Brad Pitt in "Fury" Using An STG 44

[jd45]

I don't know whether this has been touched on here, but I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this being a prop gun made to look like the Sturm Gewehr or an original used in the movie. I have my doubts as to whether they'd risk damaging an original, because of its value, or maybe an original isn't that valuable? I appreciate your comments & thanx, jd45.

[wm]

I saw a STG44 in 22 lr advertised not too long ago......maybe one of those? With what they can do now with CNC it would seem milling out a replica from a block of Zytel would not be too difficult.

[sore shoulder]

I thought I was the only one who noticed that jd. They make airsoft replicas that are exact.

http://www.evike.com/product_info.php?products_id=30929

[vancelw]

Venturino wrote an article in GUNS magazine about the movie Fury very recently. He says the guns in the movie are very authentic, even to the various versions being time appropriate for the stage of the the war.

IIRC, his opinion was that tank commanders could easily have picked up German arms and used them. I'll see if I can find the article and post the issue date.

http://gunsmagazine.com/small-arms-of-fury/

[Mich Hunter]

I had my hands on an original in Iraq at one time. It was pretty dang pristine and I ripped off a couple hundred rounds through it. I had no idea how it got there but would have loved to have brought it home. Many Remington Rand 1911 popped up in my possession over there as well.

[sore shoulder]

I had my hands on an original in Iraq at one time. It was pretty dang pristine and I ripped off a couple hundred rounds through it. I had no idea how it got there but would have loved to have brought it home. Many Remington Rand 1911 popped up in my possession over there as well.

I'm more amazed you had ammo for it than I am at you finding the gun.

[jd45]

Thanx for your answers guys. I saw a non-working stg44 in a youtube video, costing around $60. The airsoft gun is very impressive. I think the drawback to our guy grabbing such a rare, at that time, German weapon, is nervousness about getting his hands on more ammo for it. jd45

[vancelw]

Went back and read your OP better.

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Fury_%282014% ... mgewehr_44

Mike V says if it was firing in the movie it was most likely real. Otherwise, a rubber prop.

[sore shoulder]

On a related tangent, the 300BLK basically duplicates the 7.92 Kurtz. The doctrine behind the StG and its short to medium range cartridge has come full circle. The commies tried to improve on it a bit in order to increase the range, but at a weight penalty.

[BrentD]

Venturino wrote an article in GUNS magazine about the movie Fury very recently. He says the guns in the movie are very authentic, even to the various versions being time appropriate for the stage of the the war.

Mike has his own MP44, I believe this is the same thing. The one below is Mike's but a much more handsome guy shooting it.

A guy can actually hit stuff with those things.

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jessie/P ... hine%20Gun

PS. wouldn't it be nice if we could evolve past that 1000 pixel maximum just a bit, eh moderators?

[92&94]

I got to shoot one when I was in college. Pretty neat weapon, though expensive to feed in those days - WWII German surplus ammo was the only option. These days Prvi makes it, brass case, and I bet someone makes dies for it. When the Syria war was cranking up a year or two ago someone posted a pic of new, in the crate, WWII mp-44's that turned up there.

I also remember my dad pointing out during the Balkan wars that this is why gun control never works - start a war and all these 50 year old FA weapons turn up and get used. Illegal or not, they're still around.

[cas]

There was one hanging on the wall of my grandfathers hunting cabin for many many years, someone's seabag souvenir. Until someone broke in an stole it in the mid-late 60's anyway.

I still wonder where it is today. Someone turned one in locally at a gun "buy back" 2-3 years ago for a $200 gift card. Even sawed up into parts it was worth a whole lot more than that.

[Ben_Rumson]

Didn't make any sense to me why he would favor a bigger heavier weapon than a handy and more plentiful M1 carbine that has the same effective range and for which he could get all the ammo and mags he would ever want... Cool though that someone was trying to make him more savvy.
I really doubt producers would be concerned about damaging a gun because having seen producers in another movie blow up for real a $250k Porsche which I didn't believe when I saw it because I thought it was special effects

[Rusty]

I thought that was a pretty good movie for a gun guy. I liked the 1917 Brad Pitt carried too. I've seen grips like he had before. Made from the cockpit glass of downed planes. That was a nice touch.

