Which WW2 Battle Rifle Was Best? - Page 5
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > History >

Which WW2 Battle Rifle Was Best?


View Poll Results: Which World War II Rifle was Best
Enfield No 4 Mk 1 2 3.08%
Mauser 98K 3 4.62%
Stg 44 9 13.85%
Mosin-Nagant M1891 1 1.54%
Tokarev SVT-40 0 0%
M1 Garand 47 72.31%
M1941 Johnson 0 0%
Something Else 3 4.62%
Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-26-2014, 05:44 AM   #41
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,698
Liked 2611 Times on 1484 Posts
Likes Given: 2004

Default

For me , as far as full size rifles which were

in the entire war, shooting a full-size

rifle caliber, it's the Garand. IMHO the low

profile design offsets any box mag

advantages.




But I'm not stupid. I own a M1, but a

minty STG44 would buy all the others in the

selection, as well as a fair ammo supply.

Last edited by therewolf; 05-26-2014 at 06:03 AM.
therewolf is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2014, 05:57 AM   #42
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,975
Liked 1338 Times on 744 Posts
Likes Given: 593

Default

For me, it would not be a point of pride to only use American-made or American-designed weapons if there was something available that was substantially better. I can only surmise that DoD agrees because they copied the Mauser, the M-60 was supposed to be an amalgamation of the FG-42 and MG-42, the current issue battle rifle and machine guns are built and/or designed by FNH.

If everyone else is using a WWI bolt action and I have a M14, it's not too difficult to determine what the outcome will be if all other things are equal, although they never are.

I don't know what infantrymen would or would not want, but I suspect that they would want the most technologically advanced, most capable, and most reliable weapon available at the time to fight the enemy with.

I can't think of any real advantage to using a clip-fed, 8-shot semi-automatic rifle when a reliable box magazine-fed, 20-shot automatic rifle is available with optics, bipod, in-line stock, and shorter overall length.

I think that if Americans had AR-15's in WWII, the Wehrmacht and IJA would have been in deep, deep trouble and no amount of affection for a given country's service rifle would have made up for the employment of a technologically superior weapon. In essence, that's what the FG-42 was, a weapon that was about 10 years or so ahead of its time.

The Russians figured this one out with respect to the AK-47, thus the AK-74. The AK-47 was and is a good combat weapon, but it's hard to compete with a soldier that can carry twice your standard ammunition load out because his ammunition and magazines weigh half of what your ammunition and magazines weigh.
kbd512 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2014, 06:52 PM   #43
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TLuker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: S.C.
Posts: 3,550
Liked 1963 Times on 1255 Posts
Likes Given: 4435

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hairbear1 View Post
Quite easy actually.
You can load the SMLE with 2 stripper clips without detaching the 10 shot mag in seconds and in the hands of an expert empty the mag in something like 6 seconds giving it a brilliant rate of fire and even in the hands of the average soldier you could with 2-3 others lay down a very good field of suppressive fire or blunt an attack.

The Jungle Carbine version of the SMLE was just as effective in the close quarters of New Guinea and the islands where a long shot could be 20 yds
but you still had the 10 shot detachable mag.

The .303 also had battle sights graduated out to 2000yds for plunging harassment fire but they were more effective out to 400yds and in the sniper rifle version were very effective for what they were.
I love Enfields but I think the Garand was the best battle rifle of WWII hands down, and time seems to have proven that. The world has gone to semi autos because they have an edge over bolt actions. I will give the Enfield a solid 2nd place though, and 1st place for WWI.
TLuker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2014, 08:41 PM   #44
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Chainfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,879
Liked 1728 Times on 1030 Posts
Likes Given: 374

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercator View Post
Speaking of. Is that a Mosin receiver on your avatar?
Yep, I am a Mosin fan. However, it would not have been my choice of WWII personal weapon.
__________________
"It is better to be too skeptical then too credulous"

Carl Sagan
Chainfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2014, 08:50 PM   #45
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
molonlabexx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 978
Liked 373 Times on 236 Posts
Likes Given: 160

Default

Mosin Nagant all the way. I can but 10 mosins for the price of a CMP Garand! Not trying to start a fight here! I just really like the Mosin and the simplicity. As far as how both performed in WW2, Garand won. But don't discredit the Mosin. In terms of today, i would much rather have a Mosin then a Garand. Ammo is just too damn expensive.
__________________
NRA member. Gun owner. From my cold, dead hands...


Haven't got a lot, I don't need a lot. Coffee's only a dime. Living in the sunlight, Loving in the moonlight, Having a wonderful time!


I CAME, I SAW, I CONQUERED...
molonlabexx is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2014, 09:23 PM   #46
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mercator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,837
Liked 4373 Times on 2954 Posts
Likes Given: 2190

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainfire View Post
Yep, I am a Mosin fan. However, it would not have been my choice of WWII personal weapon.
I was only curious because if you own that particular receiver, you probably know it is valuable.
Mercator is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2014, 10:05 PM   #47
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,062
Liked 266 Times on 190 Posts
Likes Given: 30

Default

The following DVD should settle the issue in favor of the Garand :
http://www.thegca.org/gca-dvd-americas-rifle-the-m1-garand

It is evident from the above DVD and from the book, Shots Fired In Anger by Lt. Col. John George that semi-auto battle rifles had a big advantage over bolt action rifles in combat .
Interesting side note : The latest issue of The American Rifleman has an article on D-Day that says many soldiers carried Springfields on D-Day .
Rentacop is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2014, 10:51 PM   #48
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
manta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK.
Posts: 2,055
Liked 838 Times on 526 Posts
Likes Given: 257

Default

Quote:
It is evident from the above DVD and from the book, Shots Fired In Anger by Lt. Col. John George that semi-auto battle rifles had a big advantage over bolt action rifles in combat .
I think that goes without saying, that's why all battle rifles today are semi /auto except some sniper rifles etc.
manta is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 10:42 PM   #49
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Chainfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,879
Liked 1728 Times on 1030 Posts
Likes Given: 374

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manta View Post
I think that goes without saying, that's why all battle rifles today are semi /auto except some sniper rifles etc.
A PPSH would have been a good battle rifle. They are reliable, full auto, and you can carry a pile of ammo. At close range they are very effective. When the Soviets got to choose, they met the Germans in close and personal combat, and did well at it. (The Germans dreaded Soviets getting into their trenches)

The Germans made magnificent guns and lost the war. The Soviets made cheap guns a won.....go figure.
__________________
"It is better to be too skeptical then too credulous"

Carl Sagan
Chainfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2014, 03:42 AM   #50
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
ShagNasty1001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,526
Liked 461 Times on 267 Posts
Likes Given: 22

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainfire View Post
A PPSH would have been a good battle rifle. They are reliable, full auto, and you can carry a pile of ammo. At close range they are very effective. When the Soviets got to choose, they met the Germans in close and personal combat, and did well at it. (The Germans dreaded Soviets getting into their trenches)



The Germans made magnificent guns and lost the war. The Soviets made cheap guns a won.....go figure.

Because firing a pistol round in a battle rifle that's meant for 300 yards instead of a sub machine gun makes plenty of sense


America doesn't need a Marine Corps, they want one
ShagNasty1001 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
AR 7.62 Battle Rifle 1911love Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion 58 07-09-2013 01:05 AM
Battle rifle TooStrongTerry General Rifle Discussion 48 06-19-2012 05:43 PM
PSL or FPK as battle rifle? Caoimhin Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion 3 01-23-2012 06:37 PM
Battle Rifle M500 Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion 150 12-16-2010 11:37 PM



Newest Threads