7.92X33 KURZ cartridge.

[45-70 Chevroner]

Until today I had never heard of this cartridge it's been around since 1933 I guess I've had my head barried in the sand and some how just missed it. It looks very similar to the 7.62X39 but with an 8MM/.32 bullet. I looked it up on google the muzzle velocity is about the same as the 7.62X39 and with the same weight bullet. Has any one had any experience with this caliber? It looks like a good candidate for a cast boolit shooter.

[bruce drake]

brass
https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/category/categoryId/778

dies
https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/category/categoryId/2037

barrel blank
Your Choice :)

Just to help you down the road for a wildcat

I'd be more interested if I didn't already have a 7.62x39 barrelled Mauser to do my short-column short-action cast boolit experiments with.

But it does look interesting since it uses a .473 cartridge case as a base.

Bruce

[45-70 Chevroner]

Bruce: I'm in the same boat I have an SKS rifle and a TC 10" chambered for the 7.62X39. Mostly just day dreaming. Just a question to maybe peak someones intrest. The brass is not badly priced and dies are probably available from most die makers. A TC barrel would probably be the cheapest way to go if one already has an action.

[Larry Gibson]

It's the cartridge used in the MP43/STG44, the Germans had lots of experience using it and the Russians had lots of experience observing the terminal ballistics of it. The 8mm Kurz led to the development of the M43 7.62x39 cartridge. The MP43/STG44 concept and tactical use greatly influenced the development of the AK.

Larry Gibson

[JCherry]

45-70 Chevroner,

If your shooting cast out of your SKS can you bring it to our next long range Cowboy match? I would be interested in seeing how it does.

Have Fun,

JCherry

[HangFireW8]

It's the cartridge used in the MP43/STG44, the Germans had lots of experience using it and the Russians had lots of experience observing the terminal ballistics of it. The 8mm Kurz led to the development of the M43 7.62x39 cartridge. The MP43/STG44 concept and tactical use greatly influenced the development of the AK.


Larry,

What I've been reading lately is the 7.62x39 was a parallel development by the Soviet Union, and not a copy of the 7.92x33mm Kurz. Given the timeline of development (1943 onward) that seems to make sense. Of course, the Russians have been saying that all along, but recently Western historians are coming around to that point of view.

-HF

[MakeMineA10mm]

I think there's a little truth to both. The Russians fought a significant amount of WWII with PPsH SMGs (in various itterations), and had a lot of experience using the 7.62x25 Tok (a.k.a. a hot-loaded 7.63 Mauser) as a combat round. I think the Russians got the receiving end of the early-development MP42 and MP43s and after thinking it over, decided to combine the features of the 7.62 TOK with the 7.62x54R to make something akin to the 7.92 Kurz. Now the nitty-gritty comes down to whether you define this as a unique parallel line of development, or if, because they knew about and had samples of the German Kurz round, there was no unique parallel development. Me, I'm in the middle. I think it's a little of both.

If you remember the history of the AK-47, Kalashnikov was given the ammo to work off of in his rifle developments, and I'd bet the same was true of Siminov with the SKS. I think the Russians felt this M43 cartridge development would be a logistical stroke of genius, combining the effectiveness of the 7.62x54R with the 7.62 TOK for a "do-it-all" cartridge. (And if you look into their future developments with the PRD LMG, that is the path they went down....) While, at the same time, they were making a "wonder-cartridge" that would be right at the cutting edge, identical to what the Germans were coming up with. Likewise as the Germans (and the western world in their studies of WWII combat after the war, which lead to the development of the 280 EM-2 and 308 Winchester) the Russians discovered that full-size battle cartridges were a waste of resources compared to the combat conditions and marksmanship capabilities of the troops. (Pretty much everyone figured out that most combat was at 300 yards or less on a mobile battlefield. -- The Germans and Russians figuring it out before we did...)



