Talk:Gewehr 43

Reliability claim
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)

It's well known to experts, and collectors that the G-43 is notably less reliable than the M-1 Garand and SVT-40, it's design layout(aswell as the G-41's)caused many jams, misfeeds, ect. also due to its exposed extractor spring being exposed to the elements. Also due to its somewhat crude quality and primitive assembally and materials, in addition sabotage was a constant problem with it. Many German troops (according to veterans' accounts and action reports) would always try to scavenge Russian SVT-40s, and most preferredly in Europe, American M-1 Garand rifles, which when put up against the G-43 in Italy, proved vastly superior in every aspect except ammunition supply (though 2 extra rounds per magazine isnt something to really brag about when so much else is inferior) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.203.195 (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Your statement that G/K 43 unreliability is "well known to the experts" is not really backed with evidence and is oversimplified. The US Army did run some tests on the G/K43 at APG following the war, and did note some issues, but not nearly to the general degree you cite. (An overpowered gas system designed to function in extreme cold and with a dirty rifle would, when combined with sub-specification materials found in some recoil spring sets, produce a "slamming" effect that would cause breakages. This is the primary root cause of nearly all G43 mechanical failures, not a "design layout" as you cite.)  What is known is that there was wide variation in the quality of these weapons, generally as a function of manufacturer. The four main assembly points for the rifle included two forced-labor facilities operated by the SS - the "bcd" coded rifles in particular, which were assembled from various components at KZ Buchenwald. ("bcd" source components were mostly Walther-supplied, but a few were locally machined, as well as coming from the range of subcontractors serving the supply base for the weapon system.) These are the least common rifles (roughly 9% of the 462,000 made), as the facility was bombed out of existence in August 1944. A second SS-operated facility assembled some Walther ("ac") coded rifles at KZ Nuenegamme. It is not known what portion exactly of "ac" rifles were built there, but owing to a variety of documented issues, it was likely a fractional minority. There are many "well-known" instances of sabotage and significant quality issues in weapons from these sources, but not from others. Indeed, most Walther-assembled weapons were of good quality. Further, about 63% of production was manufactured and assembled by BLM (Berliner-Luebecker Maschinenfabrik)- rifle codes "duv" and later "qve" - with very good quality. There is nothing in the design configuration that caused the general malfunctions you claim, and the action has been found to function very well. A design sensitivity does exist in that very tight tolerance control was required on the twin locking lugs relative to stack-up (differential left versus right) - as even a small dimensional variation could result in one lug taking disproportionate loading. You seem to confuse rough external (non-functional) finish with "crude quality and primitive assembly and materials". The rifle was designed to minimize the use of strategic materials, though there were some intermittent shortages that had impact on items such as recoil springs and extractors. In fact, CIOS reports highlight many manufacturing innovations, such as use of sheet metal parts, pressed/pinned barrels, rapid barrel straightness correction, rapid-forged receivers, and generally much more efficient assembly than used on the very complex and machining-intensive M1. German field reports show that rifles from BLM, in particular, performed very well. The "scavenging" you cite pertains mainly to the period before any German-issued semiautomatic rifles were available, which continued on after the disappointing G41M and G41W predecessors appeared. While the G43 has its flaws - the design was a considerable success under extreme conditions far worse than those in the United States. As an antidote for oversimplified pronouncements by "experts" and hearsay, W. Darrin Weaver's book "Hitler's Garands" (ISBN 0-88935-275-5) is a balanced view of the rifle's history and performance and is a good starting point for more thorough study. I have examined dozens of G43 rifles and own several. My experiences mirror what I have read - my BLM rifles have never jammed or failed in any way, even when filthy and abused. 68.41.182.100 (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Merged with K 43 page.
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)

Pic
Think you can get a picture that shows the whole rifle? Thanks. Aaron L

Schiessbecher
My info tells me that the Gewehr 43 could be equipped on a Gewehr 43

EDIT: I meant the Schiessbecher.

