Gun Guy Radio: The Sturmgewehr In Context

Nearly two weeks ago, I published an article that caused a great deal of consternation among my readership, even resulting in a prompt rebuttal video from Ian and Karl with InRange TV. That highly negative article was entitled 7 Reasons I Don’t Like The MP-44 Sturmgewehr. As a result of the unexpected waves it caused, the Sunday after the article ran I took to the proverbial recording studio with Ryan Michad to discuss the Sturmgewehr, its context, and to hopefully explain some of the more controversial talking points of the article.

In a second article written after the fact, I likened the MP.44 to the RSC 1917 in terms of its historical importance, and contrasted the reputations both rifles have. While the MP.44 is set atop a very high pedestal in the views of most, the RSC is barely known, despite being arguably the greater technical achievement. There are a number of reasons for this, which I may discuss in a (far) future article, having to do with the Cold War, the entrenched idea of German superiority, and the uneasy relationship between Western and Eastern engineering ethics.

For those readers who haven’t had enough of talking about the German Wundergewehr of World War II, be sure to head on over to the Firearms Radio Network, and give a listen to Episode 190: The MP44 In Context. 

Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He is also the author of the original web serial Heartblood, which is being updated and edited regularly. He can be reached via email at


  • skusmc

    Nathaniel, maybe it’s that the STG is the cool guy that you really want to hate because everyone loves him, so you’re just looking for reasons to not like him? He might actually be alright. Maybe you just hang out with him a bit more?

    • It’s a rifle, not a person.

      • Dan

        Wow so now rifles are a lower class huh? Prejudice much. I dream of a day when rifles and people can walk down the street together. I dream of a day when a rifle can go into a resturant and order without fear of being thrown out I dream of a……ok i’ll stop now.

        • iksnilol

          Problem with that is that rifles can’t walk 😛

          • ostiariusalpha

            Some people can’t walk either. I help my rifles and pistols walk ’cause that’s just what a friend does.

      • Don Ward


    • nadnerbus

      So it’s kind of like the Justin Timberlake of military arms. Or maybe the Channing Tatum.

      • JK

        I probably have a better chance of hanging out with Justin Timberlake or Channing Tatum than firing even a full-auto clone of a STG (thank you, Ronald Reagan and the mid-eighties congress).

        • Not true. Find yourself a machine gun shoot; they’re likely to have an MP.44 for rent there.

  • Gruul

    Why is everyone butthurtting so bad over this?

    • B/c if you say that the STG was not the first “assault weapon” everybody’s mouth starts to foam in anger.

      • Twilight sparkle

        I believe you mean assault rifle, “assault weapon” is a made up political term. And the mp 43 was the first widely fielded assault rifle. The only person that’s butt hurt here is Nathaniel because his readers have chosen to disagree with him for once.

        • You’re right, it’s assault rifle.

        • Kivaari

          Nathaniel was correct in his assessment of this German tin can.

          • Twilight sparkle

            You have to keep the era in perspective, there’s ingenuity I’m the little things of the mp43, the left sided charging handle which wasn’t standard back then has been incorporated into the modern manual of arms, Kalashnikov didn’t even get that right. The fact they could mass produce with sheet metal is a pretty nice accomplishment which wasn’t perfected by most countries until the 50’s or 60’s. The magazine capacity became the standard for nearly all assault rifles after it. It’s to assault rifles what the volcanic arms pistols was to lever actions in the old west.

          • PPSh-41s were made of sheet metal and mass produced. They also had 30 round magazines, as did the M1 Thompson.

            So that leaves the left-side charging handle. If that’s all the MP.44 has going for it, I think that basically makes my case for me…

          • iksnilol

            To be fair, it is a really nice charging handle. It even is round so that you can grip it comfortably.

          • Twilight sparkle

            That’s very true and I see what you’re saying, but a lot of guns that are considered largely innovative for their time also have other guns to trace their conglomeration of innovations to. There just seem to be a targeting the sturmgewehr because of its popularity. I do believe some firearm enthusiast tend to almost give it mythical qualities because of its status as one of the first assault rifles but it does deserve at least some respect for its modern qualities that weren’t very common in other combat firearms of the time.
            Does that make any sense at all?

          • iksnilol

            Eh, Kalashnikov did get it right. Try carrying an AK slung over your chest and you will appreciate the charging handle on the right side.

