# Best Rifle Of WWII



## 102first_hussars (Jul 7, 2006)

Tell me what you think


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 7, 2006)

Whats a Gerand???


----------



## p1k3man (Jul 7, 2006)

It´s Garand not Gerand...


----------



## Soren (Jul 7, 2006)

Funny how thats the only word you guys noticed is spelled wrong


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 7, 2006)

Didnt want to completely shatter his balls, just a small, swift kick to em...


----------



## Jank (Jul 7, 2006)

If I were outfitting an army, I would choose the Garand.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 8, 2006)

The only thing about Garand was its ammo was fed from the integral box magazine, which was probably the weakest point of the whole design which means once you put the clip into the rifle you cant take it out, which is a real problem if you have an ammo related jam, where you need to take it out.

Though the Garand was good because it enabled a squad to fire faster against the enemies usually using slower action weapons.


----------



## Twitch (Jul 11, 2006)

Yeah Gewehr was spelled wrong too and Nagant. The Gewehr 43 was far and away the best technically rifle advancement to take to the field during the war. Though its cartridge like the AK 47s is a compromise in power versus reasonable packaging, both it and the semi auto Garand could produce the one thing none of the other rifle could in 1944- firepower. Bolt actions were dead by then- actually long before- and any squad with Garands versus K98s was going to come out on top period.


----------



## trackend (Jul 11, 2006)

Although it had a limited range the M1 carbine was a very good little weapon and when in conditions such as jungle or street warfare the lack of effective range (200 meters) was not such a problem. With the introduction of the M2 and its 30 round magazine and selective fire it was only lack of range that stopped it from being a true assault rifle.
However my choice from the rifles in the list above would be the Garand, the SMLE was a superb bolt action rifle and remained in service as a sniper rifle for many years long after the end of the war but as has been pointed out as a battle field infantry weapon it's day had gone by the 40's.
The only thing I may dispute a tad Twitch is if the US army had the Garand yet the standard issue for the German Japanese army was bolt action weapons on your assumption the Germans and Japanese forces should have been swept a side with the superiour fire power of the Garand equipped US forces.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 11, 2006)

Mind the M1 Carbine on had an efective range of about 200 yards, though in close quarter conflicts such as urban fighting is effective thats pretty much it, fighting the japanese it might have been more effective because those fights were pretty close alot of the time


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jul 11, 2006)

Hi hussars,

I'll tell you the correct spellings are; M1 Garand, Mosin Nagant, Gewehr (or Kar) 43.

- but we all know what you mean. My spelling is off too, thanks to a dodgy keyboard! 

My favourite rifles of WW2 are the Stg/MP44/43/42 and the Fedorov Avtomat, but in the ones you've put, I'd go for either the Lee-Enfield or the G43.

There is a magazine eject catch on the Garand too hussars.


The G43 has the same cartridge as the K98 *Twitch* - I think you meant the Stg44?


Being on this forum has changed my mind about the M1 Carbine *trackend*, I know it has lousy combat effectiveness, but it's cheap, light, reliable and easy to use.

In cold weather though, the M1/M2 Carbine's poor penetrative power is near useless against thick clothing.


A point people forget is that the average Lee Enfield equiped infantryman had a higher RoF than one with a Garand.




> The only thing I may dispute a tad Twitch is if the US army had the Garand yet the standard issue for the German Japanese army was bolt action weapons on your assumption the Germans and Japanese forces should have been swept a side with the superiour fire power of the Garand equipped US forces.



A lot of the time MG's and mortars were used, and in close-in fighting SLR's aren't that great, but better than K98's and Arisakas.

Also keping cool and getting 1 good shot off is better than emptying a clip into a wall.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 12, 2006)

> I'll tell you the correct spellings are; M1 Garand, Mosin Nagant, Gewehr (or Kar) 43.



Yes that has been noted already, for like the third time, thank you.




> My favourite rifles of WW2 are the Stg/MP44/43/42 and the Fedorov Avtomat, but in the ones you've put, I'd go for either the Lee-Enfield or the G43.



Well considering the fact that this thread is about rifles, and those are sub machine guns umm yeah.