Anyway, sorry for the hijack, but this is an area of keen interest of mine. To get back on-topic -- I started loading the 7.92x33 Kurz back in the 80s, when you had to buy an expensive case-forming die set on top of the expensive, semi-custom loading die set in this caliber. No cases were available, as the German's WWII production was almost all lacquered steel case construction, due to war-shortages of brass in the middle to end of the war. All cases had to be made by converting some other type of brass. We used 308, because it was cheap and plentiful in the 80s. Cut off the case (we found a lathe made this quicker, than the file and trim die) to length, then start forming the new neck, ream out the thick-neck (due to the neck being formed from the thick body-wall of the donor brass, about half-way up from the case head), and then anneal the new neck & shoulder areas... LOTS of work. Also difficult to find back then was the Hornady 125gr JSP bullets, and even when we did find them, the soft nose hung up occassionally on the feed ramp in the StG44 we were loading for.

BUT, that was the most awesome combat auto-rifle I've ever shot. One must shoot one to appreciate the nature of the beast. It had a relatively low rate of fire (easy to fire single-shots, even with the switch on full-auto), and it had a pretty heavy weight (around 9lbs+, not much different than a Garand), and it's ergonomics were great in spite of it looking horrible (late war stamping and poor finishing and the stock looking like a piece of 2x8 that had been whittled into shape). But pick the thing up, put it to your shoulder, lean in slightly, and a full 3-round burst would hit a man-sized silhouette at 100 yards!! Very lethal!! The recoil was muted by the weight, and the cyclic rate of fire was such that the bolt was returning home, just as the rifle was settling back into firing position from the previous shot. Timing was perfect on this thing! If full-autos were legal where I live now, I'd have to have one. It's one of my three grail-guns in full-auto world...

As far as the cartridge goes, there's no need for case-forming these days. Grafs has Privi-Partisan loaded ammo and brass, and Hornady marketed some ammo in this caliber for a short time, so brass is out there, as well as loaded ammo. (I can hardly believe it, but it is!! Wish it would have been 30 years ago - would have saved a lot of trouble. On the other hand, that StG was a cult-gun back then - and rather still is - and hand-making the ammo made the experience that much sweeter back then.)

By my way of thinking, if you want a cast boolit cartridge of this format, I'd highly suggest you also look at the 7.62x1.5" round that is in Barnes' Cartridges of the World. It's the exact same concept, but in 30-cal. With the wide variety of moulds available in 30-cal, I think you'd get more mileage from that round as a cast boolit shooter. Also, as opposed to the 7.62x39mm, it's a standard .473" head AND it would be made with a barrel that measures .308" instead of .311-.312".

[azcruiser]

Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov I was lucky and got to talk to him for awhile at the 2001 I W A show which is the European shot Show or "Jagd- und Sportwaffen" in Nürnberg Germany. Very nice man and sharp as a tack for someone in their mid 80 back then .Also biggest body guards
I have ever seen and they don't smile like he does .Cool story

[JIMinPHX]

45-70 Chevroner,

If your shooting cast out of your SKS can you bring it to our next long range Cowboy match? I would be interested in seeing how it does.

Have Fun,

JCherry

Cast works well in the SKS. Several of us AZ boys are doing well with that combination. The Ed Harris design boolits are the standards for that sort of thing. Lee makes molds for them in both tumble lube & conventional lube groove versions. Other manufacturers make molds of that style too.

[Larry Gibson]

The Russians and German's shered a lot of military knowledge prior o '41. Apparrently the Russians visited the plants developing the 8mm Kurz before hostilities. The 8mm Kurz was already adopted, manufactured and fielded in '43 in the MP43. The Russians adopted the 7.62x39 in 1943 without a weapon to field it in. Other than experimental ammuntion it was not in production for some time. Seems to me those facts somewhat over ride much of the revisionist history being speculated on these days. My perception is there was perhaps some parallel development but the German's definately beat the Russians at it. I'm not saying the Russians "copied" the 8mm Kurz or the STG44. However, it is rather obvious that some of the ergonomic and design features of the STG44 were copied into the AK47. The concept of the "intermediate" cartridge appears to also have been copied. Nothing new tere as most weapons/ammunition developments utilize successfull concepts from other weapons.