          • It is almost as if the charging handles of military rifles are subject to more stringent requirements than just how fast you can run them in a tactical carbine course…

          • iksnilol

            You mean the millitary isn’t like 3-gun? :O

          • Kivaari

            Look how Israel fixed that issue on the Uzi and Galil, and the US with the early Thompsons. I found the charging handle on the FAL didn’t poke me. Nor the folding G3.

          • Kivaari

            The charging handle that pokes at you if you carry the gun at the ready? That pokie thing explains why they put the sling on the wrong side. Israel’s Galil fixed the RHS AK charging handle and selector goof on the AK. Sheet metal like the Guide Lamp Division of GMC. The Germans did use it on larger cannon as well. Germans had a problems with “over designing” and building complex machines with a high failure rate. We can all be thankful that Germans had such a poorly led industry and military. They never solved the problems of having natural resources and manufacturing capacity. Things that, had they studied adequately, would have sent big – “STOP THIS MADNESS BEFORE IT STARTS”, message. Germany failed the biggest test in history, that doesn’t deserve giving them awards for “superior technology”. A big grade “F” in common sense.

          • Twilight sparkle

            Funny how you chose to mention the galil, have you noticed where they put the charging handle on the modernized version?

          • Kivaari

            Yep. Not new to Israel, since they issued the FALs. I liked the Galils placement. Like the two Uzis I had – ambidextrous.

        • Ian and Karl put out a half-hour long video rebutting me, if you recall.

        • JK

          Every term is made up. The term “assault rifle” was made up by somebody, and had to be explained and defended until it caught on with enough supporters. Even today, the term “Scout Rifle” is under attack by manufacturers who think stripper clip guides aren’t required, or that a Scout Rifle could ever be chambered in .223.

          • Twilight sparkle

            Very true, I just like to avoid using terms like assault weapon and assault rifle for political reasons. It’s also kinda annoying when I have to be nice to customers that come in asking to see what “assault rifles” I have when my store doesn’t carry any fully automatic firearms, I know what they mean but it just kinda… meh. I just tend to avoid terms with the word assault in them to avoid any confusion.

          • Edeco

            Yeah really. I had been saying “modern sporting” for a while, but then I’m thinking, hey, it doesn’t have to be sporting, and case of ARs and AK’s, not modern in the sense of being new. I’m thinking to use the term “contemporary auto-loading”…

          • Twilight sparkle

            3 gun is a sport that you can use either of them in. There are plenty of sporting activities that each could be placed into.

    • Kevin Harron

      Because wehraboos.

      • Phillip Cooper


        • marathag

          Weeaboos is derogitory for Japanese Anime&Manga fans who are obsessed with the superiority of that over western forms.

          A chart explains much, google for ‘wehraboo bingo’

        • marathag

          here is the chart, if it gets approved
          edit:hmm, guess not

      • n0truscotsman

        hahaha, I learned that term from tank-net and haven’t heard it in a while. Good stuff. I think thats exactly what the problem is.

        • I guess your mind will be blown if I tell you who invented it. 🙂

          • n0truscotsman

            I have a sneaking suspicion “Walter Sobchak” did. although I could be wrong LOL. 😉

          • No, but he can tell you who did. 😉

          • Don Ward

            His name sounds like Nathaniel Eff.

          • n0truscotsman

            That would be a wierd coincidence if it is him…

          • Don Ward

            Not as weird as you would think. For schnerious.

    • lowell houser

      Because nothing brings out idiots like manufactured drama.

      • Last ditch stamped sheet metal assault drama?

        • mosinman

          because muh nazi superiority complex

      • Phillip Cooper

        Yup. Just look at television.

  • RickH

    It’s ok Nathaniel…..time to just let it go.

  • Darkpr0

    Having kept an eye on these developments and rebuttals, and occasionally poked my head in to earn some ire, I can say the following: The entire sequence of events was sparked from an article with a really good idea that was executed like junk. The idea was great: show people that the StG was not the ultimate wonderweapon (and it totally isn’t, there’s no doubt about that),but I felt that the original article just did a much better job of reading like clickbait rather than an informative article. The title definitely did not help. Somebody yell at the editor for that one.