> There is a magazine eject catch on the Garand too hussars


 not with the Garand, the garand could not be "topped off" you had to expend the entire magazine before the clip ejected, there was no mag release locate in front of the trigger gaurd like the SMLE




> In cold weather though, the M1/M2 Carbine's poor penetrative power is near useless against thick clothing.



Clothing? wow I dont even know how to approach this statement really





> A point people forget is that the average Lee Enfield equiped infantryman had a higher RoF than one with a Garand.


 No they dont, I can tell you simply because I have fired a Lee Enfeild, anyone who joins the cadets in canada or britain will get a chance to, I can tell you though it has nice smooth action in the bolt, you wont fire faster than a guy with a gas operated semi automatic rifle with a bolt action im sorry it just doesnt happen.


----------



## trackend (Jul 12, 2006)

The current world record for aimed bolt action fire was set in 1914 with a SMLE, 38 rounds into a 12" target at 300 yards in one minute. Still not bad for a BA rifle 
A good rate of fire for well drilled troops was in the range of around 20 aimed RPM. My old man confirmed this figure although he started as a youngster in the home guard with a Ross, but was issued with a SMLE after he joined up. That said he preferred having his old Lewis gun fired up with its ability to pump out nearly 700 RPM which did tend to be a little more effective at keeping the Jerrys heads down.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2006)

Well I wish you could vote for 2 here. I would vote for the Gewehr 43 and the Garand.

I do like the K98 though. It is a fun rifle to shoot and very accurate. As for bolt action weapons the K98 to me is the best.


----------



## Twitch (Jul 12, 2006)

Yeah I have a K-98 too. Great to shoot! But my contention is that as Trackend said firepower DID sweep away the Japanese and to some extent the Germans. What I said was that a squad with Garands (a firepower advantage over any bolt) would come out on top of another squad with bolt actions in the field. 

The M-1 carbine is a toy in comparison to the Garand. I have both. The M-2 fully automatic didn't come out till after the war. The Garand went in the direction it logically should have like the Gewehr with a detachable box mag when it became the M-14.

And yeah I was thinking of the STG 44 cartridge Schwarzy. Now if the STG 44 was on the list I'd vote for it!!!

And someone please kill that ridiculous myth that the Enfield fires faster than any semi auto. Hell my pal has one and we've actually done the comparison!! One of the 1st things we saw in basic was an old film showing a Springfield being fired against a Garand. The M-1 put all his rounds on target and was done before the '03 had like 3-4 rounds out. And if you've ever been in a skirmish you know that with a bolt action stick you lose the sight picture every time your cycle the action. They showed the M-1 versus the M-14 at full auto too. Same result- firepower wins.

As much as I personally like my old K-98 there is no question that by 1944, at least, it was outdated. If I'd care about staying alive in a squad I'd want the M-1 Garand in France 1944. We're not talking about Buffalo Bill's wild west show distance shot best done by snipers with bolt actions weapons. We're talking about staying alive in daily firefights with Wehrmacht units in France and later Germany.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 12, 2006)

trackend said:


> The current world record for aimed bolt action fire was set in 1914 with a SMLE, 38 rounds into a 12" target at 300 yards in one minute. Still not bad for a BA rifle
> A good rate of fire for well drilled troops was in the range of around 20 aimed RPM. My old man confirmed this figure although he started as a youngster in the home guard with a Ross, but was issued with a SMLE after he joined up. That said he preferred having his old Lewis gun fired up with its ability to pump out nearly 700 RPM which did tend to be a little more effective at keeping the Jerrys heads down.




Just at the top of my head, a guy with a Garand, can empty his rifle in maybe 3-5 seconds(if he took a little time to aim maybe 7-10 seconds), pop in another clip a repeat.
now when you got 100+ germans charging your position your heart rate increases and you breathing has increased which is a marksmans worst enemy, and its worse when your in a panic to bolt the next round in the chamber, but when you have a weapon that you can fire continiously then quickly and efficiently reload and continue firing you have the upper hand over your BA weapon carrying enemies


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jul 12, 2006)

Sorry hussars, just wanted to correct you without being rude.

