Obsolete or Underestimated?

Discussion in 'Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion' started by Bolt Action, Sep 22, 2007.

  1. Bolt Action

    Bolt Action New Member

    42
    0
    0
    I havn't been in this forum long,but I've read and replied to some interesting opinions. so I figured now is the time to start my own.
    I'm a big fan of older guns,WWII era especially.
    Now,bearing this in mind,it is my opinion,that in todays battlefield,a world war II weapon,in the rightly trained hands of course,would and could serve as well as our "newer models"...Both have their cons,both have their pros. For instance,the German STG-44 would never have the fire rate or accuracy of say,an AR-15. But I honestly believe weapons like
    The M1 Garand,Mosin Nagant,Karabiner98k,Enfield,SpringField '03,Gewehr 42 and weapons of that type still would have a place in today's battlefield.
    And weapons like the MP-40,Thompson,and PPsH Model Sub Machine guns would be particularly useful still in the urban battlefield settings of Iraq. Of course,I have never seen combat in Iraq,or,ever seen combat anywhere,so if I am wrong,feel free to argue with me,thats what I am hoping for.
     
  2. Bidah

    Bidah New Member

    212
    0
    0
    Ok, my opinion..

    Depends on what battlefield you are talking about. If you are talking about close quarters urban fighting, then the older MP40, PPSh, Sten would be ok, as that is what they were designed for. The STG-44 was basically an early version of the AK, which is an intermediate cartridge.

    Now, if you get back to battlefield, or more long range type stuff, then yes, the Garand and others of it's class, in capable hands would do pretty well.

    -Bidah
     

  3. Bolt Action

    Bolt Action New Member

    42
    0
    0
    Similar to the battlefield which we face in Iraq,that kind of battlefield
     
  4. BLS33

    BLS33 New Member Supporter

    607
    1
    0
    I agree in the right hands they could still be useful but not practical. In a battlefield like in Iraq I don't see many advantages besides the more powerful rounds (albeit some much less plentiful) for the older rifles over the M16. You have to consider all aspects of the gun, weight, ammo power and availability, capacity, and accuracy (which largey depends on the shooter). I would feel comfortable with my Garand in a battle situation, but if someone offered an AK instaed I might be tempted :D.

    I will also add I would be more comfortable with my Enfield or 98k if it were longer range fighting over an M16.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2007
  5. Bolt Action

    Bolt Action New Member

    42
    0
    0
    It's a shame they won't let you go into a combat situation with a weapon you're most comfortable with isn't it?
    But then again,you mentioned practicalities...Lets take the M1 Garand for instance,or even the Springfield '03...Both are Very capable sniper weapons,even by today's standards,the 30-06 round is plentiful,and they are much cheaper to produce than current model weapons in their class..However,they are also shorter ranged,louder,and perhaps heavier...as I said,both have pros and cons,but then again,if you were a great shot...your target wouldan't be around to report your position...
     
  6. BLS33

    BLS33 New Member Supporter

    607
    1
    0
    Also they have less capacity. Now-a-days it seems shots available at the finger trumps actual accuracy which is unfortunate.
     
  7. 1984cj

    1984cj New Member

    296
    0
    0
    The old firearms seem to have a soul or feel that is lacking in the newer arms.
    I really like my older military firearms and am very pleased to have them. However, If I had to hump several hundred rounds of ammo for them I think that I would perfer to use an M-4. Half the weight of the M-1 or 03a3 and the munitions weigh less. Even the grenades for the 203 are smaller and lighter than the M-79s.
    However the M-14 still plays a role (at least it was still being used in the mid 90's by the Navy) and I have heard that some units are requesting it for long range work.
    While the WWII weapons are not by my standards "obsolete" They have been superceded by weapons that are lighter to carry and provision. Besides who would want one of those old things! The older weapons would also be harder to supply. While .30-06 is plentiful here in the states, out conus it is harder to locate.

    Also if the weapons were still current issue then they wouldn't be C&R, now would they? ;)
     
  8. AR Hammer

    AR Hammer New Member

    129
    0
    0
    An accurate bolt action rifle with good optics will always be viable.
    Usefulness of a bolt action rifle in modern battlefields will depend on the environment. (Offensive or Defensive)

    Due to sheer volume of targets in the sand box, Follow up shots are desirable, but not mandatory.
    Most 'Designated Marksmen' would prefer an M-14 semi-auto to a M-40 or M-24 simply for the volume of fire the M-14 can bring to the urban battlefield.

    As testament to the M-14 rifle, 244,000 have been taken out of storage and as quickly as they can be refurbished and fitted with 'Match' barrels they are being deployed to middle east units that are screaming for them!

