PDA

View Full Version : Best military rifle of WW2???



D_squad_22_SAS
31-08-04, 07:18
I was wondering what the consensus opinion was regarding the best standard military issue rifle of WW2 was? I have owned several wartime 98K mausers , and I currently own a No.4 Mk1 , but wondered if there was one that any felt was a better weapon. My vote goes to the No.4 Mk1 , as its 10 rd clip gave it a major advantage over the others.

Polar
31-08-04, 07:26
For me the best rifle WW2 was M1 Garand, but other weapons what I like is FG-42 German Airborne Assault Rifle.
On pic
http://www.civilwar.de/galerie/fg42_01.jpg

Eagledriver
31-08-04, 14:00
No doubt about it. The M1 Garand.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/Irving/M1.jpg

Doc 2/47
31-08-04, 14:54
Yep.M-1 Garand without any doubt.Germans had the best LMG's.

HighlandSniper58
31-08-04, 22:32
M-1 Garand - sorry, but no! The clip-loading system was the achilles heal of the M-1. It could not be operated other than by loading it with an 8-rd. clip - not the ideal in battlefield conditions. The solution eventually came along, the M-14 with a magazine-loading system.

The Germans had some great weapons - the K98 - the FG-42, a brilliant but flawed idea - the Stg.44 (and pre-decessors), great idea, but poorly made.

but for a straight-forward, accurate and most importantly soldier-proof battle rifle, the No. 4 Mk.1 Lee Enfield rifle in .303 - in service in various versions from 1888 (Lee Metford No.1) until 1990 (L42A1 Sniper rifle) - 102 years...............need I say more?

D_squad_22_SAS
01-09-04, 02:49
I'm with highland sniper on this one....the FG42 was an awesome weapon but the 98K mauser was the standard issue , and a damn good rifle...no doubt about it...I still give the No.4 MkI the edge though....whilst I have fired an Stg44(my friend in La. has 2 of them) and they are an intriguing weapon , there weren't enough of them to go around. The Garand was good too and self loading , but the jerrys knew when to charge after hearing that pling of an empty mag. It is close between the M1 and the No.4 MkI.....just my 2 cents.

Thanks for the debate

Eagledriver
01-09-04, 04:26
Not to get into a debate here, I still think the Garand was best. #1-look who won the war. #2- Rob, the M14 didn't come out till just after the Korean War. The Mauser 98 and the Lee-Enfield were great in their own right, but they were bolt action. When you got in a tight, you needed firepower.

Polar
01-09-04, 06:31
Do you hear about Polish verssion Mauser?
Befor WW2 Mauser was standard weapons in Polish Army. The production started in July 1922 in Panstwowa Fabryka Karabinow in Warsaw using tools and machinery from a former German factory in Gdansk (Danzig) which was granted to Poland by the Treaty of Versailles. Poland produced 4 version Mauser :
kb wz. 1898 - was almost identical to the German model 1898
kb wz. 1898a - was produced by in new factory in Radom
Kbk wz. 1898 -was a clone of the German Kar 98a.
Kbk wz. 1929 -was designed in Poland in 1929
http://img75.exs.cx/img75/8827/Kbk29_1.gif

Kbk wz.1929

Bombardier
01-09-04, 09:50
I found this comparison on another web site, I can think for the life of me which one but here it is;


It depends on what role you are using the rifle for. As a combat rifle, few if any rifles in history ever matched the M1 Garand's effectiveness in battle (ARs, M16s, AKs are all considered "Assualt" rifles rather than "Combat" rifles and are not in the same class as the Garand and Enfield). The Garands rarely malfuctioned; could be field stripped quickly; and can be reloaded faster than any rifle of its time. Though the Garand wasn't nearly as accurate as the Enfield, it was still highly effective within 500 yards. Because of rate of fire and the quickness of reloading the German soldiers found it very difficult to advance and gain position on squad/platoon of American GIs carrying them. This same surpressive fire capability made it easier for an allied advance as well. Now had you been compairing the M1 carbines to the Enfield, I think the Enfield would win out. The rounds from the carbine didn't have much knock down power and were known to barely penetrate through a German wearing heavy winter cloths.

Now if the role is as a sniper rifle, the Enfield kicks the living $#*% out of the Garand. The M1 Garand Model "D" was highly ineffective as a sniper rifle due to its awkward scope mounting (mounted on the side due to the cartridge ejecting) and inaccuracy at more than 500 yards. The Enfield's accuracy was among the top in the world in its time. The only rifle we Americans designed that could even come close to their accuracy was the M1903A3 (more commonly called an '03 springfield), even still these came up short. Add to that the fact that the American government viewed sniping as a "dark art" and didn't have a sniper program in place until well after WWII had started (this program was quickly cancelled after WWII and has had an up and down history until recent years). The British (and the German's for that matter) realized the value of sniping in the great war and were the best in the world, hands down. Even today British snipers are the best in the world, and we Americans have learned what we know from them. This knowledge of the art of sniping and its needs are reflected by the design and accuracy of the Enfield.