[tman]

Sounds like the Germans got it right back then with the cartridge and gun. A compromise between the AK and M16. Perhaps the best of both worlds???????

[vancelw]

I really doubt producers would be concerned about damaging a gun because having seen producers in another movie blow up for real a $250k Porsche which I didn't believe when I saw it because I thought it was special effects

You're right....but they would have to buy my gun for a very nice price to get that privilege!! I ain't loaning it to them.
But....the Brits loaned them the only running Tiger!!!

[Mich Hunter]

I had my hands on an original in Iraq at one time. It was pretty dang pristine and I ripped off a couple hundred rounds through it. I had no idea how it got there but would have loved to have brought it home. Many Remington Rand 1911 popped up in my possession over there as well.

I'm more amazed you had ammo for it than I am at you finding the gun.

Your not kidding. The person I "liberated" it from had 6 mags and a couple zip lock bags of ammo. I really wish I could find out how it got there.

[Malamute]

Ive seen some in either pics or youtube vids of captured arms in Iraq.

I imagine quite a few were captured by various countries in the second World War. Theres always a market for arms around the world. So long as some ammo comes with them, or some is available, theyd sell. Theres been 60-70 years for them to filter their way around to hot spots.

Come to think of it, I think I've seen pictures of them in Africa also.

Edit: I just did a google image search for stg 44 in Iraq and found an interesting discussion on arfcom. There was I think the pic in Africa (and holy cow look at the variety of guns they have) I've seen before, as well as cases of ammo. reading a bit, it wasnt uncommon to find them in Iraq. Syria was mentioned, that they used them officially for a while, as well as east Germany(?)

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html? ... 4&t=130846

[jd45]

Hey Ben, I have an idea why he chose something other than an M-1 Carbine...........cause it's no good as a man stopper. jd45

[vancelw]

Hey Ben, I have an idea why he chose something other than an M-1 Carbine...........cause it's no good as a man stopper. jd45

Good thing Audie Murphy didn't know that

[sore shoulder]

Wasn't the standard M1 carbine magazine 15 rounds in WWII? The StG was 30 I believe, thats 15 reasons to choose an StG 44 over an M1.

Additionally the 7.92 Kurtz had 400 more ft lbs of energy in a much better BC bullet.

All around a lot better cartridge.

And as a tanker he wouldn't be doing a lot of assaults, so having 30 rounds on tap if he did need to would be a huge advantage. And at that point on the front, I'm thinking the supply chain for enemy ammo was better than resupply.

Not to mention the StG looks way better.

[jd45]

Over the years I've talked to several guys who used a variety of our weapons from that era, including Korea in combat & most turned their noses up when the carbine was mentioned. They much preferred the power of the .30-06 cart in the Garand & some even traded up to the BAR, given its increased ammo capacity & the fact that when you needed to reload you didn't advertize it with that "ping". The carbine might do for an exceptional shot who could hit his enemy's head more often than not. Of course, I can't speak from personal experience, I just have anecdotal evidence, but that's what the guys I've talked to told me. jd45

[Ben_Rumson]

jd45 Hey Ben, I have an idea why he chose something other than an M-1 Carbine...........cause it's no good as a man stopper. jd45

Where'd you get that idea? @ 100 yds it'll put a hole through a WWII GI helmet and the well known man stopping 45 acp wont... even out of the longer barreled M1A1 Thompson. The 30 carbine has a lot more umph than the 9mm powered SMGs.. Never heard anyone criticzizing the MP40s or STENS effectiveness.
Edit:

M1 BEARS.jpg

vancelw Good thing Audie Murphy didn't know that

You got that right! & Murphy really did do plenty of assaults yet didn't throw down his 5.8 lb fully loaded M1 carbine with the same effective range as the superior? longer & heavier 11.3 lb STG44. Of course Murphy didn't have a TANK to haul it and its ammo around in
It may not be remembered but the popular carbine stock pouch was a GI adaptation because it was one of 2 versions made to fit on the M36 pistol belt on which at least 6 could be put and leave room for ones canteen and bandage pouch. So including a pouch on the stock and a mag in the magazine well one could have had 15 15 round mags. But we're talking late war here & IIRC the 30 round carbine mag had come out, so mebbe Wardaddy could have swapped a Luger or 2 to some REMFs for a few 30 rnd mags.. But the carbine wasnt a selective fire weapon then.
But it's all fun to think about

sore shoulder On a related tangent, the 300BLK basically duplicates the 7.92 Kurtz. The doctrine behind the StG and its short to medium range cartridge has come full circle. The commies tried to improve on it a bit in order to increase the range, but at a weight penalty

Interestingly, the semi auto SKS loaded w/10 rounds of its ballisticaly superior M43ammo weighs 8.8 lbs compared to 5.8 lbs all up weight of the M1 carbine ..3lbs heavier yet with no gain in effective range. I think it should be noted the carbine is equipped with better sights than all of the above. In my book the little carbine it truly is a marvel of efficiency and better looking!

[sore shoulder]

I would argue the effective range.

[Ben_Rumson]

You'd be right...But not too far apart..

[Old Time Hunter]

Were there not approximately 500,000 STG 44's produced?

Probably half of those are still on this earth somewhere.

[jd45]

Ben, like I said, it was the guys who gave their accounts using them in combat on enemy soldiers, & when they could, discarding them for a more powerful weapon.
As far as pokin a hole in a helmet at 100yds, that bullet is moving at 2000fpsmv.......it's certainly not a pistol cart, as the 45auto is, it has significantly less frontal area compared to the .45, which I think translates into better ability to get thru the helmet, and the .45, even shot from a longer barrel Thompson, might gain 2-300fps over the 850 out of an automatic, losing a lot of it at the 100yd mark.
I'm no ballistics expert & I certainly don't mean to be argumentative Ben, I'm just giving my thoughts. jd45

[MrMurphy]

The .30 carbine is basically a hot pistol round. 150m is pushing it on effectiveness. It's light, handy, and easy to use, which was the point. It was a DEFENSIVE weapon all too often, shoved into an offensive role. The guys choosing to upgrade were usually using it in the role it wasn't intended for. Most of the M1 carbine users I've talked to who kept it around understood it's limitations and didn't expect a bad guy to suddenly explode in a fireball or do cartwheels when struck with it at 100m+.

The StG was designed purposely for the assault (thus the name which came later, due to politics it was originally called a submachine gun).

The 7.92 will effectively put the hurt on people out to about 250-300m by design, just like the Russian equivalent in 7.62.

Never had the chance to shoot one with live ammo, though I put a 30 round mag of blanks through one converted for re-enacting.

The StG-44 and 45 were kept in low rate production and were in use long after WW2. The East German border guards were originally issued them, up into the 1960s, and in Syria, the StG series rifle was issued (by preference, over Russian ordnance) to their paratroop units. It was regarded as a "prestige" weapon and highly prized. Ammunition for it was made continuously from 1945 onward in the parts of the world which used it still.

War pickups happen (see the Iraq picture of a US Marine house clearing with his M16A2 slung over his back, and a WW2 Russian PPSh-41 SMG in hand), and especially for a tank commander, the weight isn't an issue.

Friend of mine, former IDF captain and tank commander, favored the Galil carbine (the Glilon) over the more typically favored M-4 or CAR-15 among Israeli officers of the time (when regular grunts had M16s) due to reliability concerns for him, and the fact that his primary weapon was a Merkava tank.....he didn't have to carry the heavier Galil far. It also folded up small.

