Quote:
|
The thought that the Russians put any effort in the study of barrel "Harmonics" affected by the attached bayonet is silly
|
Actually I don't think it is silly. They do put some study into these things. Not often the same amount we do, or with the same focus, but they do study these things.
Note how the M44s generally shoot to their sights with the bayonet extended. I doubt this is accidental. They may group better with the bayonet removed, I don't know. But all the stories I have heard from M44 owners is that the rifles shoots to a drastically differerent point with the bayonet removed.
The Russians & Soviets were big on fixed bayonets. 91/30 long rifles had bayonets so tightly fitted it was difficult to remove them. This was not "sloppy RUssian manufacture" this was INTENTIONAL. The bayonets were intended to be mounted ALL the time. Making them a very tight fit discouraged casual removal by troops.
We didn't do it that way, and about nobody else did, either, but they did, and did it on purpose, not because of flawed craftsmanship.
Quote:
|
Their ideas on rifle production were cheap, fast, quantity, rugged, and cheap.
|
Agreed, this was their philosophy about most of their production. BUT, Russian / Soviet production was & is capable of producing finely finished parts, and does so, for those areas where it is critical.
A "western" nation will produce a finely finished item (rifle, engine, etc) that works. The Soviet system produced working items that were finely finished only where they HAD to be.