Doc 2/47
01-09-04, 16:03
Polar,
Absolutely.Those of pre-WWII make are highly thought of in this country for use as the basis of very high$$$$ custom sporting rifles.

Bombardier,
NOW ya done it.Are you sure you wanna add snipeing and sniper rifles to the question of the best gen. issue WWII rifle?

Bombardier
01-09-04, 17:20
Hey doc :lol:
Just adding some more substance to this interesting subject :P

HighlandSniper58
01-09-04, 18:36
I'm sorry guys - but there is still one vital point to be adressed - the M-1 Garand and a box of .30-06 ammo was still little more than a club unless the ammo was pre-loaded into the specific 8-round clips without which it was useless. This was a design flaw from day one which should have been reason to reject the rifle.

I am not doubting the ability of a group of well-trained riflemen with M-1s to lay down a heavy rate of fire, but the concept of a rifle unable to operate without clips, unable to be single-loaded, or have it's magazine topped up is madness.

I know the M-14 came along post-Korea, but clearly even the US Army saw the flaw in its previous rifle, but it took them about 15 years - and two major wars - to see it.

The No.4 Enfield is not just any bolt-action rifle - the design of the Lee Enfield action lent itself to rapid and accurate fire which was proven time and time again. More over it was superbly accurate - far more so than the M-1, over much greater differences, could take ammo singly, in clips, in magazines and could be topped up. And most important of all - it was totally soldier-proof.

I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what Eagledriver is getting at with
#1-look who won the war. - the answer to that is we all did (i.e. the allies), and a fair part of the US military's infantry contribution was made by Marines carrying bolt-action M1903 Springfields because production of M-1 Garands never met supply during WW2.

This is one of these debates which has no correct answer - the US guys will obviously say the M-1 because they always think American is best. The Brits will say the Lee Enfield because they know it is best - result stalemate - pointless question in the first place - sorry D_squad_22_SAS, but that's the way it is.

Eagledriver
01-09-04, 18:51
Rob, You are totally, absolutely 100% right. All of us did win WW2. What I said was strictly "tongue in cheek" if you catch my drift. I certainly don't want to offend any of our friends. I most humbly apologize. :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

HighlandSniper58
01-09-04, 18:55
Rob, You are totally, absolutely 100% right. All of us did win WW2. What I said was strictly "tongue in cheek" if you catch my drift. I certainly don't want to offend any of our friends. I most humbly apologize. :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

And no offence taken - and what's more we did it with goodness knows how many different types of rifles - even some as bad as the French MAS and other clunkers like that.

My proposal to end this debate is that we put the M-1 Garand and No.4 Mk.1 Lee Enfield on level pegging, and rate the others second place - how's about that then? But really, we mustn't forget the various Mauser actioned rifles which ia many ways were only handicapped by their five round fixed magazines.

Eagledriver
01-09-04, 19:07
Amen, Buddy. Now how's about a tall, cold one on me. :D

HighlandSniper58
01-09-04, 19:09
On my way.................

Eagledriver
01-09-04, 20:59
I got your six, buddy. uzi, uzi, uzi,

D_squad_22_SAS
02-09-04, 05:50
I guess since I am new here I shouldn't pose "pointless" questions....so I will bid you all adieu.

Respectfully ,

JHR

Eagledriver
02-09-04, 06:55
Hey, D. He meant no harm. Don't run off. We all do a lot of kidding and all. :D No question is "pointless." If you don't ask, how can you learn?

Bombardier
02-09-04, 07:41
Hey D_squad, he was not being disrespectful, its just Highlands way. Its very difficult to disagree with somebody in type, it always sounds worse than it really is.
Come on buddy, I thought it was a great question. :mrgreen:

HighlandSniper58
02-09-04, 09:09
Sorry mate - as the guys say -no offence meant notworthy:

Doc 2/47
02-09-04, 21:41
Now y'all boys don't be gettin your kilts all outta kilter.
If everybody absolutely agreed on everything,forums would be awfully boreing places.Discussions allow the folks that are involved in them-and other folks that just wander by and read-an opportunity to learn something.This particular topic is a case in point.Never would have occured to me that there was anybody that considered any SMLE was the equal of the M1 Garand as a battlerifle.

I was thinking that this was a very good topic because there are an awful lot of subjects that folks on both sides of the pond don't have enough common interest in and/or knowledge of and/or experience with to be able to carry on a decent discussion.Heck, it's hard enough just tryin to figure out what y'all are talkin bout half the time.

Now if folks are gonna get all sensative an get their feelins hurt,it ain't worth it.Lets just repair to the bunker an I'll buy the first couple a rounds.
But if that ain't a problem,I've got a few more thoughts on the matter.Y'all tell me.