Larry Gibson

Larry Gibson

[armed_partisan]

I tend to agree with Larry on this. The idea that the 7.62 Soviet cartridge was a parallel development with the German 7.92 Kurz seems preposterous. The Germans had started development of the 7.92 Kurz in the early 1930's, and by 1935 had working prototypes to fire these wildcat designs that ultimately lead to the 7.92 Kurz. The Soviets didn't have any prototypes that I am aware of for the M43/7.62 Soviet cartridge until the late 40's. Chances are that if you're developing a cartridge for use in a Semi-Automatic action, you have something in mind. The Soviets apparently did not.

The Soviets fielded the Tokarev Rifle in large numbers by 1938, but none of them were chambered in the M43 cartridge. When the Soviets were developing the SVT-38/40, the Germans were working on the 7.92 Kurz and the rifles to fire it. Why would you spend the time to develop a semi-auto rifle in a notoriously difficult to design for caliber, at GREAT expense, in parallel to a new cartridge design which was certain to replace it?

The Soviets fielded Cavalry carbine versions of the Mosin Nagant as early as 1939, which had notoriously harsh recoil due to the short barrels, but no prototypes survive that were chambered in the M43 cartridge. No magazines were developed, no stripper clips, there doesn't seem to be anything to indicate that the Soviets spent much time at all thinking about the next generation of military cartridges at all until after the war. Late in the war, the READOPTED the bolt action Mosin Nagant, the M44, and it wasn't chambered in the new M43 cartridge, even though it would have been cheaper and easier to shoot. The semi-auto design that emerged after the war was an evolution of the already existing Tokarev Rifle, and the SKS was not a radical departure from existing technology in any way.

Before WWII, the best arms makers and designers in the world existed in two countries; the United States of America, and Germany. The idea that the backwater Soviet Union, which couldn't even feed it's own people, were able to develop a next-generation rifle cartridge in 2-3 years without any rifle to fire it, during a war, a design that was comparable to a cartridge that several world renown German firms had spend a decade or more designing, seems unlikely at best.

[HangFireW8]

Before WWII, the best arms makers and designers in the world existed in two countries; the United States of America, and Germany. The idea that the backwater Soviet Union, which couldn't even feed it's own people, were able to develop a next-generation rifle cartridge in 2-3 years without any rifle to fire it, during a war, a design that was comparable to a cartridge that several world renown German firms had spend a decade or more designing, seems unlikely at best.

I guess you're right. They were too busy producing the best tanks of the war, to design anything new of interest. :)

Here's the respected Finnish gun writer P. T. Kekkonen on the topic. He's is not a revisionist so much as someone "who was there". As you recall his country (and himself) was at war, alternately, with both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Read the article and consider for yourself- the US view of history was pretty much limited to what Sharpe brought back, and former Nazi scientists, during the Cold War years after WWII.

http://guns.connect.fi/gow/QA4.html

I'm not going to make a big argument about parallel versus copying, you can make up your own mind. But to say the Soviets were just a backwater and weren't good at designing good small arms and other weapons, is poppycock. All I have to say is, "T-34".

-HF

[azcruiser]

Kalashnikov said "Before attempting to create something new, it is vital to have a good appreciation of everything that already exists in this field."
Think when you look at the German KURZ with it's .323 dia bullet and flat base bullet and the Russian with it's .311 and boat tailed bullet. My guess would be each country likes a certain dia
for their ammo we like .308 and now .224

[MakeMineA10mm]

Well, the 7.92 Kurz was first used in battle on the Russian front at Cholm in 1942 in one of the predecessors of the MP43, the MKb42 (can't remember now which manufacturer, as there were a couple competing designs), so it would be quite plausible that the Russians "captured" some empty cases at that point.

However, the Germans at GeCo were working on prototype ammo for an intermediate cartridge well before the war, as stated. The GeCo cartridge was 7.75x39mm. (Hmmmm....) And, yes, the Russians and Germans were cozy before and at the beginning of the war. Germany had military training and development going on in Russia, and the two countries split up Poland between them in Sept. 1939. That wasn't an accident...

