great rifle for a designated marksman.
      The mistake was making too powerful. They should have gone with an intermediate cartridge – Brit .280, .243 Winchester or something similar. More ammo, less kick, more controllable in full-auto bursts.

      1. I’m aware of its current use as a spotter/DM rifle, but as a main infantry rifle it was an abject failure – too long, too heavy, too geared towards winning marksmanship competitions at Camp Perry. They were never going to go with anything non-NATO, so it was either 7.62 or 5.56; still true today with any new designs considered by the US military. The M14 using the 7.62 cartridge in spite of reduced ammo carrying capacity was one thing, but the killer was it being impossible to control under full auto fire. The FN-FAL was a bit better, but generally speaking neither were easy.

        1. Well, at the end of WWII there was no NATO and no 7.62 or 5.56. In the 40’s or 50’s they could have adapted the Brit .280 and called it 7mm NATO when the time came. The original FAL and British EM-2 rifles were already chambered for it.

    2. They basically did have an assault rifle, the m1/m2 carbine. Unfortunately for the US military, they just weren’t smart enough to realize to give it to regular combat troops. The m1 garand on the other hand wasn’t a bad gun, at the time, that was the standard used by basically all other armies…

  21. Well hold on here…. US soldiers in Korea were equipped with M14s… selective fire rifles that were perhaps the finest US service weapon ever issued. So fine it’s still in use for long range engagements today. It didn’t use a diminutive cartridge like the 5.56… it used a real battle cartridge and as such was much more effective vs heavily clothed enemies.
    The modern day “assault rifle” is starting to become obsolete… with PDW type weapons fulfilling short range needs and longer range DMR type rifles for longer engagements.

    1. Nope – the M14 was rolled out in the late 50’s – after the Korean War was over.

      1. You know what you’re absolutely right. Total brain fart on my end. I was thinking they were deployed in Korea but nope just M1 rifles and carbines. The carbine could be considered a quasi “assault rifle” except it’s cartridge was pretty pathetic. Still in the blistering cold… I’ll take a semi auto 30-06 over a full auto 5.56 anyday

        1. Yep – As we were leaving for the Desert in 1990, we had a bunch of M14s in the armory for funerals and parades. All the old-timers drew them because they were more accurate and reliable at long-range.

        2. I did the same thing, don’t know why I was thinking that the M-14 was in Korea.

        3. It’s in my top 5 list of weapons to get. Big and heavy… but exceptionally reliable and solid

    2. “The modern day “assault rifle” is starting to become obsolete… with PDW type weapons fulfilling short range needs” I cannot imagine that actually happening. PDW’s are generally sub-machine guns, something this article left out was that the assault rifle was made to have the high fire rates of a sub machine gun with the better range that at that time, could only be achieved by DMR rifles (aka, battle rifles). If sub machine guns and Battle Rifles working together is more effective than an assault rifle, then nobody would have ever adopted assault rifles.

  22. U.S. Army Ordnance has been a comedy of errors for almost a century.
    Thanks to MacArthur, we didn’t adopt the intermediate .276 cartridge in the 30’s – which would have made the M1 Garand a ten-shot weapon.
    Then we decided to go with the NATO 7.62 instead of the British .280 for no particular reason. The American Colonel in charge of testing literally hid results showing the .280 was better.
    A decade later, we went way too far the other way with the wimpy 5.56. I have a feeling that in the next real war, soldiers will be complaining loudly that 5.56 doesn’t penetrate good body armor at range. Then maybe we’ll go with something like 6.5 Grendel.

    1. :Thanks to MacArthur, we didn’t adopt the intermediate .276 cartridge in the 30’s – which would have made the M1 Garand a ten-shot weapon.” But we still had the m1 carbine, which both shot 7.62 (30 cal) and had 10 rounds. It also had a magazine instead of a clip.
      “Then we decided to go with the NATO 7.62 instead of the British .280 for no particular reason.” Yes their was a reason. The Rest of NATO was also using 7.62, and the military believed standardizing would be best.
      “A decade later, we went way too far the other way with the wimpy 5.56.” I guess you could say that, but it means the gun is lighter and has less recoil, which in turn, allows a higher fire rate. But yes, I actually disagree with the military use of the 5.56, I believe they should have kept the 7.62.