D_squad_22_SAS
03-09-04, 06:32
Perhaps I have been abit too hasty....I am from the USA , but pround of my English ancestry. Perhaps I let my pride get the best of me....I will say that I am proud to be American too.

HighlandSniper58
03-09-04, 12:18
Doc 2/47 wrote:

Never would have occured to me that there was anybody that considered any SMLE was the equal of the M1 Garand as a battlerifle.

Sory to be pedantic, but the SMLE and the No.4 Mk.1 Enfield are different rifles - the SMLE was the WW1 rifle officially replaced in 1941 by the British Army, but the SMLE soldiered on in the Far East, and was never replaced by the Indian and Australian armies. The major differences were the sights and stock/muzzle, the SMLE usually had a magazine cut-off missing from all but the very earliest No.4s

That aside, the SMLE also had a fearsome reputation for rapid/accurate fire and well-triained troops could lay down withering accurate fire out to 1000 yds., and did so on many occaisions in WW1 and later.

OK, at short range I conceid that the Garand was in many ways the better battle rifle - but overall do not underestimate the Lee Enfield system - the bolt arrangement on the Enfield rifles allowed for incredibly rapid and accurate fire.

I once accepted a wager from a weapons instructor - he would use an SLR and twenty loose rounds, I a No.4 Mk. 1 with 20 loose rounds, the challenge being to load and fire the 20 rounds at 300m, accuracy and speed to count. I beat him on both speed and accuracy and I didn't even bother to load the second 10 rounds into the magazine, I just single loaded. OK, so the same excersie couldn't be repated with the M-1 - but I would guess that with a clip-loaded Enfield the result might just be the same - certainly on accuracy, maybe even on speed.

Whatever - an impossible question to answer at the end of the day.

Eagledriver
03-09-04, 12:44
Did i just hear someone say something about The Bunker? Let's go. I'm thirsty! dr; dr; dr;

HighlandSniper58
03-09-04, 17:11
Beer, beer.............where's Eagledriver? :D

No mention of rifles, just give the man a beer! roc;

Eagledriver
03-09-04, 18:31
Here ya go, Sniper. Try a good ole American Bud for a change. On me. dr; dr; dr;

Eagledriver
03-09-04, 18:50
And if Bud don't suit ya, try this one on for size.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/Irving/wellsbomceleb.jpg :lol: :lol: :lol:

Bombardier
03-09-04, 19:29
Ahhhhh my namesake, I LOVE IT!!! :mrgreen:

HighlandSniper58
03-09-04, 19:30
Aaaaah, that was good, cheers ED.

I'm off to the land of German beer in October, always enjoy that.

Eagledriver
03-09-04, 22:08
Aw, man! Did ya have to remind me? I just gotta get back for Oktoberfest one of these days! :( :( :(

D_squad_22_SAS
04-09-04, 06:03
You are lucky Highland , you are close to all the good beer!! You know , I have a no4 mkI(in very good shape) but I never considered that it would be as effective as my SLR(neat story Highland). I also have never fired anything other than blanks through the No4 MkI too.....Perhaps I should take it with me to go shoot next time and give a comparison.

HighlandSniper58
04-09-04, 15:16
The No.4 is sweet to shoot as long as you haven't got one with a stock which doesn't fit. As you will know, the No.4's butt is removable and they came (I think) in short/medium/long - I remember shooting about 200 rds one day with a short butt rifle - it kicked the living daylights out of me - give me a long and I'm happy as Larry.

What I would suggest is one of the slip-on rubber recoil pads made by Pachmayr or similar - makes one helluva difference.

Do have a go with ball ammo, they are really accurate to shoot - remember the windage is in the foresight - I have permission to acquire one on my firearm certificate and must find a good one sometime soon before it's too late.

Of course, SLRs etc. are impossible for us here these days - we'll never be able to own/shot semi-autos here again.

D_squad_22_SAS
05-09-04, 05:13
Highland ,

I truly am sickened by the silly gun laws of the UK , and am sorry that you have to be subjected to it....it certainly isn't fair , or even useful as a law(of course IMO). So what type of guns are allowed for ownership there??? The UK had some really good WW2 reenactment units a few years back , how were they able to do that with the laws being the way they are there? I believe my No4 MkI has a longer stock , cause I have put a bunch of blanks through it before without incident. I actually keep it at my store , and have some silvertips to go with it in the unlikely case of robbery. I could even get AP rounds for the No4 MkI if I wanted them.....If you are serious about the purchase of one , and they aren't readily available in the UK , we have quite a few larger gun dealers offering them for as low as 150$ US in the Shotgun news.....I could search for the web address if you would like.......BTW , whoever was responsible for adorning my title with the winged dagger , you have my deepest gratitude notworthy: I am truly not worthy of their excellence!

