Walther Forums banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Thought I'd get maybe some talk going on wartime long guns from Walther- I have one of the last 1000 G.41 rifles made by Walther before they switched to G.43 manufacture in late 1943 - she's a beautiful thing and superbly well-made, and very solid (compared to a G.43 at least!)- wouldn't shoot her, she's mostly matching, but I'd love to- my example G.43 is a BLM rifle from early 1944, and she's solid but a lot 'looser' than the 41 for sure!

Interesting that Walther designed the G.41 but 2/3 of the guns were made by BLM- on the other hand, amazing how many rifles and pistols ALL of those guys turned out while being bombed "until the rubble jumped"-

MC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
G-41

I have ac 43 #3119....matching throughout...no sanding of the stock, thinning original coloring, no duffle cut. Also have one early & one later G-43s, early one has a scope. Fired one of the G-43s......

PJH
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,914 Posts
I always thought the Walther Gew.41(w) was awkward and clumsy, though not as bad as the Mauser Gew. 41(m). Both were beautifully made, but unsuitable as battle rifles.

The Gew.43 was much handier but not robust. It worked well but not for very long. Maybe the Germans calculated that that was good enough. The design really needed higher standards of materials and manufacture than it ever received.

M
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
I always thought the Walther Gew.41(w) was awkward and clumsy, though not as bad as the Mauser Gew. 41(m). Both were beautifully made, but unsuitable as battle rifles.

The Gew.43 was much handier but not robust. It worked well but not for very long. Maybe the Germans calculated that that was good enough. The design really needed higher standards of materials and manufacture than it ever received.

M

I have 4 G43's and I can tell you that they are not as weak as everyone thinks. The gas system is way too high and you have to reduce it with the tapped piston upgrade called the "shooters kit" I agree that they could have been built with the same quality and finish as the earlier guns like a K98k but they simply had to get them out the door and on the battle field. They are fun to shoot but I do sometimes look at them and think "what if" they had the attention to finish quality like other earlier arms. I have heard a story of someone forgetting to put the locking lugs back into their bolt and firing a round. The rear action cover and receiver was slightly bent but the gun was still usable after the repair.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,914 Posts
Then you shoot it.

As far as I am concerned any high-powered rifle that has been subjected to enough excess stress to bend the receiver is usable thereafter only as a wall-hanger, not a shooter.

That goes triple for late-war German output made with doubtful raw materials, slave labor and indifferent quality control.

M
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
G.41

The G.41 was undoubtedly NOT an ideal combat rifle- for one thing, aiming it is difficult since it's so long and nose-heavy it pulls you over frontwards. The G.43 was really a good design, very strong, but metal suitable for its construction simply wasn't available, they had to do what they could with what they had- and the 43 was a successful, overall, despite its problems. Compare it to an M1 and of course it suffers- but no one was bombing M1 manufacturers and US steel mills night and day. Add in the sabotage element, since many of the workers building G.43s were rather "un-motivated" to say the least, and it really does suffer. The Brazilian M954 was a direct clone of the G.43 in .30-06, and I'm told they were excellent rifles- the addition of a Tokarev-style gas regulator was certainly a good thing which Germany decided they could do without.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,914 Posts
I don't agree that the G.43 was a "good design" or "very strong", but it was probably good enough and strong enough for its 7.92mm cartridge if made right.

Don't get me wrong; I like the G.43. They are pleasant to shoot, and work well with German WWII service ammo. I bought my first one in 1957, and several since then, and I still have one. I have not been brain-washed by the internet to believe that one must rush out and install an Abfeltor adjustable gas piston in it, or risk immediately wrecking the gun. I've shot many hundreds of rounds of steel-cased WWII German ammo through mine over several decades, without any sign of "over-gassing" or other dire consequences.

But I don't delude myself imagining that this is a durable, well-made gun. It's not.

The steel and heat-treatment are adequate but substandard. The springs in particular are of poor quality; at Aberdeen Proving Ground after the war, G43s did not complete the standard endurance tests mostly because the springs failed after a few thousand rounds, and many small parts broke from defective material or improper heat treatment.

Most users never notice that some G.43s gas pistons have a significantly larger hole for gas passage into the cylinder. They are not so marked, and must be gauged to identify them. This difference may explain why some but not all cylinders are bored with gas relief holes, but it is apparent that swapping parts in ignorance can lead to symptoms resembling over-gassing. The same is true of how the op rod is fitted. It should be adjusted to rest almost touching the bolt carrier. If not, excessive free travel and rearward acceleration of the op rod before it hits the bolt carrier will deliver a sharp impact to both parts. I suspect a lot of broken bolt carriers and bent op rods are the result of this easy-to-overlook misfitting.

M
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top