It's also not widely known (or at least I don't see it mentioned hardly at all in these types of discussions) that the first gun designed, manufactured and fielded in 7.62x39 M43 was the RPD light machinegun. It was adopted in 1944, but not fielded until after the war. This pre-dates the AK by 3 years, and is basically a concurrent development with the SKS (which followed the RPD in 1945). Now, who developed the RPD? A fellow by the name of Vasily Degtyaryov. Now, the interesting thing for our discussion here is that Degtyaryov was also the apprentice of a man named Vladimir Federov back in the 1910s, when Federov designed and put into production the Fedorov Avtomat. This very interesting rifle was chambered in an interesting caliber: 6.5x52mm Arisaka. (Apparently the Russians were impressed with the round in the Russo-Japanese war which had occurred a decade earlier to Federov's work.) The Federov is a VERY interesting and successful design. Put into production in 1916 and seeing service in WWI (yes, ONE), the design worked so well, that they were brought out of storage and issued in WWII to elite Russian units fighting in the Winter War with Finland. In my opinion, taking into consideration the generation/age of the Federov, it was the best auto-loading rifle of the first-generation auto-loaders. (Compare to say, the Mondragon from Mexico, which is the only other auto-loading rifle to go into production for issue to a country's military that early. - Can't count civilian designs like the Rem. Model 8 or Winchester's 1907, etc.)

Now, if you take some measurements on the base of a 6.5 Arisaka case head, and compare them carefully to the measurements on the base of the 7.62x39mm case head, guess what you find? Yep, they match. It's pretty easy to put these clues together.

Degtyaryov worked for Federov in the 1910s and was intimately aware of the 6.5 Arisaka case dimensions, and the Federov was a very successful design, earning lots of respect. The Russians were also aware of the 7.75x39mm GeCo round being worked on by the Germans. Cross these two developments with the idea that you make an infantry rifle AND a squad auto-weapon ("LMG" or "auto-rifle" they called them in those days) for the same caliber, and I'd say the Russians were ahead of the game.

Say what you will about Browning, Garand, Schmeisser, and Heckler & Koch, and I won't disagree - they were great minds, but discounting the Russians is falling for our own propoganda. They had great designers AND, more so than the western world, they thought through the entire system of combat, unit organization, and equipment to give as unified a system as possible. That's why they scared the bejesus out of the West for 40 years! This also fits in exactly with what Kalishnakov says when he says "study everything that's already in existence, before making something new." They studied what had come before and what others were working on, and came up with their own bend on the idea, and made something really successful. That's often how the best designs are made. Garand and the Ordnance Department did it this way too. (Check out Hatcher's Book of the Garand.)

Don't forget the BMP-1. We had the M-113, but it was a lightly-armored battle taxi. The Russians looked at the situation, and said, take a little from this and a little from that, but let's also look at it from the perspective of the end result, and viola! They invented the infantry fighting vehicle. Not much different here with the assault rifle. They took a little from Federov, a little from the Germans, and looked at where they wanted to end up, and you wind up with the AK-47, long before the western world fielded an assault rifle (and that's considering agreement on defining the M-16 as an assault rifle).

[armed_partisan]

At Hangfire:
I will grant you that the T-34 was a very good tank. Better than the Panther? No. Better for mass production, yes. To be fair, the Panther was designed to COUNTER the T-34, which was already proven in the crucible of combat. The Soviets also designed very good aircraft, like the IL-2, which probably killed more German tanks than the T-34 ever did. However, the reason the Soviets built so many SMGs like the famous PPSH-41 and the PPS-43, was because they didn't have the industrial capacity to build more ancient Mosin Nagants, (which they still built millions of) not because they were forward thinking.

