Talk:PPS submachine gun

Considered the best?

Considered the best, but who and why? We need a source for the statement. 66.191.19.59 20:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

By Mikhail Kalashnikov: "Nothing couldn't compete with the simplicity of the device [PPS], reliability, safety in operation for ease of use". 71.124.42.91 (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess its becouse the fact the weapon was manufactured during the siege of leningrad and the fact its reliable despite being made from cheap materials.

User:Jetwave Dave 18:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

We'll never get a useful source since calling any weapon "the best" is merely opinion. Even if a publlished sources calls it the best it is merely a published, fairly useless opinion IMHO. DMorpheus 20:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That part was removed completely from my version of the article. The PPS was mediocre in accuracy and was very poorly built. It's a crude, mass produced weapon and compared to other contemporary designs - is totally unremarkable. Koalorka 20:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The PPS proved to be the best submachine-gun used during the Second World War. It's comparatively low cyclic rate improved accuracy and ammunition economy: with practice, it was possible to fire single shots with a momentry pull of the trigger. The gun was handy and convenient to carryon the march, as the metal butt folded easily. Its box magazine was easily replaced regardless of the firer's position. Attaching the magazine to the gun presented no obstical while crawling, or even if the weapon was being carried on the belt (sling<sic>).

Accompanied by a similar amount of cartridges, the PPS was significantly lighter than the PPSh of 1941. It's excellent combat characteristics were accompanied by unusual suitability for mass production. Manufacture of the PPS, simple and easy, involved stamping and welding to a previously unknown degree. This alone suited it to workshops with limited pressing facilities, as the machines need not be rated at more than fifty tonnes.

The PPS was also very economical to make. Manufacture of a single PPSh took 13.9kg of metal and 7.3 machine hours; the totals for the PPS were 6.2kg and 2.7 machine hours respectively, more than halving the use of metal and saving two thirds of the machine time.

"Soviet Smal-Arms and Ammunition" By Dr D.N. Bolotin Pg. 59

I'm the first to admit that Dr Bolotin has a serious pro-Soviet bias in his book, however the PPS is an outstanding design. It is simple, reliable and easy to use. It achieves everything that a SMG designed for total war should achieve. While there are more remarkable and exotic designs out there that are way more refined and "accurate" none are as suited to the job as the PPS. The only comperable design in my opinion is the British Sten.GunpicsBAS (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a cheap unremarkable war-time firearm. Claims of being "the best" are subjective, and really quite pointless. They will be removed. Koalorka (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. The fact that it was so cheap and easy to produce while remaining reliable makes it a remarkable firearm. Also if imation is the sincerest form of flattery the number of copies made are a testimant to its virtues. While I agree that "the best" is subjective and pointless the qualities of the PPS should not be written off so quickly. GunpicsBAS (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Fair use rationale for Image:PPS-43.jpg

Image:PPS-43.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-did the entire article as most of it seemed to be copied off Modern Firearms website. Added developement history, technical details and variants with some more accurate specs in the table. Koalorka 04:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Magazines Interchangeable.

As far as I know, the magazines of the PPS-43 and PPSh-41 are not interchangeable. The text currently says they are. Source: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.99.232 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The box mags are interchangeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.219.131 (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Operation

The PPS has a fixed firing pin that is not connected to the mainspring in any way. Also the mainspring guide rod acts as the ejector as the bolt retracts back along it. GunpicsBAS (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Yes, change this. Blocking the bolt, as described is not only inaccurate, it would be difficult and raise cost of gun.68.231.189.108 (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, great. And why does this somehow result in you deleting half the design description. There is nothing incorrect in what is already stated. If you have something extra to add, by all means, please do but without deleting the contributions of others. Koalorka (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have something extra to add, by all means, please do but without deleting the contributions of others.Koalorka

And what if what is written is incorrect as in this instance? GunpicsBAS (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not deleting half the description just removing the irrelevant and incorrect section. To say that the PPS is striker fired is irrelevent since all modern cartridge firearms are fired by striking the primer. This:

The PPS features a striker firing mechanism (that is located inside the bolt assembly and contains a fixed firing pin that is directly connected to the weapon's recoil spring),

Is blantently wrong as you would know if you've ever examined the bolt of this gun. How can it have a striker firing mechanism in the bolt and then have a fixed firing pin? An example of "striker firing mechanism" is the Luger, where the firing pin is under spring tension and released by pulling the trigger. Or in an open bolt system like the MG.34 where it is again under spring tension and released automatically when the bolt rotates into the locked position. These are all mobile (i.e. not fixed) firing pins.

