Was the Gewehr 43 a good rifle?

[Daniel L]

I would like to hear your opinion about this semi- automatic rifle. Some people states that it's a good gun and other claims it be a bad one, what are your thoughts?

Best regards/ Daniel

[Ranger]

I have no personal experience with this rifle but from what I have read it lacked the dependability of the Garand.

It also had a shorter barrel than the K98, this did not allow the powder to burn completely before the bullet exited the barrel. This resulted in a very large muzzle flash and loss of muzzle velocity. The lower muzzle velocity affected (negatively) the weapon's maximum effective range. How ever it does seem that many Gewehr 43s were equiped with Optics and used in a sniper role so one would have to assume that muzzle velocity and range could not have been too greatly affected. Still, the increased muzzle flash would be a big problem, especially for a sniper.

[Douglas Jr.]

Well,

I own a K-43 rifle (new name of the G-43 from late 1944 on), although I never shoot it. The one that I got has the sniper optics (a ZF4 original scope !) and whole thing is pretty attractive. It is a heavy weapon (4,7kg - or 10.3 pounds), holding 10 rounds in its magazine. Not so balanced but still can give you a good sense of accuracity and power. It is also very well constructed although very though finished

If I were a german front line soldier I would like to have one of these instead of one of the Mauser 98K, mainly because its self-loading action. A good place to have more info about this weapon is the http://www.gewehr43.com site.

Here are some pictures of mine.

Regards,

Douglas.

[Ranger]

Hey Douglas, that is a very nice piece, I'm jealous! ! The K43 (K=Karbiner) is another 50MM shorter than the Gewehr 43 so I would assume the muzzle flash problems would be increased with this model.

I noticed your from Brasil, I travel to Brasil quite frequently and actually I am planning to move there later this year. If I'm not mistaken Brasil has some pretty tough anti gun laws. Did you have to get a special permit to purchase/own this Rifle?

[CHRISCHA]

Very nice looking weapon. I was under the impression SLR's were not ideal for use by a sniper as they tend to affect the optics more and so need re-sighting quite often? I suppose the role of a sniper (chosing the correct target and avoiding detection) would eliminate the need for a SLR as close combat would be unecessary. Please anyone feel free to tell me I'm talking nonsense if I am.

[Daniel L]

Actually the sniper version was developed just because it was semi- automatic. To have a bolt- action rifle in close combat isn't a nice thing. You're right about the sniper version being bad. During tests they started to get bad results already when going beyond 100 meters.

Best regards/ Daniel

[Ranger]

Very nice looking weapon. I was under the impression SLR's were not ideal for use by a sniper as they tend to affect the optics more and so need re-sighting quite often? I suppose the role of a sniper (chosing the correct target and avoiding detection) would eliminate the need for a SLR as close combat would be unecessary. Please anyone feel free to tell me I'm talking nonsense if I am.

Chrischa,
You are correct, a bolt gun is preferred when doing true precision shooting out to 1000 Meters and more. Most Semi Autos can not compete with a bolt gun at those distances, there are a few but they are outrageously expensive as compared to a bolt action and will always lack the dependability.

The thing is , back it WWII the optics were not good enough to be of any use past say, 600 meters tops and most kills were between 150 to 300 Meters. When sniping at that close a range then "tack driving" accuracy isn't as important as rapid fire capability, especially when engaging mobile infantry.

Today, with the improvement in optics, rifles and mounting equipment, snipers regularly make 1000 M + shots. At these ranges nothing can compare to the consistency of a bolt gun. Still you see allot of semi autos in use such as the M-21 (a scoped and accurized version of the M-14) for use against close to medium ranged, fast moving targets.

[Douglas Jr.]

Hi Ranger,

Pretty nice to hear that you enjoy my country!

You-re correct about the tough laws concerning the ownership of fireguns. However, you can have a special license from the Brazilian Army to have historical guns (I mean made before-1945), without any restriction concerning the calibers.

