Cold war weapon: Polish M44 Carbine Rifle, circa 1952

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
4,866
US
#1
My nephew has a 1952 Polish M44 Carbine rifle. He also has one from Romania and Yugoslavia, circa 1950s. It is a single bolt and holds five rounds. I am not real knowledgeable when it comes to weapons. I read somewhere this was the standard issue for the Satellite states of the Soviet Union.
The Polish M44 Carbine
I fired the weapon and was wondering what might be a comparable rifle today, when it comes to its firepower. Also, it appears this weapon was a later model of the Mosin rifle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin–Nagant
How effective were these rifles and were they used in any sort of conflict after World War 2? What would have been the American version during the early Cold war Period and how did it compare to the M44 Carbine?
 
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
#2
My nephew has a 1952 Polish M44 Carbine rifle. He also has one from Romania and Yugoslavia, circa 1950s. It is a single bolt and holds five rounds. I am not real knowledgeable when it comes to weapons. I read somewhere this was the standard issue for the Satellite states of the Soviet Union.
The Polish M44 Carbine
I fired the weapon and was wondering what might be a comparable rifle today, when it comes to its firepower. Also, it appears this weapon was a later model of the Mosin rifle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin–Nagant
How effective were these rifles and were they used in any sort of conflict after World War 2? What would have been the American version during the early Cold war Period and how did it compare to the M44 Carbine?
The downside of those models, at least the Soviet versions, was the massive muzzle blast and recoil of the 7.62x54R in a shortened barrel. They are generally not fun to shoot.

The closest example in the US military would have been the Tanker Garand, which was a shortened M1, though it was never widely issued. That rifle too, in 30 Cal (.30-06) was pretty notorious for its muzzle blast/recoil (later tamed with conversions to .308).

For the British, they had a Jungle Carbine version of the Lee Enfield, the No. 5 Mk I, which also had horrific blast and recoil.

Overall, short barrels, light rifles, and full sized rifle cartridges do not go well together. Their failure was a large part of the reason for intermediate calibers.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
4,866
US
#3
The downside of those models, at least the Soviet versions, was the massive muzzle blast and recoil of the 7.62x54R in a shortened barrel. They are generally not fun to shoot.

The closest example in the US military would have been the Tanker Garand, which was a shortened M1, though it was never widely issued. That rifle too, in 30 Cal (.30-06) was pretty notorious for its muzzle blast/recoil (later tamed with conversions to .308).

For the British, they had a Jungle Carbine version of the Lee Enfield, the No. 5 Mk I, which also had horrific blast and recoil.

Overall, short barrels, light rifles, and full sized rifle cartridges do not go well together. Their failure was a large part of the reason for intermediate calibers.
Yes. There was a muzzle flash of fire and it had a good kick. The Romanian and Yugoslavian versions had a longer barrel. No muzzle flash for these, but a similar recoil. I imagine the recoil can effect accuracy.
 
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
#4
Yes. There was a muzzle flash of fire and it had a good kick. The Romanian and Yugoslavian versions had a longer barrel. No muzzle flash for these, but a similar recoil. I imagine the recoil can effect accuracy.
For bolt action, recoil affects accuracy because it causes flinching and hesitation. Basically the shooter is thinking about the pain or the shock of the blast, so they don't focus on the basic fundamentals. Another problem with full power rifle cartridges, is that not only were they more powerful than necessary, but they were also harder to instruct new shooters with.
 

Similar History Discussions