Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Pavesi Prototype SVT Copy" video.

The Germans not only reused the gas system for the G43, but reused every captured SVT40 as long as it showed to be accurate enough (Soviet manufacturing was not that great), as it was. The Soviets themself reverted to the Moisin only cause it was much more easy to manufacture, and it was enough of a problem to equip their entire, huge, army with a single model.
10
Risto Mladich Obviously they could, but there is a trade-off between quantity and quality, and this is more stringent in wartime. The more soldiers you want to equip, the more quality controls you have to skip.
2
Risto Mladich Actually, quality problems in wartime Soviet production were well known, and did not affect only rifle production. Artillery ammunitions, engines, aircrafts, were affected as well. Simply, quantity was more important that quality, and many of the production sites had to be hastly transferred, since the original factories were overrun. Whatever the theory is, the reality is that the Germans tested every captured SVT40, used those of acceptable accuracy, and discarded the others, and the others were a good percentage.
2
Sam Moon What "isn't true at all? "Germans not only reused the gas system for the G43, but reused every captured SVT40 as long as it showed to be accurate enough" That was the statement, and that remains. I have no need to post sources to confirm your invenctions.
1
Sam Moon I know perfectly that the Germans liked it, gave it a German designation (that was absolutely common German practice for every captured weapon reiussed to their troops), and stamped a manual for it. Like i know that they were reiussued after having passed an accuracy test, three shots into 10cm at 100m. Order 1384/42-AHA/In(VII).
1
Sam Moon I never stated that "the majority were out of tolerance and 'discarded'". That's your invenction. And the fct that you continue to repeat it sems to show that you are only a troll. The same fact that there were an accuracy test required (after having zeroed the rifles, so the Germans were expecting to not find the captured rifle to be even properly zeroed) on captured rifles (so on rifles that have been already iussued) shows that they didn't trust the Soviet quality control. An official acceptance test would not have been required, if only seldom samples wuld have been out of tolerance.
1
Sam Moon "fact" Ahem, not. The same fact that there were an accuracy test required (after having zeroed the rifles, so the Germans were expecting to not find the captured rifle to be even properly zeroed) on captured rifles (so on rifles that have been already iussued) shows that they didn't trust the Soviet quality control. An official acceptance test would not have been required, if only seldom samples wuld have been out of tolerance. What you are stating would be a "fact" if you have a source stating that those that needed reconditioning, "wasn't a significant number". A source that you obviously don't have. And the fact that those not readily accepted to be uesd, cause found to be out of tolerances, would have been sent to the armourer, does not mean that all of those would have been effectively reconditioned. "sent to the armourer" does not mean "repaired and then reiussued to the troops". Germans had not the tooling to make parts for that rifle. Those that would have required excessive work to adjust them, would have not ben repaired. I'm not suggexting you are a troll for trying to correct someone. I'm suggesting that you are cause you are fabricating my statements. I never stated that "the majority were out of tolerance and 'discarded'". That's your invenction. And the fact that you continue to repeat it from your first post ("The Germans were not throwing away a larger number of the SVT-40 than they were using") sems to show that you are only a troll.
1
Sam Moon "I cannot prove" So it's not a "fact". What's a "fact" is that the Germans came up with an official accuracy test required (after having zeroed the rifles, so the Germans were expecting to not find the captured rifle to be even properly zeroed) on captured rifles (so on rifles that have been already iussued) to accept the rifles to be used by their soldiers. That shows that they didn't trust the Soviet quality control. An official acceptance test would not have been required, if only seldom samples wuld have been out of tolerance. "it is fact that the Germans tested EVERY piece of captured equipment they intended to use". So what's the official acceptance test, to say one, of the Scotti 20/77 (renamed 2cm Scotti by the Germans)? To test a weapon, to simply see if it works, and to have an official acceptance test to pass are two different things. "It is not my invection" "the majority were out of tolerance and 'discarded'" Your invenction. "you said the percentage was 'good'" An official acceptance test would not have been required, if only seldom samples wuld have been out of tolerance. Instead you said it's a "fact" that those that needed reconditioning, "wasn't a significant number" Where are your sources? "This line confirms to me you're just making stuff up; "Germans had not th(sic) tooling to make that rifle" You're kidding, right? The Germans absolutely had the tooling to produce whatever small arms they wanted" So you are stating Germans produced SVT 40? Good to hear. You have a source stating it, right? Otherwise it's another invenction of your.
1
Sam Moon "Did I say the Germans produced SVT-40s, or did I say they had the ability..." Do you really read the comments first to answer to them? The "ability" and the "tooling" ARE DIFFERENT THINGS. The tooling are the machinery and facilities required to specifically produce something, not the ability to make them. It's obvious that the Germans had the techical knowlege to manifacture SVT40, or M1 Garand for that matter, but they didn't made the tools to do so, so they had not the tooling. "Also, I said I cannot prove a negative" You clearly stated it was a "fact" that the rifles that needed reconditioning, "wasn't a significant number". It's a positive statement, that, if true, can be proved. Were are the sources of that "fact"? What's that "not significant" number? It's not that you "cannot prove a negative", is that you stated to be a "fact" something that you don't know. And are now stating that the fact that you don't know the number is a proof that it was small. Sorry, but ignorance is not proof. What's a "fact" is that the Germans came up with an official accuracy test required (after having zeroed the rifles, so the Germans were expecting to not find the captured rifle to be even properly zeroed) on captured rifles (so on rifles that have been already iussued) to accept the rifles to be used by their soldiers. That shows that they didn't trust the Soviet quality control. An official acceptance test would not have been required, if only seldom samples would have been out of tolerance. "Here, I'll even show you..." ...that you are good at googling "1384/42-AHA/In(VII)". Learned something?
1