[kaschi]

Right now there is a company in Germany that makes a STG 44 semi-auto 7.92x33. About 200 were imported into the US 5 or 6 years ago. They are to be imported again this year.

[sore shoulder]

Now that would be something to have if the price weren't too exorbitant, truly a piece of military rifle evolution.

So when my coffee kicked in this morning I was surfing around looking for the Kurz (not Kurtz as I've been writing ) ballistics and didn't find anything other than muzzle numbers. However, intuitively I think I can extrapolate the data reasonably well. At the muzzle the Kurz has almost 50% more energy than the .30 carbine (1400fpe vs .30 @9xx) and with the obvious difference in BC I feel safe guessing it has twice the energy at 200 meters and at 300 the carbine is basically falling on the ground while the Kurz is still considered effective. I'm going to guess it's still around 500 ft lbs. As I've stated previously, I think it's been duplicated very well by the 300BLK , and the .30 carbine is just not even in the same class of cartridge at any distance.

Anyway, in my meanderings around the net I found several interesting articles and I was going to share them here, but while enthusiastically cleaning my touch screen of the spots revealed by the morning suns glare I closed my browser, and I just don't feel like digging through my history or re-searching for them, but, the info is out there if you care to dig.

One thing I know many here will appreciate is cases for the 7.92x33 can be made from cut down .308/7.62x51 NATO, and in fact in the 80's apparently many cases that could be found for the 7.92x33 that was still being fielded in some parts of the world were stamped L44xx (sorry I don't recall the last two characters). This brought out the fact that the rifle had been manufactured for quite a while after WW2, and was apparently the standard issue for the Yugoslav army into the early 80's. Which explains PRVI Partisan still making ammo for it.

As usual my search turned up an AR15 thread, this one started by a very amiable and motivated retired professor with a lathe turned gun builder who was trying to make a 8mm whisper AR using a 240gr bullet. Interesting thread, and someone of course posted my thought that he might as well make a 300BLK and save himself all the bolt and magazine headaches, however he demonstrated extreme resolve and was unmoved, which I found extremely refreshing.

Doctrinaly it was designed to be as effective as 8x57 at 300 meters, which at that time was the most common combat engagement distance. I found that interesting, since that distance has been shortened to 200 meters for current doctrine.

As far as comparing the M1 carbine to the StG44, yes there's a slight weight penalty, however, in this case the penalty is worth it with twice the rounds of the carbine (which is highly significant in a select fire rifle) and almost 3 times the Garand, and rounds that are considerably more effective than the .30 carbine, and it's still a lot lighter than a KAR98 or Garand while having the same effectiveness at combat distances of the day.

So to sum up this edition of the Caffeine Press, neither the .30 carbine round, nor the M1 carbine, are in the same class as the StG44 and the 7.92x33 Kurz, both the rifle and the round it fired were evolutionary, and revolutionary, in design and doctrine, while the .30 carbine was nothing but a compromise in all categories in comparison.

[Ben_Rumson]

I agree the STG44 is cool looking and was a revolutionary weapon. But as I've said @ 11.3 lbs is not a handy weapon. Has anyone noticed anywhere that it out weighs the 9.5 lb M1 Garand battle rifle by about 2lbs? Even unloaded!!.
From Wikipedia:
"Most authorities list the effective combat range of the M1 carbine at around 200 yards (180 m), compared to 250-300 yards (230–270 m) for the AK-47 and StG44."
OK that's fine, but it has to weigh more than a Garand to do it.. I'll stick by what I said about the carbine being a marvel of efficiency... And it was for sure a good close in killer. Some were blued steel and walnut beauties even

[MrMurphy]

The Germans knew it weighed too much. They accepted that to get the technology into battle. The second-generation Sturmgewehr was specifically ordered to go on a diet.