Although a little bit burocratic, this is the best way for those who are interested to become a serious collector. for full automatic weapons you must have to be a licensed collector for more than 10 years. But it allows you to have a intact MP40 or a Thompson, for instance.

For the common citzen, however, it would be impossible to own one of these pieces. The caliber is limited to .380ACP (for pistols) and .38 SWL for revolvers to ordinary use. The .45ACP only for licensed shooters, and the guns should stay in the club or inside the house (disassemled, if I´m not mistaken).

Regards,

Douglas.

[Ranger]

Yes I knew about the calibur restriction, I once dated a woman who was a "policia Militar" in Rio de Janeiro and I was quite surprised to find that they could not carry anything more powerful than a .380 ACP. Here in the US the Police would only carry a .380 as a "back up" gun. I do however have a good friend who works for the Federal Police in Santos, as I understand it they can carry 9mm or .40 S&Ws.

Anyway, check your Private messages, I would like to talk more with you but don't want to ruin this thread with personal chatter.


Tchau

[Daniel L]

The thing is , back it WWII the optics were not good enough to be of any use past say, 600 meters tops and most kills were between 150 to 300 Meters. When sniping at that close a range then "tack driving" accuracy isn't as important as rapid fire capability, especially when engaging mobile infantry.

Not entirely true, most hits were probably made below 400 meters. And snipers did shoot at greater distances. In example a German sniper took a shot at a russian officer at the distance of 3100 meters, he missed altough.

Best regards/ Daniel

[Ranger]

The thing is , back it WWII the optics were not good enough to be of any use past say, 600 meters tops and most kills were between 150 to 300 Meters. When sniping at that close a range then "tack driving" accuracy isn't as important as rapid fire capability, especially when engaging mobile infantry.

Not entirely true, most hits were probably made below 400 meters. And snipers did shoot at greater distances. In example a German sniper took a shot at a russian officer at the distance of 3100 meters, he missed altough.

Best regards/ Daniel

Sure I agree with you, there are always exceptions. I'm sure many soldiers took long high percentage shots and may have even scored a few hits out to 1000 meters (I would bet no hits were ever made past 1000 meters). I still stand by my statement though that most kills were made between 150 and 300 Meters.

As far as my statment about the optics of the day, I should have said the effective range wasn't any more than about 600 meters. You could certainly take longer shots but your percentage of hitting the target greatly decreased beyond that range.

The record for the longest kill was just broken in Afghanistan by a Canadian sniper team, it was 2,400 Meters using a .50 caliber rifle. Prior to this the record was 2,100 meters in Vietnam by Marine Sniper Carlos Hathcock using a scoped M-2 .50 cal. Machinegun.

[Daniel L]

Sure I agree with you, there are always exceptions. I'm sure many soldiers took long high percentage shots and may have even scored a few hits out to 1000 meters (I would bet no hits were ever made past 1000 meters). I still stand by my statement though that most kills were made between 150 and 300 Meters.

As far as my statment about the optics of the day, I should have said the effective range wasn't any more than about 600 meters. You could certainly take longer shots but your percentage of hitting the target greatly decreased beyond that range.

Can you provide a source for this claim, it would be interesting to hear more. The same veteran who fired at the Russián officer had a 90 percent hit chance at ranges of 1000 meters. One could also look at other interviews and the demands at the sniper training programs.

Best regards/ Daniel

[Oleg Grigoryev]

well since G-43 is SVT-40 related, maybe this will be of use http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/v ... hlight=svt

[Douglas Jr.]

Hi,

It isn´t correct to say that the K-43 was the "smaller" version of the G-43! I also though that way until I could compare - side by side - both rifles and I can say for sure that they were the same gun. As consequence both the G-43 as the K-43 have the same barrel size.

I think that the confusion about its name is the same as with the MP43/MP44/StG 44: it was always the same gun and the changing of its name was the only difference between them.

Greetings,

Douglas.

[hohenstaufeninthehoodsr]

the only difference between a k43 and g 43 is the manufaturer. walther made one and mauser made the other.