In the previous article on anti-tank rifles, a sample was considered, or rather samples of various calibers, which were designed by Vladimirov. Unfortunately, at that time, the requirements for weapons were rather vague, which is why many rather interesting samples were left "overboard" and did not go into mass production. On the other hand, the experience gained in the design of these samples has replenished the knowledge base of domestic designers and provided invaluable experience, which was subsequently successfully used in other models of weapons. The leader among those various options for anti-tank rifles turned out to be the model proposed by Rukavishnikov, but even with him it turned out to be not so simple, since the weapon turned out to be not the easiest to manufacture, and some points in it were quite controversial. In general, first things first.
In view of the rather widely interpreted technical specifications for an anti-tank rifle for the Soviet army, the samples presented by the designers were very diverse and quite interesting solutions were used in them. The sample presented by Rukavishnikov was no exception. Using cartridges 14, 5x114, this sample of weapons had a fairly large mass of 24 kilograms and a length of 1775 millimeters, with a barrel length of 1180 millimeters. It was simply unrealistic to transport such a gun alone, and the two also should not have worn the weapon, since, unlike the final version of Vladimirov's PTR, this anti-tank gun could not be quickly disassembled and assembled into two parts for transportation. Nevertheless, somehow it was necessary to carry it, and the designer made a very simple solution to this problem, namely a carrying handle on the barrel and a strap on the butt. The matter remained small, to prove to everyone that an anti-tank rifle cannot be carried over long distances on the battlefield, and to hope that no one will remember that sometimes the calculation of the PTR has to carry their weapons over long enough distances over impassable terrain in order to take the most advantageous position. However, if you look at reality, then really such a weapon was very rarely carried by hand far away, so in some ways the designer was right. The main reason why it was impossible to divide the anti-tank gun into two parts for transportation was the very design of the weapon, which, although it made it possible to make such a separation possible, it took time, tools and almost perfect cleanliness, that is, something that is usually not on the field battle.
The Rukavishnikov self-loading anti-tank rifle of the 1939 model is a sample built according to the scheme with the removal of powder gases from the bore. The barrel bore was locked when the bolt was turned. In other words, the weapon was made within the classical framework, without introducing any innovations into the automation system itself. Conversely, comparing this sample with the version of the anti-tank rifle proposed by Vladimirov, it should be noted that the weapon had a much greater recoil when firing, since in the case of Vladimirov's PTR, the automation with a long barrel stroke significantly compensated for the recoil, in this case, such a positive there was no phenomenon. In order to make the recoil when firing carried by the shooter, a three-chamber muzzle brake-recoil compensator was installed on the barrel of the weapon, and on the wooden butt of the weapon there was a recoil pad made of porous rubber. In general, this did not make the weapon pleasant to use, but at least it was possible to fire from it. No other tricks were used to prevent the weapon from hitting the arrow like a horse with a hoof.
Of interest is the power supply of the weapon, especially if it is self-loading. The store of the Rukavishnikov anti-tank rifle of the 1939 model of the year itself was an open device in which most of the cartridges were outside. Apparently, the ammunition was inserted into this magazine in a clip, along which it moved under the influence of a return spring. Thus, we can talk about an even greater lightening of the weapon than in the case of Vladimirov's PTR. At the same time, in my opinion, the open location of ammunition is a very big disadvantage for a weapon, especially if it is self-loading, since dirt, dust, water uses every opportunity to get inside the weapon, but it’s just a sin not to use it. Actually, my assumptions are confirmed by repeated tests of weapons that have already been carried out, oddly enough, when the weapon was put into service, which significantly slowed down the process of production and introduction of weapons into the army.
After the weapon was reworked and all negative aspects in it were eliminated, if possible, the characteristics of the sample became as follows. At a distance of 100 meters, the weapon pierced armor 30 millimeters thick, provided that it met at an angle of 90 degrees. At a distance of 400 meters, at the same angle, one could count on penetrating 22 millimeters of armor. The characteristics are really good, for which one should primarily thank the ammunition and the barrel with a length of 1180 millimeters, so it was decided to mount as many as 15 thousand units of such weapons in 1940, but this did not happen. The reason for this was the opinion that the artillery was quite enough to suppress any onslaught of enemy tanks. In addition, the idea was actively promoted that the PTR century ended before it began, which was generally true, but ahead of a couple of years. So, it was believed that enemy tanks would soon have an armor thickness of 60 millimeters, and against such armor, PTRs were powerless, respectively, spending money and production capacity of this unclaimed weapon in the near future is useless. In general, all this led to the fact that instead of fifteen thousand Rukavishnikov anti-tank rifles of the 1939 model, only a few dozen were created, and on July 26, 1940, these weapons were removed from service, and, if I may say so in this case, from production. Nevertheless, Rukavishnikov continued to work on his version of the PTR, as a result, a sample appeared with a completely different design for the 12, 7x108 cartridge, but about it in another article.