The Fedorov and MP44 aren't SMG's, they are Assault Rifles. The Fedorov can even be considered a SAW and was even available as a SAW too (like an RPK or MG36). Is SAW what you call them?

IIRC the Garand does have a magazine drop out and the clip can be filled whilst in the rifle.

- Still a bit dodgy though.



> No they dont, I can tell you simply because I have fired a Lee Enfeild, anyone who joins the cadets in canada or britain will get a chance to



I have, but not when in the cadets. Thinking of getting one too.

All WW1 Brit soldiers were taught 'mad-minute' and collective volley fire, but in WW2 I'm not sure? - Though it was common knowledge.

What you do is not use the index finger as a trigger finger, but purely to operate the action. This way you can quickly achieve 15-20 shots on target a minute, whilst 30 is possible. Even 38 as trackend has said.


The Ross Rifle was the UK's Mauser G98 copy IIRC trackend. The Lewis gun was like the Vickers - long in the tooth, but still effective.

The Bren was also good, but now I'm straying...



> 38 rounds into a 12" target at 300 yards in one minute. Still not bad for a BA rifle



A Garand just can't beat that.




> The Garand went in the direction it logically should have like the Gewehr with a detachable box mag when it became the M-14.



There was a Garand/BAR hybrid Twitch, though maybe only a prototype?

The Lee-Enfileld is very different to the Springfield Twitch, there are 2 conflicting arguements affecting the design of both. It depends on what the operator prefers and what he can make use of. I personally like the Enfield and don't really 'get' the Mauser action, though others (like DerAdler, I think?) are the other way around.




> I do like the K98 though. It is a fun rifle to shoot and very accurate. As for bolt action weapons the K98 to me is the best.



Yes DerAdler, as a sniper weapon I'd put it in 1st place, the G43 in 2nd strangely enough (esp with the silencer).


The Cei-Rigotti may also be an option?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

Just want to correct you scharzpanzer without being rude.

The SAW or Squad Automatic Weapon is not a rifle either...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 13, 2006)

> IIRC the Garand does have a magazine drop out and the clip can be filled whilst in the rifle.



Im gonna end this once and for all, I just dug out my book called Jane's GUNS RECOGNITION GUIDE by Ian Hogg, (in case anyones interested its a good resource tool)

and I quote " the M1 Garand was the first automatic rifle to achieve the status of being the regulation primary arm for a major army, the Garand served well and was popular for its reliability and power, it had a defect though, *it was the clip loading system which prevented 'topping up' during a lull in the firing, it was either a full clip or nothing*"


----------



## Twitch (Jul 13, 2006)

The bottom line on ANY bolt versus a semi is that the semi wins in speed and ability to keep shooter's sight picture. ANd for me if it was betweenan Enfield and a Garand to carry from D-Day till VE Day I'll take the Garand for its superior firepower.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 13, 2006)

I will tell you guys one thing that I dont like about the SMLE, is that is was so damn heavy, in many sources it was about 6-8 pnds thats BS, it was also a top heavy barrel that makes it difficult to keep a barrel still for a certain amount of time before your arm gets tired.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

One thing that Janes book says is wrong though Hussars. The M-1 was not an automatic weapon.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 13, 2006)

Yes it was, it was a gas operated semi-automatic, if otherwise i would have said full-automatic


----------



## trackend (Jul 14, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> I will tell you guys one thing that I dont like about the SMLE, is that is was so damn heavy, in many sources it was about 6-8 pnds thats BS, it was also a top heavy barrel that makes it difficult to keep a barrel still for a certain amount of time before your arm gets tired.