    I felt, reading the original article, that it felt like a negative opinion piece. I know, surprise surprise. But that’s not the sort of article we expect from TFB, and much less so from Nathaniel. It wasn’t steeped in data, and old documents and scientific studies, it was just presented. And while all the points may or may not have been true, having the data right there adds some serious legitimacy to the arguments that just wasn’t present. The article was obviously made with some designs to get people’s emotions going, but if you’re going to do so you’ve got to make sure you have enough concrete to stand on that you can properly shake up the misconceptions and that it’s presented clearly enough that people are forced to take a step back to re-examine their own point of view. And I would wager that evidence is out there, but it wasn’t shown in the article. As it was, the writing was not convincing enough on its own to work, and then the fallout came as a direct result of the wounded emotions of so many people. On the bright side you did provoke a video from Ian and Karl, so that’s an accomplishment.

    In the future I’m perfectly cool with articles intended to put a shadow on guns which are overhyped. It’s important to be pragmatic about the stuff that’s on there. We tell legends and they grow until the real thing isn’t recognizable. But the articles need to be constructed solidly, and reviewed extensively to make sure the reaction that’s provoked is the one that’s expected, and one that’s deserved. This one sort of turned into a melee.

    Post-thought: I should point out that I have no particular love for the StG as a weapon. I have held (though not fired) them, seen them, and I appreciate them a lot. They were a big step for a military, adopting a new-ish class of firearms that hadn’t been taken up to that scale. Engineering-wise it was a lot more interesting for its design for manufacture than its actual working mechanism. But if I have to pick a go-to-war, it’s not the StG.

    • That’s fair criticism. I originally intended the article to be more of a window into the way I thought about the rifle than an ultra-technical dissertation on it, but you’re right that most of my regular readers probably do not expect that from me.

      • Darkpr0

        Well, it’s not like everything you ever write needs to be an in-depth scientific piece. But you did write an opinion piece on the internet which comes with a certain degree of peril.

  • 7n6

    What is with the TFB and its obsession with Nazi weapons?

    • Twilight sparkle

      The nazis created and used a lot of firearms, a few months ago someone was complaining about TFB covering too many Jewish guns from isreal…

      • Kivaari

        There is a huge anti-Israeli component among people that know nothing of the religion or anything related the nation of Israel.

        • iksnilol

          Where do I fall? I have good relationship with the Jewish community in Bosnia yet I am not a fan of Israel (and they don’t like me much either).

      • JeepsGunsTanks

        I thought MLP fans were pedos, not Nazi fanboys.

        • JK

          Not mutually exclusive.

        • Twilight sparkle

          I’m neither, but I can recognize that a lot of advancements in medicine and technology came from the nazis. And liking mlp has nothing to with anything other than liking mlp.

          • From what I can tell, a lot fewer advancements in technology came from the Nazis than are commonly believed.

          • Twilight sparkle

            To a certain extent we owe them modern rocketry, highways, modern film, the anti smoking movement, night vision and a few other things that I can’t remember at the moment. War tends to create a lot of new technology, we had a lot of advancements at that time too.

    • Alex Agius

      You mean historically significant weapons? The german arms industry made a lot of great weapons of huge historical significance. Sadly the USA kinda took your attitude and ignored this hugely important gun (when compared to russia) and instead wasted time and money on the m14

      • mosinman

        the M-14 was hardly a waste of time.

        • iksnilol

          It was a waste of time. Let’s be real.

          It did nothing well and was replaced as quickly as possible. Sorry for the harsh truth :/

          • ostiariusalpha

            Yeah, but it’s very lovely and makes a great dress/parade rifle. Having class in spades may not make up for a lack of reliability, basic accuracy, controllability on full auto, and all those other qualities that you want to see in a modern combat arm, but the M14 is the kind of gun you can enjoy shooting like a more advanced version of a well made milsurp bolt action. They work quite well as hunting rifle, they make a beautiful display at the range, and they’re just fun to own.

          • Kivaari

            The M1 is a better parade rifle, That flat plate on the bottom doesn’t leave as many nicks and dings in your body.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Meh, the M14 is just the better Garand in my opinion, the M1 is kind of the tweedy Grandpa of the family. They make replacement rubber butt pads for the M14 too, so it’s not really much of handicap.