The Mauser prototype, postwar, went to Spain, where it became the CETME. It then went back to Germany for production by Heckler & Koch.....both of whom were Mauser employees.....in the old Mauser plant. If it had remained in it's original 7.92X33 caliber, or equivalent (like the British .280), the weight would have been around 8 pounds.

The US forced the decision to go to 7.62X51mm, and both the CETME/G-3 and the FAL, which had started out in 7.92X33mm as light, handy carbines (similar to an AK) became more robust, heavier rifles. I've never seen a G-3 that weighed under 10lb, and FALs aren't much lighter.

[Ben_Rumson]

Thanks... Very interesting info

[MrMurphy]

Probably the closest we'll ever see to what the German Army wanted in 1946 is the HK32. If you've seen a HK33 (the 5.56mm G-3, more or less, slightly scaled down in size and weight), the HK32 was a exercise in What If for H&K. They made a HK33-series rifle in 7.62X39mm for countries that were thinking about jumping ship from the WP, or had experience with Russian weaponry.

The HK32 could just as easily have been made in 7.92X33mm, and in size, weight, and general handling, it was the production-ready version of the old Mauser 1945 prototype which started it all.


It went from this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... uction.png


to eventually, this:

http://www.hkpro.com/image/hk32k.jpg

The HK32KA3 (retractable stock, short barrel) carbine.

The HK33 shown here is a lot more common, but still, not widely distributed. Thailand and some S. American countries use it.

http://www.hkpro.com/image/HK33A2.jpg

[sore shoulder]

I seem to remember some HK33 clones, however my experience with clones, particularly anything from Century, is less than stellar.

[MrMurphy]

I've handled a few of the Century C-93's (Hk33 clones).

Apparently, the drunken monkeys with sledgehammers at Century have been going to AA, since the HK clones i've seen or know people who've had experience with them has generally been positive.

I had an original CETME in 7.62 from them 15 years ago which worked reliably too, but even they couldn't screw up EVERY gun.

[sore shoulder]

I bought two of those CETME's around that same time frame. Kept having failures to feed properly and thought it was magazine related. Until I put a claw mount on one and tried to sight it in. Turns out the receiver was so poorly made that it was clocked about 10 degrees. The ejection port side of the receiver measured from magazine well was taller, making the bolt out of square with the axis of the bore and in turn at an angle as it passed over the magazine, meaning it only fed reliably from one side of the magazine. I called Century and spoke directly to the owner to see how they would fix my issue, mostly to verify this was not going to be a cut and weld job. He would not give me a straight answer so I returned the rifles. Shame because I really like the design and regret selling my HK91.

[MrMurphy]

Yeah, mine came in a trade and went away not too much longer, but it digested nearly 300 rounds of 7.62 in rapid semiauto from 10-200m without any issues and hit to point of aim. Considering Century "built" it, I was rather impressed.

The basic HK design is sound. I just prefer FALs if I had to actually carry either of them in combat.

The Rhodesians agreed, when they had a choice, and so did a few other countries. But both go bang reliably.


I still think that if politics hadn't gotten involved, and the 7.92 or similar round had been adopted, most of the rifles in use in the early 50s (a 7.92X33 G-3, and a similar FAL), being lighter, shorter and handier, would probably have stayed in service, much like the AK has across the globe, even to this day. I know there's still G-3s and FALs out there in service but not like they used to be.

The Russians went to a lighter caliber after our Vietnam experiences, but the Russian army never quite agreed it was a wise idea, their Spetznaz kept 7.62 AK's around for special missions work where the better penetration of cover was needed. But for overall general use, the 5.45mm AK-74 series does far better for the same reasons the M16 did. Easier to shoot and hit with, and the 5.45 AK's are across the board, more accurate.

[sore shoulder]

My only fault with the FAL is the lack of ability to easily mount a scope, the same with the AK. I know there are options out there, but I don't trust them. The claw mount for the HK is where it takes the lead for me. And the HK is just sexy.

[MrMurphy]

Neither were ever designed with optics in mind...both now have m1913 rail options as well as the AK side mount.