D_squad_22_SAS
05-09-04, 06:17
Enfield #4 mk 1 rifles, 303 caliber, with bayonet included. Classic WWII era design rifles. They have nice bores, but are missing most if not all of the finish from the metal. May have replacement and/or repaired stocks. These rifles have seen service throughout the British Empire, including India. C&R eligible.
Item Number: 15-51
Quantity: 0 2 5 10
Price: $149.95 $149.95 $149.95 $149.95
Number to add to cart:


http://catalog.jgsales.com

there is the link Highland...I bought mine at a local gunshow , and paid 180$ for it. It is in very good condition , and the guy even threw in the frog sticker with it. My only complaint is that whoever had it before shellacked the stock!! instead of leaving it in its original condition :( . It looks okay and all , buy every time I pick it up I can feel that coarseness.[/url]

gunplumber
25-09-04, 00:16
I'll throw in my 0.02 here......the best all round semi rifle in WW2 is in my opinion the G/K 43 and the best bolt with out any doubt was the LE No 4

D_squad_22_SAS
25-09-04, 04:05
Either of your choices would be hard to argue Plumber.....I can see where the M1 Garand could be bandied in as well as the others , and I would give it the slight nod over the G43 .....but only slightly.

gunplumber
27-09-04, 16:38
the nod goes to the G43 over the M1 garand only because of the 10 rd detachable magazine...thats the only thing I never liked about my garand ..those damn 8 rd enbloc clips

D_squad_22_SAS
28-09-04, 06:11
I have fired both , and I liked the feel of the M1 Garand slightly better than that of the G43. Germany came up with some fabulous weapons during WW2. The MG42 , the FG42 were just top rate. At first , they seemed to suffer though from over-engineering too many of their weapons....something would break , and it would need major surgery performed on it to act right again(and machined parts that were in shorter and shorter supply)....I always liked the PPSH41 , and the STEN's....yeah they were cheaply made , but breaking them down was rather easy(especially in the case of the PPSH).

NorthShore
23-09-06, 22:24
Not to get into a debate here, I still think the Garand was best. #1-look who won the war. #2- Rob, the M14 didn't come out till just after the Korean War. The Mauser 98 and the Lee-Enfield were great in their own right, but they were bolt action. When you got in a tight, you needed firepower.
Canada and Great Britain were using the Lee Enfield long beofre the even USA got into the war, after nearly getting getting caught sleeping in December 0f 41. The German infantry stated on numerous occassion that some of the Canadian infantry regiments were the toughest they ever faced, and they were not using any M1's. They were using Lee Enfields.

Unregistered
20-10-06, 14:05
The idea that some think that ANY bolt action rifle could be considered a better battle rifle than the Garand is truly amazing. It simply shows peoples overwhelming predudice for their own countries product. Picture you and your buddy suddenly being charged by 10 of the enemy. The enemy has bolt action rifles. Would you want self-loading rifles (Garand)? Or would you want bolt action rifles (Lee Enfield)? I mean who's kiddin' who here. I'm not saying the Garand is the greatest rifle ever made but IT IS GREATER than any bolt action battle rifle ever made. To say anything else is just a joke.

TankBuster
20-10-06, 15:04
In terms of accuracy and range, many bolt actions were comparable and even excelled over the garand. Additionally, a garand(non-carbine) could not be reloaded mid-clip. Bolt actions alos lead the way in sniper rifles, as their range and accuracy once again came into play. While the Garand was a great weapon, and vital to the American success in WW-2, the bolt action rifle still has its place in the old time arsenal


Semper Fi----carry on sal;

Bombardier
20-10-06, 15:21
The idea that some think that ANY bolt action rifle could be considered a better battle rifle than the Garand is truly amazing. It simply shows peoples overwhelming predudice for their own countries product. Picture you and your buddy suddenly being charged by 10 of the enemy. The enemy has bolt action rifles. Would you want self-loading rifles (Garand)? Or would you want bolt action rifles (Lee Enfield)? I mean who's kiddin' who here. I'm not saying the Garand is the greatest rifle ever made but IT IS GREATER than any bolt action battle rifle ever made. To say anything else is just a joke.

Although I agree with your comments to a certain degree, I found this comment quite funny considering your ip address indicates you are from America


It simply shows peoples overwhelming predudice for their own countries product.

Thanks for contributing solthum


In terms of accuracy and range, many bolt actions were comparable and even excelled over the garand. Additionally, a garand(non-carbine) could not be reloaded mid-clip. Bolt actions alos lead the way in sniper rifles, as their range and accuracy once again came into play. While the Garand was a great weapon, and vital to the American success in WW-2, the bolt action rifle still has its place in the old time arsenal


Well said mate (Y)
The unregistered member points out that a self loading rifle is far superior in the heat of battle when being charged at by numerous enemy, and I agree but as you say the Bolt action (e.g the Lee Enfield) was far more accurate and had better range. My example was purley a patriotic one (Y)

Hollis
20-10-06, 18:06
Even though I am a Yank, I will vote for the garand too.