          • Kivaari

            That damn magazine sticking down gets in the way. The M1 rifle is simply smoother. While on a riot team at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, we carried M1s. None of the other sailors had M14s. But we did envy the CBs, they wore real combat clothing and carried M16A1s. And they could both march and do stomp and drag moves like they knew what they were doing.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Hmm, the ones I see used in drills these days have flush mags; I wouldn’t imagine they’re any more difficult to handle than the M1’s bottom metal. The Bees are definitely some of the lesser known gentlemen badasses of the Navy.

          • The Hitch report outright says the M14 is actually inferior to the M1, but it’s not publicly available so I can’t say whether that was a good or bad conclusion.

          • ostiariusalpha

            You, yourself, have pointed out before that most of the imputed knocks the Hitch Report had for M14 vs M1 had more to do with expense & build quality rather than inherent design. A TRW made M14 > an M1 any day, or so I tend to believe.

          • I would expect a TRW M14 to be a fine weapon, yes.

          • nadnerbus

            The M14 was the finest horse-drawn carriage money could buy at at time when the rest of the world was putting motor trucks into service.

          • Sulaco

            IYHO of course which is as you have stated so often, is cotangential with revealed truth….snark off

          • iksnilol

            From people who were paid to use it, paid to maintain it, paid to make it, paid to develop it. And people who do all those things without getting paid to do it. My “revealed” truth isn’t really revealed, it was never hidden. You just have to look for it. Being romantic is easy, being objective is a bit harder because you have to accept the flaws of the stuff you like.

            And no, I haven’t used an M14. Wouldn’t mind trying one though.

          • mosinman

            nah. it worked well. it’s just that the M-16 was lighter and better.

          • A couple of months ago, I might have stuck up for the M14 a little bit, but upon learning that the FAL is actually lighter (if that shocks some people, well, it shocked me too, but facts is facts) I lost what little enthusiasm I had for the M14.

            The US should never have adopted it. We should have adopted the FAL like the rest of NATO.

          • Kivaari

            An FAL is one of the rifles I really wish I hadn’t sold. It is superior to the M14, with a tiny exception. The sheet metal action cover was a bit less durable. But they are cheap and could easily been toughened up with ribbing.

          • Cynic

            Fal in 280 is what should have happened but you lot forced is to go .308 with the promise of a standardised rifle and then chose the m14 anyway….

          • That’s not… Exactly how it happened. Some writers in the late 20th Century spread the idea that the US and UK heads of state met secretly to agree to adopt the FAL in .30 LR, dropping the .280, but so far as I know there’s exactly zip for evidence to support this idea, and Churchill was more of a .30 cal supporter, anyway.

          • Cynic

            From what iv seen of the 280 the pressure from the us on agreeing a nato standard round got us .308

            The fal was trialed and should have beaten the m14 but suffered from ‘furriner’ issues.

            I’m just being flippant and blaming the us for the loss of a sensible intermediate cartridge.

            Full auto 30cal rifles were a stupid idea anyway thankfully we never bothered. The SLR is a gorgeous rifle to shoot in comparison to the m14 imo.

            I adore the bren in L4 trim though weirdly enough

          • The British narrative is that the U.S. was mean and didn’t let NATO have what it really wanted, which was the .280. So far as I have been able to tell, this isn’t entirely accurate. NATO would have been perfectly happy to standardize on .30-06, it was a contingent of the British Army that was pushing for the .280. Ordnance then surprised everyone when they revealed the .30 Light Rifle (sources actually conflict as to which project was revealed publicly first, .30 LR or .280 British). Most nations in NATO were apathetic about this, and simply willing to let the U.S. drive the train, so long as something was standardized. By the late Forties, nations like Canada were making small arms ammunition not only in the calibers they were using, but in the calibers other member nations in NATO were using, as well. For the Canadians, this meant .30-06, .303, and 8mm. The Canadians, accordingly, did not side with either the British or the Americans, but wanted standardization to proceed as quickly as possible. The French are another noteworthy case, with some French officials reportedly having voiced opposition to the .280, as they felt the .30 Light Rifle would make a better conversion for their brand new suite of small arms.

            The Belgians expressed the most interest in the .280, but by the time the issue had come to a head in the early 1950s, the Belgians had dropped the round and were pretty much focusing on the .30 LR. By the time Britain abandoned the .280 in 1954, it was a holdout against the rest of NATO that had more or less accepted the U.S. cartridge.

            Keep in mind that, given hindsight, I think the .280 was the better round, though not by as wide a margin as many have come to believe.