    If the situation were reversed, and the Marines/Army were on the offensive (True military sniper situation), the hyper accurate bolt rifles would be more desirable.
    I do believe there is still a place for the early bolt rifles in this situation.
    The K-98 and Nigant are both viable rifles in hunting or sniping roles.
    .............

    Military units that qualify for the AR-10 Rifles are clamoring for more!
    The military has finally 'Discovered' that the AR format rifle is a much more formidable weapon in the 7.62x51MM chambering!
    The AR-10 has a near mythic following in Israel because of what the snipers have been able to do with it, and the Egyptians fear the AR-10 like no other rifle because of it.

    In my opinion, the AR-10 is one of the most under rated and overlooked rifles available today.
    ------------------

    After 16 years as a military armor and several real world deployments,...
    I believe that the 9X19MM round is totally inadequate for a side arm, and only marginal as a sub gun round.

    Now that engineering has caught up to rounds like the .45 ACP it's a much better round for urban clearing.
    New sub gun designs remove nearly all recoil, and frangible rounds eliminate over penetration.

    108,000 1911 service pistols have been refurbished or are in the process of being refurbished and shipped to the middle east.
    Special operations units are receiving new frames that accept double stack magazines and resist sand fouling/jamming.

    Glock's latest version chambered in .45 ACP is in final trails now. Since the Glock can be supplied much faster than the other versions of .45 ACP, Glock may finally take it's rightful place as a US side arm.

    HK has a new .45 ACP sub gun that is a goofy looking thing! Double stack stick magazine and ergonomic design makes this thing look like something off a very old science fiction movie!
    Looks like Janet Reno, but shoots like Annie Oakley!
    The reports from the special operations troops is VERY positive.
    Few cycling/firing problems and stays on target nearly effortlessly.
    --------------------

    The .45 GAP (Glock Automatic Pistol) round has been dropped by US military testing, but has been picked up by Finland of all places!
    The Fins do have a history of being ahead of the curve...
    Browning P-35's, AR-10 rifles, ect.

    Seems their large stock piles of P-35 (Browning Hi-Power) are aging, and they are looking for something in double action with more knock down power this time around, but will still use the accessories, Holsters, Magazine Pouches, ect, and won't disrupt the training their 'Operators' have with the P-35.

    Our government/military doesn't look to save money or get value from anything... (or we would be issuing Glocks in .45 ACP instead of the Baretta in 9MM)!
    ....................

    Anyway, just my 2¢ worth.
    It's worth exactly what you paid for it!
     
  9. Bolt Action

    Bolt Action New Member

    42
    0
    0
    True,the weapons of the 2nd world war are indeed heavier..But I've picked up [no offence to you AR folks out there] an AR-15 and weapons of it's kind and I feel....plastic...and with a gun that I'll be sliding on,shooting,slamming around,and doing any other horrible thing that comes with ducking and covering in a war situation....I'd want something stout feeling,like the nice feel of an M1 Garand,or my personal favorite,the Mosin Nagant M44...But you are also right int he fact that,1...the newer weapons carry what...20-30 rounds per clip and have a quick rate of fire,VS a Mosin,which is bolt action,and only has a 5 round magazine.But nothing seems to beat the feel of it to me..

    But also another good point is raised...Unless you're firing from a prone position in the distance,the standard military procedure now is...more bullets,more chance to hit...so I'm sure alot of our Military Commanders would much rather take an M-60 or M-16 over a Mosin Nagant or the MG-42 any day..which yes,is very sad..it appears the skill in shooting is all but lost with these newer model weapons..
    Still however,bearing these things in mind,if I were going to Iraq,and they gave me a choice of weapons I'd take...It would either be the Mosin Nagant M44....Tokarev SVT-40,or the Karabiner 98K...
     
  10. Linchpin

    Linchpin New Member

    12
    0
    0
    The M4 rifle is accurate I have heard shots being made at 600 yards one shot kills ( what else do you want ) I for one can hit inside the 8 ring consistitly at 300 yards with no training. I'd take the fire power of a M4 in the steets while getting shot at with ak's over a bolt action any day. I am not saying a bolt action rifle dosen't have a place in modern warfare but clearing buildings is not one of them. they are more for long distance persision shots. In warfare most of your shots are for supression fire and The M4 manages that nicely. As far as the M4 being plastic the only plastic part on them is the shroud over the barrel and that is reenforced with a metal liner they ar not britle guns they can infact take a lot of abuse.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2007
  11. Bolt Action

    Bolt Action New Member

    42
    0
    0
    If we're going to talk about building clearers,then yes,a bolt action,or semi-auto rifle would not be my weapon of choice either....in the case of building clearing,I'd be taking the M3A4 or the MP-40...or even a W-12 Riot Shotgun for room to room combat...all 3 guns and other weapons in that class would perform IMO,as well as the M4..Unless we are talking a range over 200 yards,then I would stack the STG-44 in the mix as well,which IMO,would be competetive with the M4 at that distance
     
  12. RONSERESURPLUS

    RONSERESURPLUS New Member

    662
    0
    0
    Hello all


    RON L here = SERESURPLUS

    Obsolete, or underestimated?

