Talk:SVT-40

PU Scope

What is a PU Scope? Avriette 17:00, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Check http://www.russian-mosin-nagant.com/9130sniper.htm for a discussion on Soviet Scopes --Zebadoba 23:39, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Relation to SVD?

It seems to me that there should be a reference to the SVD (Dragunov) rifle in this article, as it uses the same cartridge and fills approximately the same role (designated marksman / battle rifle). 74.7.55.66 (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The SVD was intended to replace the Mosin-Nagant in the sniper role and the SVT was long withdrawn from service at that point. It is likely that some were still being used some place, but the SKS and AK-47 had completely replaced the vast majority of SVT's and the Nagant still being utilized in the sniper role. While a decent weapon mechanically, the SVTs were not durable enough for front-line service beyond WWII. Lessons learned from the SVT were incorporated into the SKS and AK-47 and, tangentially, ended up loosely influencing design elements, but there is nowhere near enough connection between the two to warrant even a mention of one in the other's article. Yes, they share the same caliber, but so does the PKM. As for filling the same role, that's also not true. The SVD is a sniper rifle, not a DM and certainly not a battle rifle. While certainly used in that role somewhat, the SVT's were moreso battle rifles on the line of the Garand. --Asams10 (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Production values

This article has long stated (since 2005[1]) that around 1.6 million SVT-38/40 rifles were made. However, User:Uzz75 recently changed this, stating exactly 5,823,795 million rifles were made. He then proceeded to back this up with the book The SKS Carabine by Steve Kehaya and Joe Poyer. Needless to say this is a very large discrepency, and this is the only source I can find claiming production of over 2 million rifles. I can not find a reliable source stating there was 1.6 million rifles made, but Modern firearms says there was over one million made before 1945[2]. Any input or more reliable sources? — DanMP5 15:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I will try to read and find more info from the source of the book.(Also I know that is not a valid source, but i have one svt and its number is 2'227'514 Tula 1942)- Uzz75

From http://www.tokarev.net/ .... According to E. C. Ezell, in the book, "Small Arms of the World" (12th Ed.), 1,322,085 SVT-40's were made in the USSR, as compared to 4,450,000 SVT-38's. Only 51,710 sniper versions of the SVT-40 were made..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzz75 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That production number for SVT-38 is completely false. Likely someone accidentally added a zero somewhere. It would not have been even possible to produce anywhere so many rifles in couple of years when SVT-38 was in production. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sooo.... at the moment the article states both 5,772,085 and 1,600,000 made in total, even using the same sources on both claims! Could anyone knowledgeable perhaps research this issue and possibly even add a statement explaining that there is this huge disagreement in available litterature? 83.227.64.234 (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

SVT and Saive's designs

It says on SAFN page that 1st working implementation of Saive's designs appeared in 1937. SVT participated in 1935 design competition (albeit unsuccessfully). Anyone cares to explain how "What was earlier, 1935 or 1937" could be a subject for a discussion, as stated in the article's body? 206.186.8.130 (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's suggested that, since Russia was quite closed at the time, most of all regarding new armaments, they might have simply found similar solutions for similar problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.234.189 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Users

The text suggests that the SVT was used by only a few countries other than the USSR, mostly it's neighbors and close allies, and that it was completely out of use by ~1960. The users section though lists modern Russia and several states that would only have obtained it for military use through cold war imports (e.g. Egypt) and if the Russians weren't using it during the 80s, how did the Afghans get any? Do we have any evidence that the Russian military has used them? Does this mean they used them as parade or honor guard rifles the way the USA uses special M14s? I'm pretty sure they haven't issued them as service rifles.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Modern Russian army does NOT use an SVT, and never did since 1991 (when it was created from Soviet Army after USSR's breakup). However, Afghan usage, for example, can be easily explained away by Soviet supplies of obsolete arms for different paramilitary units ("people's guard" of some shape and form). I've seen photos of pro-Soviet "village self-defence" units in Aghanistan armed with PPSh-41 submachineguns of the WWII vintage, and those use non-standard (for Soviet/Soviet satellite army of 1980s) 7.62x25 TT cartridge. SVT uses standard Soviet GPMG/marksman cartridge, so there were no ammo supply problems. Same goes for Egypt, Yugoslavia, Cuba, China, N. Korea. I'm not aware of militaries of any of those countries standartising SVT as their standard battle rifle, but some could be supplied by Soviets as marksman/trainer/paramilitary rifle. Philippines during WW2 is, most definitely, an error, for more reasons that I could care listing. Post-WWII some could, theoretically, end up there from China. For Egypt, confusion with SAFN (Belgian rifle used by Egyptians) is also possible, as both rifles look similar. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Gewehr 43 as variant