The PPS has a far less complicated system. It is a simple blow-back design, immobile firing pin igniting the primer as the bolt rides forward and chambers the round. The only connection the firing pin has with the recoil spring is indirect because it pushes the bolt forward. GunpicsBAS (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

plus according to Bolotin you're wrong on how the safety on the PPS-42 worked. It was a simple bolt block. The trigger and bolt block came with the PPS-43 GunpicsBAS (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

BS again. It is a simple trigger block on PPS 43. I have one--do You?68.231.189.108 (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way my references are personal hands on experience with this firearm and "Soviet Small Arms and Ammunition" by D.N. Bolotin for specifics on the PPS-42 safety. What are yours? GunpicsBAS (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's all great. But the PPS is a striker-fired firearm. Look up the definition. I'm not disputing the position of the firing pin, you seem confused. Koalorka (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC) BS. "Striker" firing is basically a spring loaded firing pin. Period. PPS 43 is a slam fire. Do you Have one?68.231.189.108 (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

how about you explain what you mean by a striker-fired firearm? I have explained why I believe you are incorrect, you have offered nothing. This is not a discussion, this is stone walling by you. GunpicsBAS (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. Modern center-fire firearms are either hammer-fired or striker-fired. One has to make that critical distinction. For instance, the 1911 is hammer fired, while the Glock is striker-fired. Likewise the AR-15 has a hammer while the MG3 machine gun is also striker-fired, where the bolt carrier and protruding firing pin act as the striker. Making sense? BTW, the other edits about the safety and the exotic variants are good, thanks for the input. My references are a Polish government firearms research and development institute that among other things, manufactured the PPS. Koalorka (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough but it is then redundant and confusing as you have already said that it is blowback and operating from an open bolt. To say that the striker mechanism is inside the bolt implies that there is a secondary process that ignites the cartridge, where in reality the bolt is the striker. Contrast that with a full-powered open bolt design where steps must be taken to ensure that the bolt is locked to the chamber before the firing pin can strike. You are implying a level of complication that simply does not exist. GunpicsBAS (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

where the bolt carrier and protruding firing pin act as the striker

That is where you are confused. The firing pin in the MG.42 or any other full-powered open bolt auto does not protrude from the bolt face until the chamber is safely locked. In effect you have a two step process. GunpicsBAS (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct, but it is still striker-fired. Koalorka (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So you agree that your description is confusing and leeds people to think that there is a secondary process? By the way the bolt carrier carries the bolt and the bolt houses the firing pin, fixed or mobile. Lots of guns including the PPS-43 and MG.42/MG.3 do not have a bolt carrier. GunpicsBAS (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Negative. Koalorka (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So Lets break down your post?

The PPS features a striker firing mechanism - Fair enough but redundant because you've already said this (Blow-back open bolt).

that is located inside the bolt assembly - This is misleading at best. The bolt is the striker. There is no seperate mechanism within the bolt that strikes the primer (Rembember that the firing pin is fixed).

and contains a fixed firing pin that is directly connected to the weapon's recoil spring - This contridicts itself, why would the firing pin be fixed and then connected to the recoil spring? Keep in mind that it is fixed so can't move. Your statement implies that it is under tension from the recoil spring when it is most definatly not. The recoil spring is only connected to the bolt. See my site for images.GunpicsBAS (talk)