I think if one views the development of the battle rifle after WWII, semi auto, select fire, larger capacity magazines. The Garand was a platform that help lead to that as with the other Semi auto/select fires that were developed by countries around the world at that time.

Bolt actions will not lay down the suppressing fire a semi auto/select fire will do.

Even the US Army did not completely understand suppressing fire late in the war, they were still trying to get soldiers to make every shot count.

Interesting though Col. Berdan develop much of US Army modern warfare tactic during the American Civil War. The US Army did not fully realize his contribution till WWII or so.

Many of the Bolt guns of WWII were and still are excellent firearms. In todays military, the bolt gun is limited to snipers. Combats troops of today have select fire, larger magazine capacity battle rifles.

Unregistered
03-11-06, 23:24
I just came accross this thread and I just had to reply.
I'm from the US, Houston Texas to be exact. I am a novice collector. In my stock are; 3 Mausers (Turkish and German), 2 Lee Enfield (SMLE and L42A1), M1, M3, Type 30 (Japanese), and a 03A3.
I collect and shoot all my rifles and pistols. My humble opinion is this both M1 and LE are great rifles but a trained soldier can shoot his LE almost as fast as a M1, I'ld have to choose the LE over the M1 though.
And of course a 1911 as a side arm and we're good to go...
Thanks....enjoyed the reading.

Hollis
04-11-06, 00:13
My dad was trained on the 03 Springfield, he showed me how to shoot rapid fire with a bolt action. While it can be done faster, I don't think the human is as fast as semi-auto. I have to LEs, one is made by Savage. Very fine firearm. I also have a P17.

I think part of the decission is what one intends to do with the firearm, use it?

I like mauser actions, I have several also.

Bombardier
04-11-06, 07:52
Hey Unregistered user, A NOVICE COLLECTOR! ?, with all those guns?
Jaysus Id love to see your collection in a few years. Thanks for posting (Y)

Unregistered
05-01-07, 19:08
The Lee Enfield rifles have been voted the worlds best bolt action rifle
http://i18.tinypic.com/2wr0le9.jpg

The previous Lee Metford rifles are not bad. Did they see service in WW1-After? or were they exported?.
http://i11.tinypic.com/2h2gqp0.jpg

Bombardier
05-01-07, 19:23
The Lee Enfield rifles have been voted the worlds best bolt action rifle

Thats because they are buddy (Y)
IMHO bou;

Dutch
07-02-07, 07:18
As a collector of Military battle rifles, shooter, former soldier and a American my vote go's to the M1 Garand as #1. It is not the perfect weapon but it was real close for 1943. The clip feed system and not being able to top off the magazine would be the only short comings of the M1 garand. However a trained soldier would have had an easier time loading the 8 round clips than feeding two 5-round striper clips to fully load the lee Enfield. The U.S. also only supplied its troops with ammo on the 8 round clips so there would not have been any fumbling around with single rounds or 5 round striper clips. Also it should be said that no rifle will be better than its feeding system. Even modern battle rifles like the Ak 74, FAL, and M16/ M4's are worthless unless they have good undamaged Magazines. M1 Garands feeding system is simple and reliable. The Garand is a little heavy compared to other rifles of WW2. As far as accuracy it is very accurate, I have hit targets out to 800m with my two Garands and can consistently hit point targets at 500m.
The No. 4 enfield was a fine battle rifle and deserves the it best bolt action rifle award and is #2 on my list. It is hard to believe that you Brits can't have the same rifle that helped keep the world Free. I have a No.4 Enfield and have been slowly restoring it to it's former glory of 1943. It had it's original magazine and would not feed properly making it a really fast single shot (a new magazine and it is as good as new). The Enfield had problems with its magazines and ammo. The magazines were not intended to be changed to reload the rifle, 5 round Striper clips were the primary way to reload. And the Rimmed casing of the .303 ammo could get jammed up inside the magazine. That is why they staggered the rounds in the stripper clips. It is more accurate than the M1 Garand but not that much. Most soldiers in combat, being shot at, are not going to be able to consistently hit a target at 300m, witch is well within the effective ranges of the M1 and Lee Enfields.
The problems of these two rifles are simple ones that were fixed with good training and maintenance. But witch was really best? Apples and Oranges. Both were battle proven and reliable. One has firepower and the other Accuracy. I say the M1 garand is the best.......but I am biased.