At 10mm:
I had forgotten about the RPD, and was not aware that the M43 shared the same head and rim dimensions as the 6.5x50 Arisaka. I thought that was intriguing, so I looked it up in Cartridges of the World. It seems that the 6.5 Arisaka is a Semi-Rimmed Cartridge with a Base Diameter of .455", and a rim diameter of .471". The M43 has a Base Diameter of .443" and a rim diameter of .445", which is very similar to the Italian 6.5x52mm Mannlicher-Carcano (.445"/.448"), which is eerily similar the U.S. Lee Navy 6mm (also .445"/.448"), and at the very least similar to the Greek 6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer (.447"/.450"). But to be fair, this is only one source, and the Japanese were notorious for having wildly different, but nearly identical cartridges in parallel service at the same time, (like all the 7.7mm cartridges) and there may well be a rimless 6.5mm Arisaka that matches the base diameter of the 7.62x39mm M43 perfectly.

[armed_partisan]

Also, the French had a semi-auto in WWI, too, The Fusil Automatique Model 1917 and later an improved model, the 1918 RSC. It worked, but it also had extremely harsh recoil, due largely to the 8mm Lebel cartridge, and was not popular. Before WWII, they were converted to Straight-Pull actions. Collectors Grade Publications has a book by Jean Huron Called "The Proud Promise" which was all about the development of French Semi-Automatic rifles which were far ahead of their time, but bogged down by excessive military regulation, testing, redesigning, etc. The French also developed the world's first Tilting Bolt semi-auto, although it was never adopted, and it is possible that there were parallel developments of the action later.

The Soviets were far ahead of the curve when it came to practical military vehicles, like the Mi-24 and the BMP Series, as well as mobile fire support weapons, like the ASU-85, but those were post war developments, as was the Kalashnikov.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Head dimensions are the same, but not rim. Your source was right that the 6.5 Arisaka is semi-rimmed. It is easy to think this through though. That little projection of rim would have been a pain in the Federov, and since they were shortening and reshaping the case anyway, why not re-cut the extractor groove deeper and eliminate that painful extension on the rim, while keeping the head dimension essentially the same. (You're also right that different sources list different dimensions, and I'd bet a dozen donuts that this is because they come from taking measurements on actual loaded cases, which, as we all know, vary. .010" variation between cases in war-time production is nothing. I've found peace-time, commercial 30-06 head dims varying .003"...)

Also, case length and bullet diameter are basically identical to that GeCo round from pre-war developments. From the Axis History site:

In 1935 th GECO works in Karlsruhe-Durlach presented their own cartridge together with a fully-automatic weapon for the Weapons Department (Heeres Waffen Amt or HWaA). At first GECO had made a bottleneck cartridge 1934-35 with the calibre 7.75 mm with a 39.5 mm shell and a long pointy bullet with the weight of 9 gram. The bullet had a speed of 695 m/s after 25 m. The calibre was after tests reduced from 7.75 mm to 7.62 mm. The result was a cartridge almost identical with the soviet´s short cartridge wich was used in Kalashnikovs - Ak 47 and other types of weapons throughout the eastern block!Torbjörn Aronsson

Note the dates. Exactly the time the Soviets and Germans were cozy with USSR providing secret training areas for the Germans and the Germans sharing technology with the Soviets...

On the other hand, what the Germans ultimately came up with as an Assault Rifle was a real winner, because they balanced cyclic speed, recoil impulse, rifle weight, ergonomics, and cartridge parameters so that on full-auto it was a very accurate bullet hose able to concentrate fire at 100-150m very accurately. This is something the Kalashnikov fails miserably at. (Ergonomics, weight, cyclic rate are all wrong, and the dang thing pulls up very badly preventing accurate full-auto fire.)

All-in-all, I think it's easy to see the parallel but not 100% independent developmental line here. The Soviets wanted us to think they were that good as to come up with it independently, but that's THEIR propoganda. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle with Russians smartly looking at the big picture and combining the best of all developments (both internal and foreign) to come up with as good a design as they could. Somewhat independent and somewhat based on several other designs.