Nazi Germany vs. Germany
I think it's important to make this distinction. We've got one annonomous vandal who keeps removing the reference without comment, but the distinction should be made between the various stages of Germany.--Asams10 15:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.162.161.12 it seems 68.162.161.12 is intent on going around scrubbing Nazi German firearms articles of negative statements and I'm think of restoring the other info he changed too (from "illogical restrictions" to "some restrictions" and so on). I'm also curious about the status of the sniper variant as it went from one of the worst to one of the best sniper rifles in the war in one edit and it would be nice if there was a source to clear this up.--Sus scrofa 04:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not the one doing the editing, but I agree with it. We dont usually have a note in front of Germany for any other stage, IE Imperial Germany, Weimar Germany (OK maybe for West Germany Id understand). There was not two germanys at the time, IE in the case of 'Nationalist Spain' and 'Republican Spain'. The word 'nazi' is POV. No member of the National Socialist party (that I am aware of) ever referred to themselves as 'nazi'.   Wikipedia is terrible when it comes to 'nazees' and POV.  On the sniper rifle, I am not aware of it being preferred. However I have not met every German sniper WW2 vet, so I cannot say.  Semi Auto Sniper rifles seemed to be less popular in practice though.  user:Pzg Ratzinger
 * I believe some of the snipers that trained on the G43 preferred it, and those who trained on the K98 sniper (majority) preferred the K98, although the K98 was definitely farther ranging than the G43, but with decreasing engagement ranges, the G43 and K98 were both about equal in hit consistency, as the gun didn't suffer from vertical-shot dispersion like the SVT-40 and the G43 scoped definitely had the fire-power advantage.Hunt3r.j2 (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there weren't two Russias for most of the Soviet Union's existence either. Both terms (N Germany & S Union) signify an unique period of time when those states where dominated by one party systems and I think it's a good practice to tell that to the reader. If the Nazi in Nazi Germany is the problem then that discussion should be taken to the Nazi Germany article itself first and not be edited out in every article now linking to it, I would think. As for the effectiveness of the sniper variant there has to be some sort of source for this claim: field trial reports or the like and if no such source can be brougth forth nothing should be said of the effectiveness.--Sus scrofa 10:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The distinction between the Soviet Union and Russia is an excellent example. Germany, as it exists today, is neither the same area of land nor does it encompass the same people. It was significantly changed by the ravages of genocide, warfare, fascism, communism, etc. Nazi Germany was a significantly larger country than it is today and one with a political and national will starkly different than Germany as we see it today. One of those going around editing Nazi out of everything also edits articles on Holocost denial and Eugenics. This signifies, in my opinion, a revisionist attitude that needs to stay out of factual articles.--Asams10 16:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I may agree with the lack of the 'nazi' term used in front of Germany, however I am NOT one of the people editing Eugenics, etc. Now, I wont pretend that I dont have an interest in the time period (and I look at it very neutrally, which is important on WP) but I am not advocating any racism etc.  But, I also dont think you should be censoring and silencing other people's ideas on even highly contriversal topics such as Holocaust Denial (if they have real proof of any points, which 'some' do).  Back on topic though.  User Asams10 makes a good point (esp where in land area is concerned), but I counter that the same point could be made toward any given country that went through a dramatic goverment change.  While Spain under defacto leader Franco was largly a conservative/facist mix, people nevertheless refer to it as Spain after the Civil War..as there was no question whether or not it was the rightful govermental body of Spain.  Likewise, on articles concerning WW1, I suppose then youd support calling Germany 'Imperial Germany' or 'German Empire' as apposed to just plain 'Germany', as per your point, it had a larger land mass than even the NS Germany, and much more so than today's Federal Germany. In conclusion however, I dont think an article on a firearm is the area to be discussing this, as it is a larger issue.  On the issue of the sniper '43, the G43s I have fired have been less accurate than a K98, as well as 'fussy' and very sensative to heat.  Quite frankly they break easily.  For this reason, I imagine this happened even though the rifles are 60+ years of age, this happened then as well.  I cannot find anyone who agrees with the 'good' sniper G43 comment though.  I would remove it.  user:Pzg Ratzinger
 * Nice as (politically correct) this discussion might be, Nazi Germany just isnt the correct name. One can choose from  'Germany', 'the Greater German empire', 'The german empire' or 'The 3rd Empire' and so on. I never come across the distinction Democrat USA vs Republican USA either. --Vosselmans 12:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, this discussion is neither politically correct, nor are your comments timely. I'm more than happy to engage this conversation again, as it's timeless. You're wrong. We don't use the official names of a country in common use, nor would we say something like, "Germany sent millions of people to death camps." We use the qualifier "Nazi" to distinguish the national will of modern Germany from that of the Nazi Germany.  The term "Republican USA" is incorrrect as it encompasses the same people, the same land, and the same government as did the "Democratic USA" or the "Whig USA" for that matter. Your arguments seem politically motivated and your edits of another user's page seem a bit odd. Have you read the article on Germany?  Do you actually understand the history of Germany?  