Shooter
29-06-07, 02:00
I'm a proud owner of both a 1918 SMLE and a mid-50's M1 Garand, and I've shot friend's No. 4 Mk 1 and Mk 2's. All excellent rifles but I agree with Dutch. The rapid fire capability, sights, and higher energy M1 round, 30-06 M2 ball, 152 gr at 2740fps, ME = 2535 ft-lbs, vs. the .303 Mk7, 174 at 2440, 2301, all make it the more desireable combat rifle IMHO. While the bolt action is inherently more accurate, the M2 round shoots flatter and is less prone to deflection, at least within a few hundred yards, velocity winning out over mass. Plus the M1 is definitely NOT inaccurate.

The issued battle sights on the M1 are excellent for open sights, presenting a superior sight picture, and the rear sight is easily adjustable for windage and elevation - 1 click = 1 inch at 100 yds, ie 1 MOA. The M1 sight is easily superior to the issued British sights, which (at least on the WWI SMLEs) were even pinned.

The ability not to easily top off the magazine is moot to me because the en bloc is very easy and quick to load, easier than strippers. The clip ejection "ping" is also a moot point, mostly because of the inherent noise of all hell breaking loose in battle, and again because of the ease of reloading the Garand. Both Garands and Enfields had reputations for being extremely durable.

As I said all excellent rifles, but I'll definitely take the M1. However I still want a No. 4 for my collection!

Stoats
02-07-07, 15:41
The ballistic difference between .30M2 and .303 mark seven is irrelevant for rifle use, since they are both overpowered. Interestingly though, the .303 mark seven was much better for long-range machine-gun use, although that itself had been superseded by the mark eight for that purpose .
Although a well-trained Lee Enfield shooter can put down aimed fire at long-range at about the same speed as his equivalent with the Garand, where the difference really comes into play is when it gets up close and personal, the semiauto user having a significant advantage.

Jaffanator
01-09-07, 05:05
Not to get into a debate here, I still think the Garand was best. #1-look who won the war. #2- Rob, the M14 didn't come out till just after the Korean War. The Mauser 98 and the Lee-Enfield were great in their own right, but they were bolt action. When you got in a tight, you needed firepower.


The SMLE No. 4 had the best Bolt system and its general design is still used .... ( im pretty sure ) I like the M1 Grand alot But you couldent RELOAD mid clip and the "CLANG" after fiering the last round! GOD!!!

"YEAH Im outta ammo im over here!
303_no4

Hollis
01-09-07, 17:52
The SMLE No. 4 had the best Bolt system and its general design is still used .... ( im pretty sure ) I like the M1 Grand alot But you couldent RELOAD mid clip and the "CLANG" after fiering the last round! GOD!!!

"YEAH Im outta ammo im over here!
303_no4


The clang is a hollywierd thing......... The boom is much louder than the clang.

The SMLE was ahead of it's time in WWI, as a bolt gun especially with the detachable 10 rd magazine. As accuracy goes there were a number of very accurate bolt guns.

The Garand was the start of something new, a standard issue semi-auto for the common soldier. The Russians had the SVT40 which the Germans liked more than the Russian soldier.

Some oldies.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/Hollis6475/New2.jpg

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/Hollis6475/Oldies.jpg

1941 SVT40

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/Hollis6475/SVT40-1.jpg

Unregistered
10-02-08, 18:16
No one has said anything about Russian weapon. They're an important part of victory of WWII.
They had the Mosin-Nagant. It's one of the cheapest weapon of the war, being produced when the condition couldn't be worse. It's also easy to mass produce, as all Russian wpns, needed for a country in trouble.

Stoats
11-02-08, 13:26
No one has said anything about Russian weapon. They're an important part of victory of WWII.
They had the Mosin-Nagant. It's one of the cheapest weapon of the war, being produced when the condition couldn't be worse. It's also easy to mass produce, as all Russian wpns, needed for a country in trouble.

Sorry, but the M.-N. was most certainly not easy to produce. The bolt is extremely complex. Nor was the Tokarev SVT-40 easy to produce.

Now, the SVT-40 would have been absolutely storming had it been in a sensible, rimless calibre and built in the West.

Gun Chief
16-02-09, 03:06
As far as Battle Rifles go you have to give it to the M1 even with its faults(8 rd block clip) the US was the first and only army to arm its troops with a semi auto rifle that gave the shooter 8 rounds before reloading and not having to manipulate a bolt. The M1 is a very accurate rifle with moderate recoil.

John A Silkstone
16-02-09, 08:39
Though I enjoy reading the topics this one is one that will not be resolved. We were all in the service at different times and trained on different weapons. Before I transferred over to the Medical Corps, I was in the Royal Artillery and my weapon was the Lee-Enfield 303 rifle or bren gun and to me it was a fantastic weapon.

The Lee-Enfield bolt-action, magazine-fed, repeating rifle was the main firearm used by the military forces of the British Empire/Commonwealth during the first half of the 20th century. It was the British Army's standard rifle from its official adoption in 1895 until 1957.

The Lee-Enfield used the 303 British cartridge and in Australia and New Zealand the rifle was so well-known that it became synonymous with the term "303". It was also used by the military forces of Canada, India, and South Africa, among others.