I'll solve that Hussar I bought my brother an SMLE as a present a few years ago so I can pop round and weigh it for you I have never found it nose heavy except with the eighteen inch bayonet attached.
I used to go to the gun smiths where he worked (Leech Sons Chelmsford, Essex. no longer in business) mainly it was tailor making the furniture and repairing of sporting weapons but they did maintain/repair collectors fire arms. To me the build quality (especially internally of the Enfield is what made it the superior bolt action rifle and for sniper work by the time it had been selected and set up by expert gunsmiths It was highly accurate, indeed the 1 mile club at Bisley is still using Enfields.
A tip that he told me that shows a high quality fire arm is that all the screw head slots should be aligned along the length of the gun this proves the tapping was hand done and as such can be used as a quick pointer to a craftsman made and maintained weapon.
(obviously military weapons are mass produced)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> Yes it was, it was a gas operated semi-automatic, if otherwise i would have said full-automatic



Semi Automatic is not Automatic, that is all that I am saying...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 14, 2006)

Semi-Automatic is not Full-Automatic, a weapon that does not need to be cocked per round is considered an Auto-matic, whether its a Full or Semi its auto, now this excludes Revolvers atleast as far as I know.


----------



## Jank (Jul 14, 2006)

Look here. In a simple nutshell and in the parlance of rifles, when you say semi-automatic, it means one shot for each time you pull the trigger. If you say automatic, that means what you are calling fully automatic. 

Now, it's a little different for pistols. While there are a few fully automatic pistols in existence, if you refer to a pistol as an automatic, that means semi-automatic.

General George Patton said it best. "The Garand is the greatest battle implement ever devised."


----------



## trackend (Jul 15, 2006)

[QUOTE
Now, it's a little different for pistols. While there are a few fully automatic pistols in existence, if you refer to a pistol as an automatic, that means semi-automatic.[/QUOTE]

Then of course with pistols Jank we get into single, double action, toggle action, blowback action ect and wierdos like the Webley Fosbery automatic revolver which like the Colt 45, Luger ect as you quite rightly pointed out are not fully auto.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 15, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> Semi-Automatic is not Full-Automatic, a weapon that does not need to be cocked per round is considered an Auto-matic, whether its a Full or Semi its auto, now this excludes Revolvers atleast as far as I know.



Okay dude whatever, you can look at that way if you want. I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying that depending on the definition it is something different.


----------



## Richard_H (Jul 15, 2006)

Soren said:


> Funny how thats the only word you guys noticed is spelled wrong



just to be über picky, its "Gewehr"


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 15, 2006)

Richard_H said:


> just to be über picky, its "Gewehr"



yes we have exhausted that point already


----------



## davparlr (Jul 15, 2006)

I think the firepower the M-1 gave to the grunt was significant to the war effort. I was watching a show on medal of honor recipients and they were telling about one hero who was severely wounded while holding off a determined attack and was being carried back to the rear by some natives when a Japanese squad appeared. The guy, who was still carring his M-1, raised it up and rapid fired a clip in the direction of the Japanese squad and they fled. Nothing like firepower.


----------



## Twitch (Jul 16, 2006)

"Semi-Automatic is not Full-Automatic, a weapon that does not need to be cocked per round is considered an Auto-matic,"




Waahaha! 102first that sounds like one of those anti-gun fruits distorting reality though I know you didn't mean it to.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 17, 2006)

M1 Garand in my opinion is the best. Like that was stated above of its fast rate of fire and powerful knockdown power using the 30-06 round. Very effective. The only draw back to the M1 is its loading system. My uncle who was in the National Guard in 1969 told me that if you didnt push the clip down fast enough with your thumb, it would clamp down on it.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 17, 2006)

Twitch said:


> "Semi-Automatic is not Full-Automatic, a weapon that does not need to be cocked per round is considered an Auto-matic,"
> 
> 
> 
> Waahaha! 102first that sounds like one of those anti-gun fruits distorting reality though I know you didn't mean it to.




What the heeeelll are you talking about, in what way did I sound like anti-gun tree hugger?


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 18, 2006)

Hussar has a point.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jul 19, 2006)

I know what he means. It's all to do with the Assault weapons Columbine thing.

If you call a weapon (rightly) semi-auto or single-shot, to the unknowing it conjures up images of old rifles.

Call it Auto, and the layperson thinks 'machinegun'.

You hold a petition banning 'autos' and people will think you mean machineguns (or cars  ) and will sign more readily etc.

