Talk:Gewehr 43

message: Does anyone have any concrete reference to the superior reliability of the K-43? I have always heard from collectors of Nazi German firearms who posess G/K-43s that they are less reliable than the SVT-40 rifle or M-1 Garand.
:There is none as if anything the opposite is the case due to the poor quality of raw materials during the period most G/K43s were produced.
::It would be wonderful if someone could cite a written source for this.--Sus scrofa 12:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliability claim

message: I believe the G43 is more well-known and was produced in higher numbers then the G41.  Oberiko 14:13, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production

message: I've merged this page with the Karabiner 43 page.  Why?  Well, it was very redundant.  That page still exists in the edit prior to my redirecting it back to this page.  I've merged the unique info from that page into a small addition to this article.  I think this clears things up.  I've gone through and fixed all of the "What Links Here" links so.  The K43 is clearly a MINOR subvariant of the Gewehr 43 and belongs under that heading.  --Asams10 06:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged with K 43 page. 

message: I am about to move the G41 content to its own page and expand upon it, in a seperate article.  The rifle is different enough to warrant a second article with a more detailed description. user:Pzg Ratzinger
:Why is the information still on this page? The information is exactly the same on this page and on its own page. It also doesn't add much to this article.Watersoftheoasis (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These should be merged or split, either would be better than duplicated as now. Perhaps edit G43 down to mention only that the G41 was produced under restrictions that resulted in an unsatisfactory outcome, that the G43 is an evolution of G41. With links to G41. User:mitchx3 2014-02-07   — Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: G41

message: I do believe that the design was a bit lower quality than the SVT and M1 Garand mainly because insane amounts of muzzle gases tapped to work the bolt, which in climates warmer than the Ostfront winter would make the entire bolt assembly come flying off the weapon into your face after a thousand rounds or so.
Also, this should be noted in the article, as the G43 did NOT have a gas regulator like the SVT-40 so therefore was prone to last only a thousand rounds before self-destructing.Hunt3r.j2 (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No 'muzzle gasses' were used in the operation of the G43 and no 'insane amounts' of gas were required to operate the rifle in the Russian Winter.  Further, bolts flying into people's faces and rifles self-destructing?  Really?  REALLY?!  Cite it.  The SVT-40 was a more fragile rifle and the Garand (also lacking a gas regulator) was twice as strong as the SVT-40.  If you're going to Disparage the G43, please concentrate on its actual weaknesses, not on overblown anecdotes.  --I am Asamuel (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually muzzle gases work all gas-powered guns, from the AK47 to the M16 to the AR-18 to the STG-44. G41 and G43 were no exception. what, are you going to dump some oil to work the bolt? The SVT-40 was a train wreck for Russian soldiers, even the M1 Garand used muzzle gases, the only reason why it needed no regulator was because it was a long stroke and therefore operating pressures are lower. The SVT and G43 would have huge amounts of muzzle gas if the gas tube was wide open with no restrictor. This explains the reason why 1945 models later had holes drilled into the gas piston to relieve the insane pressures on the weapon. You can see the rear receivers on war-torn G43s being bent and stressed. The bolt might not "fly" off but repeated pressure and stress eventually makes the poor war-time made G43 either explode or be permanently broken.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunt3r.j2 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't watch history channel, and no second rate documentaries are used. This is the truth. The Germans preferred the SVT-40 over the G43 due to the high operating pressure of the gas system in their own rifle because this high operating pressure would cause parts to be damaged in the long run. The FAL, which,like the G43, used a SVT-40 style gas system, which also had a regulator. Any rifle that taps muzzle gases to work the bolt will have some kind of a restrictor or regulator. Otherwise the bolt would slam back with more then enough force and would damage the bolt mechanism. If you ask anyone on the G/K43 forum they will tell you they have a new-manufacture gas regulator on their G/K43s, as the short-stroke gas system on the G43s have no restrictor or regulator of any sort.--99.163.49.229 (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From an engineering standpoint, there is no more energy involved in the K43's bolt striking than there is in an SVT-40, AK-47, M1 Garand, SKS, FAL, or any other contemporary rifle. I don't see what point you're trying to make here. --I am Asamuel (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are completely wrong there. Short-stroke gas systems rely on a large "jolt" of muzzle gases tapped from the middle of the barrel, akin to kicking a bowling ball. Certainly, many rifles can tolerate this, although anything more then the 5.56 NATO round means that if these gases are not vented after they are used to push the oprod/piston back, there will be a chance of the extractor ejecting the round so violently there will be a torn rim. Long-stroke systems tap the gases near the end of the barrel, and they rely on a constant "push" for a longer period with low pressure muzzle gases. This means the Garand and other similar gas-operated guns with the same operating principle (long-stroke gas) will be able to not need a regulator despite the large amount of muzzle gases created by a round. An example of short-stroke systems would be most modern systems, such as the FN FNC, FN FAL, AKM and it's variants, which can get away with using the rifle on full blast because of the cartridge being an intermediate one, SVT-40, T91, Daewoo K2, M249, and many other rifles that use the short-stroke gas system operation. G43s allow too much gas to be tapped from the barrel, and combined with the high-powered round and weaker metals, makes for a weapon that is very likely to be damaged from continuous use in climates warmer then the Ostfront winter. If the G43 has a tilting bolt, then it also suffers from the same vertical stringing of shots, like the SVT-40 and SKS. Therefore it would have made for an unsuitable sniping shooting weapon. A rotating bolt in this regard would likely be far better for the rifle's accuracy and acceptance of the Gew. 43 as a sharpshooting weapon and/or DMR-type rifle, given the 4x scope.--Hunt3r.j2 (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Um, by the time the bolt moves, the case has contracted and 'ripping' the rim off the case is not a factor. What is a muzzle gas? Is 10,000 PSI any different if you tap it from a 5.56mm or a .22 Hornet? These are strange and wonderful revalations. For instance, I had no idea that a tilting bolt could effect the bullet after it's left the barrel. I also didn't realize that the SVT-40, SKS, and FN FAL were unsuitable for shooting.  Fascinating. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, muzzle gases are what propels the bullet after the original ignition in the chamber. It's very high pressure, and therefore makes the bullet accelerate faster. This is what is used to work the firearm, via tapping from the barrel, in any auto-loading or select-fire rifle in general, unless one is using a G3-esque system of roller-delayed blowback. A tilting bolt suffers from vertical stringing and therefore cannot be a suitable sniper's weapon because the bolt, when tilting in and out of it's locking shoulder(s), will disturb the position of the round in the chamber just so, enough to make the shots string vertically. Remember, there is a reason why most modern firearms are rotating bolt if used for precision shooting. That doesn't mean that the bolt affects the bullet after it's cleared the barrel. Also, the PSI generated by a round varies from caliber to caliber. Torn rims are common with FALs if the gas regulator is completely closed and all the muzzle gases are used to slam back the piston. A long-stroke system would fix such a problem, as the gases are tapped from the end of the barrel rather than the middle. This means more weight, however, and therefore unless one is simply plinking, a short-stroke system works best, from having the least recoil to the utmost reliability. The problem is however, with the FAL and similar weapons, if you turn the weapon to full blast with no bleeding of the gas in temperate or warmer conditions, the chamber pressures will still be enough that the case is sticking to the wall, as the bolt begins to move back and you will get torn extractor grooves. The SVT, SKS, and FAL are certainly fine weapons, although they are not and certainly not without major modification of the design, be able to be used as a sharpshooter's weapon. I do not use any sort of bullshit documentary from the History Channel, and I find it rude for you to try and contradict facts that are true, as I do not ever step in on anything unless I know it is untrue for sure. There is a reason why M16 rifles get dirty after automatic fire, and that is because they use muzzle gases tapped and they go through a gas tube and strike the bolt carrier. This means that carbon and other substances will be deposited in the chamber. I suggest that you do fact checks with a search engine or actual experience before you come here and try and troll me with bull that quite frankly, was unsolicited. Trying to dispute hard facts is not the way to win an argument.--Hunt3r.j2 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In conclusion, the G43 is a good weapon. It works. It does minute of badguy. For a precision weapon it's alright, although it would need a heavy barrel and free-floating to not string everywhere. Both probably wouldn't exist, so it's mainly a DMR. It couldn't last very long in warm climates though, no more then 2k rounds until the bolt battered itself against the bolt stop to the point where the bolt carrier would fly out. They drilled holes to relieve gas from the operating mechanism to help out in later models. It isn't as smooth as the M1 Garand, but it's still good.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.150.0 (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The "not mass produced" claims should indeed be removed from the article. Mass production is a type of production process, which is definitely applicable here, and not a subjective measure of quantity. I am quite sure that 400,000 rifles were not assembled piece-for-piece by individual gunsmiths. 92.76.152.206 (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality 