A redesign of the Lee-Metford, which had been adopted by the British Army in 1888, the Lee-Enfield remained in widespread British service until well into the early 1960s and the 7.62 mm L42 sniper variant remained in service until the 1990s.

As a standard-issue infantry rifle, it is still found in service in the armed forces of some Commonwealth nations.

The Lee-Enfield featured a ten-round box magazine which was loaded manually from the top, either one round at a time, or by means of five-round chargers. The Lee-Enfield was officially replaced in the UK with the L1A1 SLR in 1957. Thought I was still passing my annual target practice with the 303 in 1959.

It continues to see official service in a number of British Commonwealth nations to the present day, notably with the Indian Police and is the longest-serving military bolt-action rifle still in official service. Total production of all Lee-Enfields’ is estimated at over 17 million rifles.

Silky

Hollis
16-02-09, 18:29
John, I think part of this is some kind of a bond that a soldier forms with his weapon. Very few of us, ever really get to run the various rifles through the paces. It could also mean that the differences are a lot more subtle than we think.

I think when the difference is great, there is little discussion on which is better. It is when the differences are minute, that volumes are written to defend the "obvious superior" choice.

John A Silkstone
16-02-09, 19:56
I'm not saying that I'm old, BUT - I still have my blowpipe and darts. I'll take a photo and place it on site.

Silky

Eagledriver
17-02-09, 05:33
Fellers, if I may inject a bit of info here. #1-M1 Garand 8-round clips were preloaded. All one had to do was grab some and keep fighting, not load one round at a time. My dad carried one during WW2 and the Korean War too.And contrary to aforementioned statements,

GunBunnyInaMAB
04-11-09, 11:56
Man, talk about too much information!! Personally, Having fired an M1 Garand, a .303 Enfield, and a 8mm Mauser, I feel the Mauser excels in the field of reliability, ease of reloading (it doesn't try to remove the tip of your thumb like the M1), and accurate target aqquisition. The recoil is also more manageable than the .303 Enfield. Of course, that's just my opinion...

GunBunnyInaMAB
09-12-09, 17:30
OOPS!! I need to correct myself... I forgot about the Browning Automatic Rifle!!(Y)sal;

Raven Gold
04-01-10, 21:26
My uncle has an extensive collection of weaponry and i have had the honnour fireing most of it.

As far as the WW2 rifles go. The mosin-nagnat was my personal favorite, It had great accuracy, the ironsights were very easy on the eyes (I could hit a 2cm target at about 300m with the iron sights), and like some have said here, its was incredibly reliable. It was the Kolashnakov before it was invented.

I have tried the M1 Garrand, and it felt very clunky, and it broke my finger.

Another great rifle comes from the Russians again, the SVT-40, It has alot of the same properties as the Mosin, but gives it the advantage of being semi-automatic again, it doesn't have the range and power maybe, but it's cheap and very easy to use. The true hallmarks for the "Greatest Gun"

If preformance you're looking for, look no further than the PTRS-41, it probably inspides the modern Barret.50

GunBunnyInaMAB
09-01-10, 23:15
Yeah, but the BARRET .50 is a single shot weapon, no magazine.

Eagledriver
10-01-10, 02:03
Not so, Gunbunny. file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.pngCheck out the Barrett M82A1.file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.pngfile:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.png

Raven Gold
10-01-10, 16:57
Yeah, but the BARRET .50 is a single shot weapon, no magazine.

Yeah, like Eagledriver showed, the Barret .50 is a 10 round semi-auto. Though I have seen a cutomised belt-fed version. (That thing looked glorious and terrefying!)

GunBunnyInaMAB
24-02-10, 12:10
See that? You're out of the service 26 years and they change EVERYTHING around on you!! Thanks for making me feel really antiquated.:confused::confused::confused:

Eagledriver
24-02-10, 14:04
You're welcome. pipes;pipes;pipes;solaf

macvsog
23-03-10, 15:01
I'd say the M-37 pump shotgun first, then the BAR second.

sandy1000
19-11-10, 23:02
The heart of the matter is that if you are in action the fewer things that you have to do the more effective you are. If you are in a close range firefight you really don't want to be fooling around with a bolt after every shot, all you want to do is aim and pull the trigger. That's why the Garand is the best of the standard rifles of WW2. The British Commonwealth was always behind the USA with weapon development. The .303 LE was replaced by the semi auto FN SLR but then the USA went fully auto with the M16. Eventually the FN was replaced by a fully auto rifle. The FN SLR was touted as being a superb weapon especially by those that carried it in action. The fact is that it is a shocker - too heavy, too long, you had to carry all of those empty magazines around until you could fill them and when being used to provide sustained fire in hot conditions it would experience stoppages due to being carboned up. There was a tool provided to expand the gas jet but from observations once it began to mis-fire there was nothing that you could do to correct this, other than to fully strip it down and clean it. And why did those who carried it swear by it - the average soldier has to convince himself that his personal weapon is best otherwise he begins to doubt himself as being effective.