Do you understand that "Germany"now is not the same land as "Nazi Germany" or any of the dozens of empires or collections of states and/or city/states that formed various alliances in the past?  Any clue what the Austro-Hungarian empire was? It seems that your view is that Germany is and always was a country and your plain wrong.--Asams10 12:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I could take a lot of offense on your last remarks asams10, being apparently the wiser I won't however. Calling Germany "Nazi Germany" is itself politically motivated and just plain wrong. I wont go into a lengthy discussion however, certainly not with someone who talks like you, (you might even want to reread wikipedia's guidelines on discussions). I'll just end my 2 cents by saying it's very sad, pathetic even, that trying, as as serious non-english history student, to correct something minor like this, still results in being called "politically motivated". I thought, hoped is more appropriate i think, Wikipedia had evolved past that, apparently i thought wrong. --Vosselmans 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I'm having a hard time following what you said, it seems you are either: 1) denying that Nazi Germany existed in which case you are an apologist, or 2) saying that the Germany today is significantly similar to Nazi Germany that you deny any distinction needs to be drawn. Either you are a Nazi Apologist or you're attacking modern Germany.  Either way, you're wrong.--Asams10 16:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Asams10. The Third Reich era in German history was such a distinct one that it needs to be specified, at least in an encyclopedic article. --DOHC Holiday 03:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but also I think that Nazi Germany sounds ridiculous. It's a term only leftists tend to use in Germany (Nazi Deutschland). Nazi is not a term the actual Nazis used, especially not when they were speaking of Germany. It's a pejorative term and therefore POV. 3rd Reich seems ok, and it's a term Hitler used.
 * @Asams10 The distinction between the Soviet Union and Russia is an excellent example. Germany, as it exists today, is neither the same area of land nor does it encompass the same people.
 * I disagree. The modern Federal Republic of Germany is the same state as the the German Empire of 1871, the Weimar Republic and the 3rd Reich in terms of international law (Völkerrecht) and so are its people. The smaller area, the different government is a direct result of the outcome of WW2 but there was no new state founded. Also is "Soviet Union" an official term while "Nazi Germany" is a term used by Allied propaganda.--MacX85 (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The term 'Nazi Germany' makes no more sense than 'Republican America' or 'Labour Britain'. Since we are not referring to any political topics here, but only military, no extraneous political information should be included in the discussion.  We must remember that Nazism was a POLITCAL movement - not a military one.  The vast majority of Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine, and Luftwaffe officers had no specific political agenda, were concerned only with the well-being of their nation, and often disliked the excessively anti-semitic agenda their politcal masters were so adamant to pursue.  Let us discuss history in an unbiased way, calling Germans Germans.  Else, shall we refer to all of the Soviet actions of this war as being done by 'Communist Forces', and the Western allies as 'Democratic Forces'?  There is no point to doing this.  Calling Germany 'Nazi Germany' is inexact and definitely propaganda.Philosopher8 (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As with the terms German Empire, Weimar Republic, East Germany and West Germany. 'Nazi Germany' is convenient shorthand for describing different phases of Germany that has passed into generally accepted usage. During 1871-1945 was officially known as the German Reich but it went through three very different stages during this time so it behooves us to use different terms to describe it. The term 'Weimar Republic' wasn't even in use during its lifetime but is a post facto invention. Likewise 'German Empire' describes Germany as it was then, an empire with colonies and all. The 'Nazi' in 'Nazi Germany' also singles out the important difference with this Germany, compared to the others: it was a totalitarian state (which makes it different from any other democratic state ruled by a party so the analogy of 'Republican USA' doesn't fit precisly) ruled by the Nazi party; what makes it different is that the Nazis sought to control every aspect of the citizens' lives. Compare Nazi Germany to East & West Germany; if we say German Democratic Republic or Federal Republic of Germany, we are using the official names but the meaning is not as immediately clear as if we use the commonly accepted shorthand. The ideological pretensions of the Soviet Union is already present in its name; hence Soviet forces are called Soviet (which means 'council', as in Russia was at the time nominally ruled by soldiers and workers councils). Furthermore, the armed forces of Nazi Germany went with the Nazis every step of the way in planning wars of aggression and carrying them out, all members swore a personal loyalty oath to Hitler, Hitler was the commander-in-chief of the German armed forces, Luftwaffe was of course run by top Nazi Göring, the Wehrmacht participated in the Holocaust with mass shootings of civilians on the Eastern front and finally an unknown number of them agreed with Guderian, who after the war was over said (he didn't know Allied microphones were listning) that there was nothing wrong with the Nazi ideology only with the person who carried it out. If the Wehrmacht brass wanted, they could have refused to carry through criminal orders as Gotthard Heinrici did when he disobeyed a direct order to burn down Smolensk. Refering to the nation Germany as Nazi Germany for this period is therefore not a great inexactitude. I don't use, and I haven't seen others using on wikipedia, the term Nazi forces rather than German forces which would be incorrect. This discussion applies to the nation only in my view.--Sus scrofa (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