Although the G43 was based on the SVT40 in design, can it really be considered a variant? It is quite different aesthetically and was manufactured by a different country. We might as well call the FN FAL a SVT40 variant because it uses a similar design.--Martin (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling the G.43 a variant is more than a stretch, it's a G.41 with the SVT-40 gas system implemented in a similar manner. The FAL is closer to the SVT's design as it both has the short-stroke gas system and a tilting locking bolt. The G.43 is as much of an SVT-40 variant as the CZ-75 is a M1935 variant. Fugi187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC).

Poorly educated, trained, equipped etc.

This crops up every time the Soviet weapons are discussed. I call for an unbiased opinion by an expert. True, the approach to grunt-level firearms in the Russian army was "lofty", including the Russian Empire army (pre-1917). This stemmed from the army's late transition to modern magazine firearms, from the reality of the draft system... BUT most of all from the prejudice towards ordinary soldiers compared to officers, who were traditionally viewed as aristocrats (and often were, more so than in other large armies). For example, the decision for single-action Nagant "soldier-type" revolver compared to the "officer-type" double-action was made based on this prejudice towards "stupid" and "cowardly" rank and file. And even then, the design itself was chosen based on its "round economy" due to the slow reload - overall conservative approach to infantry weapons that carried itself further.

This prejudice obviously was just that - a prejudice, because Russian army was always characterized by the relatively high morale, stubborness, resourcefulness and skill of its soldiers. And yes, until 1930s most of the conscripts were from rural areas and not machine workers; but their percentage steadily grew thanks to rigorously-forced industrialization.

Nevertheless, the prejudice, it seems, seeped deeply even into modern historic records. The notion of WWII-era Soviet soldiers being "poorly educated and poorly equipped", moreso "poorly trained", remains to be proven on a case by case basis, compared with the analogous training and education level in other major countries. Of course, often it will be correct - mass drafts and equipment shortages were a reality for Soviet warfare. But equally widespread was discipline, proper training and efficient application of available technology - or the war could take a whole new direction there.

In the case of SVT, there are accounts in literature that show: "quality" troops (reconnaisance for example) preferred them for their purposes, and dismiss the rifle's reputation for unreliability as coming from the people that don't maintain their weapons properly.

Again, I ask for an unbiased view of the SVT partially unsuccessful inception in the Soviet army, like it was done manyfold with the original fielding of the M16 rifle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.73.12.199 (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "I ask for an unbiased view of the SVT partially unsuccessful inception in the Soviet army, like it was done manyfold with the original fielding of the M16 rifle." Popenker has a pretty good one. Care to add a summary here? However, if you expect an WP-en article about Soviet/Russian anything sticking to the same standards of impartiality as an article about American stuff, you should prepare yourself for some serious disappointment. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Recently all of the Russian/Soviet gun articles have switched over to pictures taken at the Army Museum in Stockholm. While they are good, an SVT-40 without a magazine just looks stupid, and is in no way representative of the design. I own an SVT and could take a better one myself, or someone else could contribute one. Just so long as it has a magazine in it. 74.51.57.78 (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in SVT-40

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 SVT-40'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 "Miller":

• From AK-47: Miller, David M. O. (1 May 2001). The Illustrated Directory of 20th Century Guns. Illustrated Directory Series. Salamander Books. ISBN 978-1-84065-245-1. Archived from the original on 19 March 2015. Retrieved 6 March 2016.
• From FG 42: Miller, David (2007). Fighting Men of World War II: Axis Forces : Uniforms, Equipment and Weapons. Stackpole Books. p. 104.

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⚡ 12:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)