message: Impossible to correct -- hmaag (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. Turns out a bracket was missing in the "caliber" field.--Sus scrofa (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something in wrong with the Infobox 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Gewehr 43's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "jones2009":
From Walther PP: Jones, Richard D. Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009/2010. Jane's Information Group; 35 edition (January 27, 2009). .
From Walther MP: Jones, Richard D. Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009/2010. Jane's Information Group; 35 edition (January 27, 2009). .
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Gewehr 43]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gewehr 43. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820004449/http://snipercountry.com/Articles/HistoricSniperScopes_GwZF4fach.asp to http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/HistoricSniperScopes_GwZF4fach.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: '"... and replaced the conventional stripper reloads with a modern box magazine."'
No it didn't. Who the hell wrote this? The SVT-40 could be reloaded by swapping the box magazines in theory, but in practice this was never ever done because magazines did not freely interchange between individual rifles, the user would be issued one (1) magazine in the gun and one (1) spare, the breech has a stripper clip guide and the magazine would be loaded by using two (2) 5rd clips. This was also how the G43 would be used in the field, so in this aspect they are identical (barring G43 magazines not needing to be matched for guns).
Beyond this statement being unsourced, it reads like a neophyte unfamiliar with either rifle just guessing.217.209.145.79 (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVT-40, Reloading 

message: German Engineer here. Gewehr is translated as rifle not long rifle. Afaik the meanings & differences between an (American/English) rifle and carbine are the same as between a German Gewehr (rifle) and Karabiner (carbine), meaning if a weapon a shorter version of a rifle it is callede carbine (M16 <-> M4 Carbine, Gewehr 98 <-> Karabiner 98). The translation is therefore wrong and misleading for non native speakers. I will change it and other German special terms (like Schießbecher instead of Schiessbecher), (if possible). 2003:E6:7F16:C300:9CE:3892:C936:4CF0 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Translations & Meanings.