          • I’ll need to do some digging to see when the “US accepts the FAL for
            NATO approval of the T65” quid pro quo was first alleged. I suspect
            that the criticism came from both sides of the pond: US officials who
            didn’t want a foreign rifle, and UK officials who didn’t want to give up
            the .280 or the EM2,

            Truman and Churchill’s meetings were hardly a secret. Here is what the White House had to say on the matter of small arms in their public statement from the January 1952 conference.

            “We have reviewed the question of standardization of rifles and ammunition in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Neither country thinks it wise at this critical time to take the momentous step of changing its rifle. In the interest of economy, both in time and money, we have agreed that the United States and the United Kingdom will continue to rely upon rifles and ammunition now in stock and currently being produced. In the interest however of eventual standardization, we have also agreed that both countries will produce their new rifles and ammunition only on an experimental scale while a common effort is made to devise a rifle and ammunition suitable for future standardization.”

          • Cynic

            The ordnance board were very anti SLR regardless of the fact it was blatantly the better rifle in testing. Their solution was to cheat to break the m14 opposition.

            The slr/fall suffered from ‘notmadehereitis’and the OB got pissy and stroppy. Further examples of this can be seen in the deliberately faulty ammo used for the initial A2 testing only stopped by the acquisition of Canadian manufactured ss109 which would eventually become the new standard round.

            The 30 call era was there because of stupid antiquated rules from the board that had sod all to do with modern (for the period) warfare. The demand it fulfil the same balistic need set for the 30.06 adoption requiring the ability to kill a horse and rider at some absurd distance.

            The safety requirements for the MHS is similarly ludicrous evolving from a need to prevent discharge when dropped by a charging cavalrymen.

            (Side note, my phone wanted to write calvaryman which would be a mite different in its affect on us weapons procurement)

          • UnrepentantLib

            Let’s be cynically honest about it. The M-14 was the best battle rifle of WWII. Too bad it arrived about a dozen years too late.

        • idahoguy101

          How so? Army Ordnance could have rebarreled the M-1 Garand to 7.62 NATO. Instead of spending the 15 years before the M-14 was issued. The M-14 was a modest product improvement over the Garand. It’s a great target gun to shoot but battlefields are not target ranges

      • Kivaari

        It wasn’t ignored. We actually issued an assault rifle for a few decades before we adopted the M16. The M2 carbine, is a select-fire carbine firing an intermediate cartridge that is small and easily controlled. Had the M2 been altered for a better cartridge it would have been a game changer. A little round like the .22 Johnson Spitfire (well, maybe).

        • Cynic

          30 carbine was a great round but unfortunately much like the m16 it had a mythos of failure attached to it. It has enough stopping power it’s light and easy to shoot well because of low recoil. It would have benefitted from some better bullet selection however.

          • Kivaari

            The late Col. John George in his book, “Shots Fired in Anger” (NRA Press) had good things to say about the carbine. From memory his brother Melvin George (or an old friend) told the American Rifleman about John’s use of the .30 Carbine. The author had not mentioned how many he had killed in the text. John reported that he had shot 35 Japanese soldiers with the carbine. Most shots were, what I consider, classic jungle fighting. One shot kills at a few feet. So many enemy soldiers were simply startled by the colonel on trails. The carbine was fast handling and EFFECTIVE. Contrary to popular myth, there was a place for the carbine.

    • KestrelBike

      They don’t. I have a STRONG nazi-sympathizer/fetishist/apologist radar, and nothing on/from TFB has ever tripped it. (or I likely wouldn’t be here)

      The fact that WW2 (on the sides of both allies/axis) created or happened shortly after so many advancements/breakthroughs/developments in small arms is just natural human progress.

    • I can’t speak for the other writers, but I’ve written more about American and Russian weapons than I have Nazi weapons.

  • Wolfgar

    Like all historians Nathaniel’s opinion on the STG-44 is his own and it isn’t without merit. There are many such as my self who don’t completely agree with his conclusion but did get us to re- think the impact of the STG-44. In my opinion the STG-44 should be considered a pivotal point in the evolution of the Assault rifle as the M-1 Garand was to the self loading rifle. Nathaniel’s case is strong on the innovation developed by Garand in his creation of the M-1 Garand compared to the innovation or lack of developing the STG-44. The impact the STG-44 had on future military firearms is where we tend to have differences. In any case Nathaniel’s opinion and conclusion did get the thought process and debate rolling which is refreshing compared to the same old re-hashed articles on the Sturmgewehr.