The US was no different. J. Garand was a brilliant guy, but Ordnance Dept. was looking at auto-loaders long before he was ever hired, and had many designs which had been submitted or purchased in the reference collection of the experimental branch at Springfield Armory. Now, Garand certainly came up with a novel operating system with his primer-actuated design, but ultimately, that was dumped for a gas-trap system which was copied off one of the designs that had been previously submitted(!). But, this is not "well, so much for Garand." Quite the contrary, only the technique used for the impetous to cycle the action was copied, the rest was indeed Garand's design, and more importantly, Garand was more of a machine designer than a gun designer, so when he designed his rifle, he designed it so it would be easily built. Hence, why the US fielded millions of semi-auto rifles during the war while the rest of the world fielded thousands while relying on bolt-guns for the vast majority of their armies. Garand was brilliant, but even he copied from others...

[armed_partisan]

In defense of the Kalashinkov, something I'm loathe to do, the STG44 was HUGE and it is VERY heavy. I got to play with an STG44 that was owned by Reid Knight of Knight's Armament fame (though I don't think he knew or would approve) and it is remarkable how large and heavy it is compared to an AKM. When I was in Iraq, I fondled a Hungarian AK-47 (not an AKM) with a milled receiver. It was beautiful. High polished, blued steel, European Walnut, quality manufacturing the likes of which you never see on a Russian gun. It had been run over by a tank to "deactivate it", and aside from scratches, it only had a single crack in the receiver near the trigger hole. Alas, I had to leave it behind, since they wouldn't even allow us to take bayonets back.

I think it's worthy of note to look at the Kalashnikov design as well. If you take Garand's masterpiece, and flip it upside down, shorten the gas system, stick a detachable 30-round magazine where the enbloc clip goes, what does it look like? Ad Stamped Steel construction for use with a shorter, less powerful round, and Ta-DAH! But that is a different topic entirely.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Yes, the StG44 is big and heavy, no doubt. Also, none of them were finished well/nicely, even when they were new. I often wonder what would have happened if they had been made after the war (or anytime other than late-war-time emergency production). Some of the components of the StG44 could have been switched to lighter-weight materials, which were just not available to Germany at that point in time, but, a big part of the effectiveness of the design was the weight holding down recoil.

I had a wonderful time one day emptying 20-rd mags out of a BAR into 55-gal drums at 200m 2 to 3 rounds at a time. Of course, this was proned out off the bi-pod. I found it amazing to be able to do the same thing with a shoulder-fired weapon (StG.44) without benefit of sling, bi-pod, or anything. Of course, it would suck to hump it in the field due to its weight... I wonder if this has something to do with all the photos/vids of German troops carrying the StG 44 only having a single three-mag pouch? Gun so heavy they couldn't stand to carry more ammo??

Did you get a chance to fire a milled-receiver AK while over there? Most of the AKs I've fired are stamped-receiver. The one milled-receiver I've shot had a folding stock, so it was hard to control due to the stock, and it wasn't fair to compare it because of that poor stock design...

[armed_partisan]

No. I did not get to fire any enemy weapons in Iraq. Hell, I didn't even get to shoot my own weapon in Iraq. The Iraqis were so happy to see us, they forgot to shoot at us first. Rules of engagement and all. I know some of our guys had a pretty nasty time, even while we were there (2003), but most of that happened in other areas, (we went through Baghdad) and it didn't seem to get really hairy until we were out of country for more than a year. There was a bumper sticker going around Camp Pendleton that said "Don't Blame Me! When I left, we were WINNING!"

[Larry Gibson]

I've had the pleasure of firing a STG44 and AK47 (milled receiver) side by side. That was one of the side benifits of being a SF Weapons NCO for many years. Not much weight difference between them, both were ergonomically comparable and both were quite easy to control during full auto fire, much more so than with the AKM fired at the same time. All 3 had full stocks. Accuracy was not al that great with all 3 of them but an E target to 300 meters was easily hit.

Larry Gibson

[henryb]

Sent off for a couple thousand bullets and preprimed brass .the primed was cheaper than the unprimed?Have loaded 223 for my hk and tons of 9mm for my uzi and mp40 so maybe i will have some luck loading for a stg44 ,in the mean time waiting on approval from uncle sam