Your description of how the safety on the PPS-42 works is incorrect. GunpicsBAS (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Got overzealous with the undo button. Feel free to correct it. Koalorka (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll let you do it GunpicsBAS (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, fixed the portion that might have caused confusion. Koalorka (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

<Shrug> still a poorly worded, over complicated description of what is a really simple firearm. Fires from an open bolt with a fixed firing pin adequatly describes the operation. But since you have claimed exclusive ownership of the article I'll leave you to it. GunpicsBAS (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, if we had what you propose the article would be an exact copy of the Modern Firearm's website description of the PPS, 4, 5 sentences. It's blowback implying an unlocked breech and open bolt, few will actually associate this with a striker-type firing mechanism, so it is valid, remember, not everyone that researches this site is an expert gun-nut. I don't claim ownership of this article, but I did spend a good deal of time improving it from the miserable mess it was and don't like valuable information removed. Corrections and facts are most welcome. Koalorka (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Credit where it's due and you have written a good article, especially considering the lack of quality material on the web about these guns. But it doesn't change the fact that what you wrote is misleading it makes the operation sound unique when in fact it is extremely vanilla. The other links provided in the article will lead people down the correct path if they wish to follow it. Or will you be editing every firearm page to specify if the gun is "hammer" or "striker" fired? A more useful approach would be to note the exceptions like the H&K MP.5 rather than hightlight the norm.

I felt it detracted from an otherwise good article, enough to bother editing it.GunpicsBAS (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I try to stick to a standard template, my goal is to create uniform encyclopedic-quality articles. Yes, I do like to use verbose language at times, but that's why we have peer reviews. I've written quite a few, and I am familiar with the PPS, noting that it's a simple blowback smg, I don't see where you got the impression that I tried to make it sound more complex than it really is. Straight blowback is about as simple as they come. BTW, I'll try to return the PPS-42 trigger description tomorrow. Would you mind inserting your reference source? I'll provide mine too seeing how I forgot to do it after my first edits. Regards. Koalorka (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My reference is "Soviet Small Arms and Ammunition" by D.N. Bolotin Pg. 59 I think, it's in one of my replies to the edits I made.GunpicsBAS (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Bezruchko-Vysotsky

According to the Russian Wikipedia ru:Безручко-Высоцкие was a Russian noble family in Tsarist times. So it is not all that surprising that the Soviet authorities were probably not eager to name a Soviet gun that way. A less ideological explanation is that Bezruchko-Vysotsky was apparently still studying at the academy, and developed the gun as research project there, while Sudaev was a recent graduate thereof, working at NIPSVO. According to Нацваладзе's book (p. 21), the small-arms section of the Dzherzhinsky academy was directed by Anatoli Blagonravov during the war, and he encouraged students to engage in practical research projects. According to Bolotin's book (p. 124), the same Blagonravov also encouraged Kalashnikov in his early career, after reviewing Kalashnikov's 1942 sub-machine gun design, which Kalashnikov apparently had sent to the academy. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Monetchikov mentions on p. 36 in his book on Russian assault rifles that I.K. Bezruchko-Vysotsky also participated with a design in the first round of the 1946 avtomat contest (when 16 designs were entered, and which was ultimately won by the AK-47 a year later). His affiliation at this time is still given as the Dzherzhinsky academy. There is however no picture of this design of Bezruchko-Vysotsky in Monetchikov's book. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming

Someone states that Walt Whitaker fires an PPS-43 at Alan Arkin when he is in the car. However on closer examination it appears to be a PPSh-41 or similar weapon, if you look at the 1:37:44 mark of the movie, you get a good view of the weapon. Both the PPS-43 and PPSh-41 can be equipped a box magazine, which the PPSh-41 is displayed in this time spot.Joedumlao (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

On Fire Rate

The citation "http://world.guns.ru/smg/rus/ppp-43-e.html" doesn't specify anything about "Efective Rate of Fire", and the indicated RPM on said citation is 500-600RPM, instad of the 600-700 on the page.

-FavoritoHJS (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Manewry na poligonie wojskowym w Skierniewicach (51-43-25).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)