    • For the record, I don’t really consider myself to be a historian. I am just some guy, really.

      But it’s still cool to get paid to research and write about this stuff.

      • Wolfgar

        No I’m an arm chair historian, you are a researcher and firearm historian that takes a back seat to no one. This is no butt kissing exercise just an observation on my part. When you do research you are a historian, if it is worthy depends on the reader. You shouldn’t underestimate your self, you have given much information other so called historians have neglected to include in their writings. Maybe we could get into an acid argument over this debate. 🙂

      • imachinegunstuff

        The best part of this whole thing was seeing one of your first articles, on Assault rifles produced before the STG 44, fascinating article

  • droog

    Oh, some precious little snowflakes are reaching for the posterior cushion, oh dear.
    This is Debate Club, bring it on.

    like click-bait, except with pics, facts and context
    more please.

  • Ed

    In the end who cares the STG 44 failed to save the Nazis and no one adopted a pure MP 44 after WW2. So call it crap if you want. Its a opinion.

    • pbla4024

      It was adopted by Czechoslovakia.

      • And East Germany, and several other nations. No one manufactured them in large numbers after the war, however (though the Argentinians got close).

      • iksnilol

        It was used by Yugoslavian airforce as well.

    • Secundius

      @ Ed.

      TO LITTLE, TOO LATE. Only ~426,000 produced, not enough to make an impact…

      • Phil Hsueh

        Sort of like pretty much every other wunderwaffe the Germans produced during WW II.

  • Kivaari

    Thanks for being so rational when it comes to German superiority in technology. People buy BMWs based on the image of super-cars built by super-craftsman, then ignore how often they break down.

    • iksnilol

      My brother had 3 BMWs, gave up and bought an Audi. I find it hilarious when people say that getting a good BMW is hard because when people get a good one they don’t want to sell it.

      Me? I bought a Skoda the first time and I still have it. To be fair though, VW and Audi are pretty good cars.

    • idahoguy101

      Next purchase get a BMW motorcycle

  • UCSPanther

    The Sturmgewehr 44 was doomed to not go far in development or deployment simply because it was being created by a mortally wounded dictatorship…

  • Frank Martin

    Opinions are like A**holes..

    Everyone has one..

    • dbhm

      and they all stink.

  • iksnilol

    Another ambi person!? Nice.

    Personally I don’t have a problem with the charging handle despite shooting right handed. Then again I do shoot bolt actions a lot so having it on the right side is natural. It feels weird to hold a rifle right handed and charge it with my left. Feels so unsteady compared to the way I am used to.

  • Zapp Brannigan

    The StG-44 was novel in that it used a lower powered cartridge than was the norm at the time for a main battle rifle. It bridged the gap between the full power battle rifles with their high recoil and the submachine guns with their limited range. It was the concept of a repeating rifle with a ‘just powerful enough’ cartridge, not the actual execution, that is noteworthy.

    Many things that are touted as novel don’t seem so novel after a few decades because they’ve been copied and/or surpassed by others so it seems commonplace. Like the work of Jimi Hendrix or Orsen Welles, it seems largely unexceptional now but that is because so many have copied what they innovated.

    • Except there were a number of lower powered cartridges in service in some capacity previously. Sure, the Russian 7.62×41 was a direct response to the Kz.Ptr., but for example the developments of the 5.56mm and 5.45×39 have nothing to do with it.

      And, of course, the only nation to actually copy the MP.44 with a mind to adopt it was Argentina.

  • idahoguy101

    The STG-44… Too little, too late for Germany. Thank god! But it did impress the hell out of the Red Army. Which gave the world the AK

  • but they lost so——

  • Secundius

    If I had the Choice of an AK-47 or the StG-44, it would be the StG-44 “Hands-Down”. Reliable and Accurate at ranges up to 700-meters plus. the AK, is a USELESS Piece of SH|T at that Range…

  • Richard Lutz

    The much lighter M1 carbine really was a much better intermediate power rifle than the Sturmgewehr, which had all the power necessary for most uses and better practical accuracy with its longer sight radius. Most Nazi weapons are overrated.