Which WW2 Battle Rifle Was Best?

Discussion in 'History' started by GatorDude, May 17, 2014.

  1. Enfield No 4 Mk 1

    2 vote(s)
    3.0%
  2. Mauser 98K

    3 vote(s)
    4.5%
  3. Stg 44

    9 vote(s)
    13.6%
  4. Mosin-Nagant M1891

    1 vote(s)
    1.5%
  5. Tokarev SVT-40

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. M1 Garand

    48 vote(s)
    72.7%
  7. M1941 Johnson

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. Something Else

    3 vote(s)
    4.5%
  1. GatorDude

    GatorDude New Member

    218
    0
    0
    I've been researching the battle rifles of World War II and have tried to answer the age old best rifle question here: Which World War 2 Rifle Was Best?

    Now I've got two questions for you guys:
    Which one do you think was best?
    Which one would you love to own?
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2014
  2. Donn

    Donn Active Member

    1,246
    14
    38
    M1 Garand and I already own one.
     

  3. Easy_CZ

    Easy_CZ Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    205
    0
    0
    M1 Garand on both counts. Not even a contest.


    Sent from my iPad using Firearms Talk
     
  4. 25-5

    25-5 New Member

    3,302
    1
    0
    I have a WWII M1 Garand which so dominates 1st place, I think the discussion should be about 2nd place. In that spot I would put the Enfield Rifle No. 4 MK I. I have the MK 2.
     
  5. Mercator

    Mercator Active Member

    11,342
    16
    38
    The M1 made all other battle rifles (traditionally defined) obsolete. Ithad no counterparts worth mentioning. The rest were submachine guns and bolt actions.
     
  6. 25-5

    25-5 New Member

    3,302
    1
    0
    Until March of 1943 the M1 was maybe #3 when the US Army learned how to fight. That's 5 years into WWII.
     
  7. Shoobee

    Shoobee New Member

    2,007
    1
    0
    The M1 Carbine was not even on your list.

    And that became the military long gun of the future.
     
  8. Mercator

    Mercator Active Member

    11,342
    16
    38
    Never thought of the M1 carbine as a battle rifle. Can you please clarify?
     
  9. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    it's not a battle rifle and was never intended to be. look at those issued a M1 Carbine and it becomes very clear that it wasn't ever intended to be a battle rifle.

    the M1 Garand was a battle rifle and probably one of the worlds best in it's time.
     
  10. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,079
    154
    63
    I would say the Sturmgewehr 44 only used in limited quantities luckily for the allies. It was one of the most influential designs developed during WW2 and for post war designs.
     

    Attached Files:

  11. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,677
    390
    83
    While the 44 was a new class of rifle it was not that good. They were overweight, somewhat fragile, unreliable with poor ergonomics. It did lead to the development of rifles like the AK47. The 44 was designed on the concept of 300 meters or less being the normal battlefield range and that full power battle rifles were overpowered and really not that effective past 300 meters because of accuracy of the ammo and the shooters. Machine guns and snipers were the only ones that could effectively utilize the longer reach.
     
  12. toroboy

    toroboy New Member

    130
    0
    0
    Great questions; and, in my limited knowledge (opinion), I can't argue against the Garand. I would also love to own one.

    The questions do inspire me to wonder how folks from other countries would respond? How would someone who was on the receiving end of a Garand respond (if they could)?

    What would the opinions of British, Canadian, Austrailian, or other Allied soldiers be? Same for Axis soldiers.

    If you're participating in the forum internationally, let's hear your thoughts...


    Sent from my iPhone using Firearms Talk
     
  13. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    The StG 44 was not a battle rifle it was the original "Assault Rifle' as the name indicates. A battle rifle fires a FULL POWER cartridge. The 7.92 X 33 is far from that.
     
  14. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,079
    154
    63
    Is it not the same difference, it was designed to be used in battle. Are todays rifles using a similar intermediate bullets not battle rifles.
     
  15. Mercator

    Mercator Active Member

    11,342
    16
    38
    Not everyone understands the terminology. Battle rifle is an idiom, not just a rifle used in a battle. See robocops post.
     
  16. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    A battle rifle is many things, but the various definitions have a common thread, FULL power cartridge. Some battle rifles are bolt action British Enfield, some are semi-auto, FN-49, some are full-auto capable, G-3.

    The STG, AK, M-16, etc are assault rifles.
     
  17. kbd512

    kbd512 Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,732
    88
    48
    The best battle rifle in WWII, in terms of the mix of features/accuracy/firepower was the German FG-42, no contest.

    A 20 round detachable magazine, optic, bipod, muzzle brake, and selective fire were all missing features from the M1 rifle.

    The Johnson LMG was the closest thing America had to the FG-42.

    The US Rifle, Caliber .30, M1 was the best allied rifle of WWII, in terms of the mix of features/accuracy/firepower.

    The US Rifle, Caliber .30, M1941 was slower to reload and more sensitive to environmental factors than the M1 rifle, but it did have more magazine capacity and could be topped off. The balance of the M1941 rifle is better and consequently it is faster to bring to target than the M1 rifle. If it had detachable 20 round magazines, it would have been a better weapon.

    The M14 rifle is the rifle that America should have had in WWII, but the brass of the time decided to relive the mistake that their predecessors made with the Krag-Jørgensen rifle.

    We had more M1 rifles than Germany had FG-42 rifles. America, like all nations involved in the conflict, were hard pressed to supply enough weapons of every kind, to include the primary infantry arm.
     
  18. 25-5

    25-5 New Member

    3,302
    1
    0
    Kinda like 2000 FG-42's and I don't know exactly, but 5 or 6 million battle tested M1's.
     
  19. armsmaster270

    armsmaster270 New Member

    755
    0
    0
    I have the M-1 Garand in 7.62X51 and 30-06. Also have the MK4 Mod 1 enfield. Love all 3 but the Garand wins.
     
  20. 7point62

    7point62 Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,188
    0
    0
    Garand, hands down in that "class" of rifles. The 44 and M1-carbine don't belong in the class. A carbine is a carbine, it is rifle lite. You can't compare it to an M1 or an Enfield or a 7.92 Mauser (which ironically was called a "carbine") any more than you can compare a civil war Sharps cavalry carbine to a model 1861 Springfield rifled musket.

    And I agree the 44 was an "assault rifle." Ahead of its time, no doubt, but a different class altogether.

    I would have put the Manlicher-Carcano and the Arisaka 99 on the list, as members of the battle rifle class from that period, in spite of their inferiority.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2014