  23. America had the M1 Garand which had a high rate of fire and a low capacity magazine but fired a full rifle round and the M198 Browning Automatic Rifle which was ok but powerful.
    Those weapons were clearly able to compete with German/Russian assault rifles and with how temperamental m-16’s are WWII may have been completely different for the US if they had them.

    1. The m1 (and the m2) Carbine was also able to compete with the Stg44. The Garand didn’t have a big enough ammo supply, didn’t fire automatically, and was too heavy.

  24. Fantastic article. The STG-44 always called my attention. It’s design is a testimony of the brilliant minds of the engineers from the Reich.
    Obrigado Quintus!

  25. There is an entire book, “From Firepower to Striking Power,” that chronicles the development of the StuG 44. But the story here is not entirely German. The Russian Army as early as World War I had the Federov, a selective-fire rifle with a 25-round magazine chambered for a medium-power cartridge, the 6.5mm Japanese Arisaka. The Federov was used in World War I, the Russian Civil War and the 1940 Winter War against Finland. It was not quite reliable enough to be adopted as an infantry standard, but it was definitely ahead of its time.
    While Mikhail Kalashnikov was aware of the German developments, I think that it’s a bit of a stretch to say the AK series carbines were based on the StuG 44. The late Edward Ezell had a number of books on the subject of the development and use of the AK-series carbines.
    I’m not sure that U.S. forces in Korea were badly equipped because they lacked an assault rifle. The M1 Garand was a very fine rifle, given the power of the .30-06 Springfield and the 8-round en bloc clip that it used.
    Assault rifles, whether in 7.92mm Kurz, 7.62x39mm or 5.56x45mm can be frustrating for really good marksmen, as they run “out of steam” beyond about 400 meters. But for large formations of conscript infantry, they are a very good compromise.

  26. Small arms historians even tell us that designers experimented with a curved barrel for the rifle that would allow a rifleman to fire around the corner of a building from a position of safety.

    Again, Germans.
    The Krummlauf (English: “curved barrel”) is a bent barrel attachment for the Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle developed by Germany in World War II. The curved barrel included a periscope sighting device for shooting around corners from a safe position.
    It was produced in several variants: an “I” version for infantry use, a “P” version for use in tanks (to cover the dead areas in the close range around the tank, to defend against assaulting infantry), versions with 30°, 45°, 60° and 90° bends, a version for the StG 44 and one for the MG 42. Only the 30° “I” version for the StG 44 was produced in any numbers. The bent barrel attachments had very short lifespans – approx. 300 rounds for the 30° version, and 160 rounds for the 45° variant–as the barrel and bullets fired were put under great stress. Another problem besides the short life-span was that the bending caused the bullets to shatter and exit the barrel in multiple fragments, producing an unintended shotgun effect. As a result, weapons designers experimented with small vent holes drilled into the Krummlauf’s barrel in order to reduce pressure and recoil, allowing the discharged bullets’ built-up gases to be released to slow the bullet’s velocity as it turned to exit the barrel. Nevertheless, the Krummlauf’s lifespan remained the same. The 30° model was able to achieve a 35×35 cm grouping at 100m. One of the biggest drawbacks of the small number (91 conversions) of Panzerjäger Tiger (P) casemate-type tank destroyers was that in spite of having a 88mm anti tank gun, the initial Ferdinand version of the Elefant did not have a forward-facing hull mount machine gun to handle enemy infantry. Hence, the Krummlauf was fitted with the Stg44 Gun and used by the tank crew as a machine gun.
    Experiments to adapt the Krummlauf to the PPSh-41 were conducted by the Soviet Union

Comments are closed.