For those arguing for a deletion of the Nazi qualifier, who I guess are German like I am, we have to keep in mind this is the English version of the article/Wikipedia, which is mostly edited by and for native speakers of English, and in that cultural context the term Nazi Germany has different connotations than for us. In the German version of the article/Wikipedia, it just says Germany, as you request, so I guess there is no point in forcing each others language on one another. It's just that in Germany, we use the expression Drittes Reich (Third Reich) to specify that time period, which, though not explicitly mentioning the Nazis, still carries all the connotations of totalitarianism, mass deportations and holocaust, so in the end it's just about words, different conventions in different languages. Zarkumo (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

G41
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)


 * 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)

Quality
"The Gewehr 43 was an overall accurate and robust rifle. Carrying the 7.92x57mm round, it could deal damage at an effective range of 400m. The rifle had low-recoil and could fire a cycle rate of 70 rounds a minute. It could also easily reload from a 10-round detachable box-magazine, which allowed for more firepower during combat. In many ways, the Gewehr 43 was superior any other semi-automatic rifle available."

This paragraph is kind of misleading. The K43 was very often of mediocre quality due to the steel shortage of German arms manufacturers at that time. Many examples left today support this view. I also fail to see what makes the rifle superior to, for example, the SVT-40. The two rifles are very identical, with the SVT having the bolt-carrier move inside the receiver (superior to the G43s partially external bolt-carrier.

Quality
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)


 * 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.  --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

You use terms like "huge amounts of gas" and "insane pressure" and they make you look like you don't know what you're talking about. We're talking about very small amounts of gas under high, not insane pressure. While I concede that these amounts are higher than the revised models. Have you any citation of any G43's exploding? Are you an engineer or otherwise qualified professional? Did you watch the history chanel and caught some second rate documentary and take their every word as fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.75.4 (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

The amount of grammar and agreement errors in this article is simply staggering. When I first read it several years ago, it was much more composed than it is now. The person above citing the faults of the G43 has no clue and is clearly unqualified to discuss firearm characteristics. He relies heavily on anecdotal generalizations and vague, unsupported accounts. I would advise him to rectify his grammar and technical skills before defacing the article again. The G43 has nothing in common with the M-16 besides its semiautomatic nature. It is operated by a different type of gas system...the M16 uses direct impingement, hence the swift fouling of its bolt with carbon buildup. The G43 uses a GAS PISTON, which means that the gases from the barrel do not reenter the chamber. It would also be nice to have some citations regarding the "poor quality" of these rifles, as I have found evidence to the contrary. In the article it says it was never mass produced. It may not have been as popular as some of the other weapons, but 400,000 units seems pretty mass produced to me. Get your facts straight before vandalizing the article with your pompous nonsense, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.23.88 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)

400,000 is not much when compared to 6,000,000 M-1 Garands were built. "For every 1 G-43 produced, the Americans produced 50 Garand rifles" - Scott Duff's book on M-1 Garand manufacture and production in WWII. The rifle's poor quality came from Germany running thin on quality parts and materials due to the war going completely against them and mass supply shortages, its machined steel was quick and often crude, constant reports of sabotuers, low quality wood, often little to no quality testing. Not saying all G-43s were bad, but the vast ammount were of low quality, plus it was not a standard rifle, and the German war machine had to focus to more pressing projects, the G-43 was a "back burner" project, meaning it wasnt treated as urgent by the High Command. http://www.panzergruppewest.us/g43.html http://www.nramuseum.com/the-museum/the-galleries/ever-vigilant/case-62-world-war-ii-axis-germany-and-italy/walther-gewehr-43-semi-automatic-rifle-with-telescopic-sight.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.203.195 (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)  This also comes from my interviews with veterans over the years, aswell as my own extensive personal experiences with shooting and operating these rifles in my collection.

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

Orphaned references in Gewehr 43
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). ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5. From Walther MP: Jones, Richard D. Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009/2010. Jane's Information Group; 35 edition (January 27, 2009). ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5. 

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)

External links modified
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)

SVT-40, Reloading
'"... 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)

German Translations & Meanings.
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)