The volkssturmgewehr as the german WWII rifle

Might a simple folding metal stock be preferable?

This is the bizarre thing of the volkssturmgewehr, it is a nice gun, but it just came too late. This thing could be the German SKS in fame.

Well, what else could be done to improve it, apart from changing the stock and making the wood better?
volkssturmgewehr MK48-Kar-35.png

A folding stock could be added with a pistol grip and the barrel lengthened as well.
I think a good name for this gun would be the "Steyr Kar-35".
 
Last edited:
From my point of view, the main advantage granted via 'rough SKS' would've been a much increased firepower of an infantry unit.
 
Stamping tech wasn't there yet for earlier. This could not be made in 35.

Stamped guns was something that grew out of the mid war to post war era and was actually really tricky to get right. Had they had the tools to do it they would have picked something much nicer than the volksturmgewehr, well actually they DID pick something much nicer, namely the Sturmgewehr 45(M) which evolved into the CETME/G3.
 
Last edited:
It should also be noted that the volksturmgewehr was an absolutely atrocious rifle that was made to be easy to make with the correct stamping tools but absolutely horrible when it came to reliability, simplicity of operation, ruggedness and accuracy when compared to other kurz rifles. There is a reason why this particular type of action never saw much success, especially in rifle designs.
 
Last edited:
if the gun is introduced in 1935, it would be improved by 1939, not a perfect (if there is such a thing) rifle but better than the last ditch weapon designed at the end of the war.
This is Nazi Germany we're talking about. Do you think even for a moment it wouldn't end up massively over engineered and complicated?
 
It should also be noted that the volksturmgewehr was an absolutely atrocious rifle that was made to be easy to make with the correct stamping tools but absolutely horrible when it came to reliability, simplicity of operation, ruggedness and accuracy when compared to other kurz rifles. There is a reason why this particular type of action never saw much success, especially in rifle designs.
Any sources that can confirm that vkstg was absouletly atcocious rifle, absouletly horrible when it came to reliability, simplicity of operation, ruggedness and accuracy when compared to other kurz rifles?
 
This is Nazi Germany we're talking about. Do you think even for a moment it wouldn't end up massively over engineered and complicated?
The Wehrmacht requested a simplified GMPG shortly after the MG-34 entered service and the result was the MG-42, which took half the man-hours to produce as its predecessor. The MP-40 was a simplification on previous submachine guns. The early Panzers were most certainly not overengineered, even if their suitability for mass-production was not optimized to a T. The Panzerfausts were simple designs. The The stereotype of the stupid German who'll make everything too complicated is just plain wrong.
 
Last edited:
It is cheaper than the Kar-98, and would be more useful in close assault. However, German infantry doctrine was all about the GPMG, and having 2 different rifle rounds for a single section probably erases whatever economy had been gained from the cheaper rifle.

This gun is very good, it can even fire as an automatic rifle,
No it can't, it's semi-only and it's mechanism would beat itself to pieces if fired in full auto.
 
This reminds of the thread where someone suggested the British Army replace most to all of its Lee Enfields with Stens.
 
Any sources that can confirm that vkstg was absouletly atcocious rifle, absouletly horrible when it came to reliability, simplicity of operation, ruggedness and accuracy when compared to other kurz rifles?
Well first the action which requires 6 springs for it to function and the receiver which was assembled from many smaller parts (actually has significantly more parts than an AR-15, twice that of a G3 or AK) held together by screws (big eyebrow raise) instead of a few monolithic ones, this does not bode well for anyone who's ever looked at a rifle and then there is the action which was to put it mildly not suited to rifle use, kurz or no. The number of individual parts in the mechanism also makes dissassembly and general usage a pain.

Then there is accuracy, 7 MOA was atrocious even for the day. There isn't much else to say.

This was a rifle designed to be handed out to a person whose long term life expectancy and time with the rifle was measured in weeks or even days. if he had to maintain or dissassemble it he'd exceeded expectations by miles. It was cheap and its parts could be manufactured by smaller shops, but it was not simple, ergonomic or even very practical.
 
Last edited:

marathag

Banned
I'd hate to have to rely on that contraption in the mud and ice of the Eastern Front or the sand and grit of North Africa, I also doubt how it would cope with the heat generated by prolonged shooting in a battle.
It was a form of gas delayed blowback, you don't get much more reliable than that.
 
Top