    When (In the 80's) the russians invaded Afganistan, the typical Fighter had a Lee Enfield, Number Bolt, maybe the later Number 4 if he was lucky, a smattering of other older designs! They came out a year later all with AK, AKS, AKS-74? Obsolete? No such thing in a primitive setting? Plus, a few months later the Peswar Gun makers stared making thier own AKs? If an old 50-100 year old bolt action gets you a Brand new, shiny AK or AKS or Krinkov, whats obsolte about it?


    Cases of Black Power cannons made out of water pipe knocking down HIP-8's and Damaging Hind Attack Helo's?


    Been there, seen that, and know what it looks and feels like?? LOL




    RON L
     
  13. firebrand45

    firebrand45 New Member

    20
    0
    0
    I have the very M1 Garand my father carried with him in WWII, I shoot it from time to time, and it's a wonderful weapon. That said, I can't imagine having to carry that thing in battle, or anywhere else for any distance. The standard battle rifle I carried (M-16) was considderably lighter, more ergonomic, faster, an I could carry a lot of extra lighter weight ammo as well. And a tactical weapon it is not. The older weapons went to the wayside for good enough reasons, and as a whole, my little black rifle served me well and good when it needed to without being hard to carry.
     
  14. bumpkin

    bumpkin New Member

    15
    0
    0
    The M1 rifle certainly does qualify as tactical, assuming we're going by Merriam Webster's definiton--using or being weapons or forces employed at the battlefront
     
  15. WILDCATT

    WILDCATT New Member

    260
    0
    0
    battle rifle

    I dont know any one who carried a garand to complain of the weight.check the weight of any battle rifle going back to the revolution.they weight much the same.I think the m16 makes a good jungle rifle the m14/m1 a good open field rifle.the m4 has lost its velocity.why are they going to 6.8 cal.my take is an m1/m14/k43 for long range.a grease gun for clearing rooms.any thing else level it with a 105 or 155.
     
  16. RaceBannon

    RaceBannon New Member

    3
    0
    0
    In Iraq I had an M4, which is a necessity if you're wearing body armor. My short arms needed the the adjustable buttstock with my interceptor vest. In Bosnia I had the standard M16A2 with the older kevlar vest and I felt it was awakward. The older weapons are still effective, especially the M1 Garand. The key with the Garand is a way to store the loaded 8 shot enbloc clips. The Mossberg riot shotguns we had in iraq are no better than the Win M-97 or Win M-12 trench or riot guns used in both World Wars.
     
  17. apk nole

    apk nole New Member

    23
    0
    0
    I am no expert, but a one shot kill at 600 meters with a .22 caliber round is probably very very rare.

    Even at 300 meters, it would have to be a very well placed shot,which is tough with the extremely effects of wind on that round.
     
  18. Defender

    Defender New Member

    272
    0
    0
    Though I have a deep respect for vintage weapons like the M1 Garand, the hard fact remains that today's battlefield weapons are technologically superior in virtually every way.

    It was the best we had during WWII, but simply wouldn't be practical or wise on today's battlefields.
     
  19. Gator Monroe

    Gator Monroe New Member

    86
    0
    0
    SKS anyone ? Especially the Chinese D or M models ?
     
  20. Recon 173

    Recon 173 New Member

    191
    0
    0
    Time, technology, training and tactics are what make the modern weapons better than the older, heavier ones. Time, a lot of it, has passed along since the M-1 Garand was invented and put into service. During that amount of time, new systems and improvement to old systems have occurred to make things better. So, time and technology interlock as far as firearms are concerned. Training or better yet, the ability of modern people to learn has improved as the educational levels have increased along with ways of communication and training. Now you can go out and buy a dvd with tactical information/training on it to help increase the speed and amount of your knowledge. When you couple everything with new or improved tactics then you can see how we have made things better. Back in the 1940s there were no SWAT teams so house-to-house fighting in urban situations was costly and dreaded by the average infantryman. In the 1970s police departments brought SWAT teams to fruition and now both the military and police are using them to keep from losing people in urban combat environments. So, everything considered, the older rifles had their time and place. They EARNED their positions in history and in the hearts of us who shoot. But now it is time for the newer rifles to come into their own. And, as time passes, the rifles that we presently use and make history with will one day also go into faded glory because they will have also earned their place in history and our hearts as shooters. I would never suggest that rifles like the M-1 Garand are worthless because they are not. But, like a front-loading black powder musket or rifle, the older rifles are not quite as good for modern people as modern rifles are. There are advantages to both but the conveniences always lie with the modern firearms.