GunBunnyInaMAB
24-11-10, 23:05
Well, after reading 8 pages of arguments, it looks like the M1 GARAND is the winner, with the 2nd place still up for grabs between the Germans and the Russians... and that will probably take another 8 pages to resolve!

salute;

Unregistered
07-01-11, 19:22
You all forgot the soviet SVT 40 just as powerful as the M1 Garand better feed system just as reliable

Unregistered
24-03-11, 21:42
I think that The best rifle was the PPS-43

Eagledriver
26-03-11, 23:25
Unregistered, the SVT 40 was not forgotten. It was mentioned on page 7 by Raven Gold.welc.

Unregistered
15-04-11, 03:46
Great posts! I inherited my dads gun collection and have the M1 , 1903, and the .303. I havn't shot them all, but am going to make a point of it. I am also on a quest for the (best) rifle and caliber. I just finished a book by Jeff Cooper "To Ride, Shoot Straight, And Speak the Truth. He has some very strong arguments that all a lone man needs is a accurate bolt action rifle. He says a rifle is an offensive gun and is used at a distance. If you are shooting at a man or a group, you usually don't get more than two shots off from a location before you start to receive fire back. Any more than two will give away your position. I just bought a Sig 556 to start my own quest for the (best) rifle and cant help feeling foolish that I already had the best. I could have bought alot of .3006 and .303 ammo for what I spent on my Sig. I was kind of hoping that the 1903 would be better, because .3006 ball ammo is so available but I am going to have to give some real thought to the .303.

Unregistered
04-10-11, 17:28
Hello, sorry if I am bringing up an old thread here, but while cruising by I found this very interesting.

My name is Tye, I was a member of the Australian Army for a while serving in infantry, I served in A'stan for a couple years In Uruzgan province.

Notable weapons I have fired are the F88 steyr (the main service rifle of the Australian Army), the M16A1 and A2, the SLR (British and Australian variant of the FN FAL), and also an Enfield, although the only rifle I have fired in combat is the F88. I must admit that the Enfield for me felt very clunky and was an annoying thing to reload, as it requires 2 stripper clips to be loaded into the weapon, which takes time and I assume is far harder than the garands system, plus it also fires what I think is a ballistically inferior round to what the Americans and Germans were using.

There are a few things that a few people are getting wrong on assumptions in the first place, firstly, it is primarily up to the machinegunner (or possibly bar or Bren gunner back then) to lay down the suppressive fire, although riflemen will be firing too, they do not have enough ammunition usually to keep a high rate of fire, compared to the MG which spread across him and he ammo bearers is most likely carrying more than 1000 rounds, as opposed to about a standard issue of 100 for an Enfield user, and 88-128 for a garand user. Also another important point is during wars with modern day combat weapons (as in after muskets) combat ranges are essentially quite random, so at the start of a firefight both sides will compete for fire supremacy, this short period would involve (it did in my case) a lot of ammo consumption, so, a garand has an enormous advantage over the Enfield there, and the Enfield although can be cycled quickly, still requires the user to bring Down the sights while working the action, Which means if they are shooting as quick as possible they are most likely firing more inaccurately than the Garand.

Although the garland could not be topped up, in most combat there is no point doing a "tactical reload", dry reloads would almost always be done, especially on low capacity rifles, and the ping produced would certainly not be noticeable at standard combat ranges, which is usually over 50 meters, if not at 200 to 300, add into that all the combat noise and it is virtually unnoticeable.

Last thing I would like to mention is that in combat the technical accuracy of the rifles used is not very important, unless operating as a Designated marksman or sniper, just being able to bring up and sight your weapon and fire as accurately as possible while under fire is hard enough, and the super long range effectiveness of the rounds used is not entirely sensible as the standard rifleman with ironsights is effective up to maybe 300 meters while in combat conditions, when I served basically any targets past 300-400 meters was engaged by machinegunners, Designated riflemen, LAV's or air support, and that is when all rifleman are using optics, either a shoddy 1.5 like mine, or the lucky people having 4x ACOG's or 3.5 Elcans, the extra men were better used keeping cover and scanning elsewhere rather than engaging what the heavy weapons are gonna kill anyways.

So if you cannot tell by now I would say that the M1 garland was the best infantry weapon of WW2, because in my opinion it is more flexible than anything else, yet simple and reliable enough for the soldier to depend on it, which is the reason I would not choose the G43 or SVT-40, and I would not choose the STG44 because of It not being really tested enough in combat to judge it swell as the others, and from what it had actually seen it still didn't seem to offer a significant advantage over the Garand, considering there was almost no point to firing it on full-auto anyway.

Just wanted to voice that