Talk:Fedorov Avtomat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Battle Rifle vs. Assault Rifle

Is this weapon a battle rifle, assault rifle, or both? Its cartridge, the 6.5 x 50 mm "Arisaka", is most certainly a lot less powerful than the Russian 7.62 x 54 mm, though its case length seems to suggest that it is still very powerful. Although its case is indeed long, from what I've seen in pictures, the casing itself is actually quite narrow, which would probably mean that its felt recoil would be closer to a stronger intermediate cartridge, like a 7.62 x 45 mm Czech. Thus, I beieve it would be better to classify this weapon as an assault rifle. CeeWhy2 03:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The 6,5x50 mm Arisaki seems less powerfull than the 7,62x54 mm R, and indeed the Japanese designed the 7,7 mm cardridge later on. But it still is a standard power cardrige, like contemporary Italian and Dutch 6,5 mm cartridges, and it's ballistics should not be underestimated. It's case is only one millimeter shorter than the 7,62x51 mm NATO cartridge that is a standard power cartridge by any standard. The Chech 7,62x45 mm cartridge was a failure as it was still too powerfull as an assault rifle cartridge. The VZ 52 rifle that used this cartridge was a self-loading rifle, and not an assault rifle. The VZ52/57 based on the same design but in 7,62x39 mm failed as an assault rifle. To qualify as an assault rifle, the gun has to fire an intermediate power cartridge, like the German 7,92x33 mm that started the trend, the Soviet 7,62x39mm, or the 5,56x45 mm NATO. Guns that fire more powerfull standard catridges are battle rifles (or automatic rifles when they have selective fire capability). Dutchguy 10:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an assault rifle; see Assault Rifle by Max R. Popenker and Anthony G. Williams, as well as their respective websites. When deciding if a cartridge is intermediate-energy (Intermediate-power is a misnomer.), look at its muzzle energy, not its caliber or length. Even if you compare lengths in the absence of ME data, you certainly should not compare cartridges using completely different generations of propellant as Dutchguy did, and the caliber is generally more relevant than the cartridge length. The 6.5×50SR cartridge, like the Czech vz52, which failed only because Czechoslovakia was forced to adopt the Soviet-standard M1943, was intermediate-energy. Ergbert 04:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I just checked their muzzle energies. The 7.62x54R, a popular full-sized cartridge of the day, produces 3,960 joules of energy at the muzzle. The Fedorov Avtomat's 6.5 Arisaka produces approximately 2,600 joules of energy at the muzzle. This is compared to the 6.5 Grendel, an intermediate cartridge for the AR-15, which produces between 2,255 and 2,550 joules, depending on bullet weight. 2,550 vs. 2,600... That's pretty damned close by any standard. Something with the kind of energy of the 6.5 Arisaka is certainly closer to being intermediate than to being a full-sized rifle cartridge. CeeWhy2 12:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I would think of the Fedorov Avtomat as a light automatic rifle (the term "battle rifle" does not really mean much). Although somewhat lighter than most full-size military rounds, I would still consider the 6.5 a full-size round. The concept of "assault rifle" was pretty much tested, developed and put into mass production with the Maschinenkarabiner/Sturmgewehr system. I know there were odd prototypes here and there, and the Fedorov has some assault rifle characteristics, but the StG defined the genre, so to speak. Let me pose this question - if we started referring to certain kinds of rifles as "sport-utility rifles," would we go back and retroactively rename all past designs?
PS I don't agree at all with using a comma in the caliber designation. In both American and British English usage it is common to use a dot to express the decimal point, regardless of how it is done in German, Dutch, French etc. When I write in German, I use the comma. In English, I use the standard decimal point. Twalls 05:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course I would. It's the same as calling ancient Egyptians human; the word didn't exist back then, but obviously they fit the definition. Furthermore, even if I can't convince you I'm right, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, so until you can provide something from a more reputable author than Popenker and Williams, I'm restoring the assault rifle text. Ergbert 05:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You have a point, but in the case of the Fedorov it always seemed to me that the intended role was as a SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) or LMG substitute (not unlike the BAR). Popenker states that this was the Red Army's intention, but he does make the case for it being the first practical assault rifle. I won't quibble over this designation, though -- I'll let you guys do that. I do however feel quite strongly that the caliber designation should use the decimal point, not the comma. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style ... "The Wikipedia rule for commas and periods in numbers is, for example 12,345,678.901 — contrary to Continental style." Twalls 17:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The avtomat is a battle-rifle, however, Fedorov himself envisioned it being made for a special itermediate round he developed. Due to WW1, addition of new ammo to the Russian army was not an option, so the plentyful and light arisaka round was chosen instead. In essence, the avtomat was an assault rifle that had to be degraded for mass-production. With respect, Ko Soi IX 00:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The 6.5x50mm Arisaka is virtually identical to the 7.62 NATO, yet the FAL and G3 aren't (incorrectly if you ask me) categorized as assault rifles on Wikipedia. --Philip Laurence (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Both wiki links lead to "battle rifles". And that is what the avtomat was; however, Fedorov initially wanted to develop his own intermediate round. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs a photo

As the title says, this article needs an actual photo of this weapon, preferably in colour. There are a few photos on http://world.guns.ru of this weapon, but those are probably copyrighted. Are there any non-copyrighted photos on the intertubes, or will we have to claim fair use? 124.177.110.215 08:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full Stop/Period vs. Comma

The Manual of Style quite clearly states that "The Wikipedia rule for commas and periods in numbers is, for example 12,345,678.901—contrary to Continental style". Now, although these cartridges are often referred to using commas in their countries of origin (7,92x57mm instead of 7.92x57), this is the English Wikipedia, not the German or Russian Wikipedia. Out of the 4 biggest countries where English is the primary language: Canada, the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom, none use Continental style as the primary style (as far as I know). Additionally, since no other cartridge articles use Continental style for their designations (See here and here, for example), this article should be no different - the 6.5mm Arisaka and 6.5mm Fedorov should be written out according to the standard of the Wikipedian Manual of Style, not in Continental Style. CeeWhy2 00:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese do not use Continental style - they use the period as the decimal seperator. Even if they did, it is correct to write the caliber designation in this article with a period, as this is the English-language version of Wikipedia, as you correctly point out, CeeWhy2. Thanks, Twalls 23:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)