The same happened in the UK, with Dunblane.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 23, 2006)

Right.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 23, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> I know what he means. It's all to do with the Assault weapons Columbine thing.
> 
> If you call a weapon (rightly) semi-auto or single-shot, to the unknowing it conjures up images of old rifles.
> 
> ...



Buddy you are talking nonsense


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 24, 2006)

no i'd say he's pretty right............


----------



## JohnnyL (Jul 24, 2006)

Give me an STG-44.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 24, 2006)

STG-44 was classified as a rifle. It could fire semi-auto and full auto.


----------



## trackend (Jul 24, 2006)

I still prefer the Garand. The STG44 was very tinny by comparison with too many stamped out components also the stock attachment was poor and could not take much abuse in hand to hand without breaking the very large magazine was also not conducive to prone usage.
Total production run was around 500,000 and ceased not long after the war The Garand run was around 5,000,000 finishing in 1957 the Lee enfield was about 9,000,000 ending its 60 year production run in the mid 50,s but stayed in service the late 80's re-chambered to the 7.62mm NATO as a sniper's weapon.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 24, 2006)

Today we would consider the STG-44 an Assault rifle, but Im sure it was considered a SMG back during the war, so with that being said, the STG-44 can go to hell


----------



## JohnnyL (Jul 24, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> Today we would consider the STG-44 an Assault rifle, but Im sure it was considered a SMG back during the war, so with that being said, the STG-44 can go to hell



STG = Sturmgewehr = Assault Rifle

It was the weapon that coined the term!

I want one!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 25, 2006)

Actually "Sturm" means Storm, Storm-rifle.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jul 26, 2006)

If you storm a position, what do you do? - You Assault it. ( pepper it )

German doesn't always translate directly into English.

The StG was originally the MKb MachinenKarabiner - Machine Carbine.

The problem was, the Nazi's were infighting and the Luftwaffe thought it could score Brownie points with Hitler with it's FG42. The Army the same with it's MKb. This one-upmanship went on and on and Hitler got sick of this and ordered an end to it. He thought making a weapon less powerful than his old G98 was pointless (though ironically, so was the K98k).

The soldiers were crying out for the MKb, but it wasn't allowed. A new MachinenPistole (SMG) appeared in 1943 - the MP43. It wasn't an SMG at all, but an upgraded ( banned) Mkb42!

- If anyone is going to bury an Assault Weapon, I'd think it'd be hippies, not Hitler!

Anyway, glowing reports came from the front lines about the new weapon. Hitler took a look at the 'new' weapon and apparently was furious. He eventually came round though.

SturmGewehr was merely a catchy name. It is unknown whether it was made up to sell it to Hitler, or whether it was made up by him for Morale/Propaganda purposes.

The history of the earlier Fedorov Avtomat Assault Rifle is very similar...


----------



## Joe2 (Feb 3, 2007)

The Lee-Enfield rifle was basicly made in the 1890s and almost made it to the 1990s, nearly 100 years, so it must have been a good gun.


----------



## Emac44 (Feb 3, 2007)

303 bolt action Lee Enfield my vote sorry to be late. especially backed by sheer Aussie Infantry with fixed bayonets fighting the Bloody Japanese and giving what bloody for


----------



## Soren (Feb 4, 2007)

The Enfield was used until the early 90's as a Sniper-rifle, the K98K was used as a Sniper-rifle up until 1997 by the Isreali's. However both these would be at a disadvantage in close Urban settings where most wars are fought, the Garand and Gewehr 43 possessing far more firepower.


----------



## renrich (Feb 6, 2007)

The Garand. In fact it would be an outstanding weapon today in Iraq.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 7, 2007)

Why do you say that? I served in Iraq and I would not even think about using a Garand there...


----------



## renrich (Feb 7, 2007)

The reason I say that is that I understand that the troops in Iraq have in some cases traded in the M16 for the old M14 because they like the greater pentration and longer range of the 7.62 Nato round. I qualified in the army both with the Garand and with the M14 and I think I would prefer the Garand in combat although I fortunately never had any combat experience.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 7, 2007)

Are the .308 and the 30-06 that much different balistically? Not tossing a dig out, honestly don't know. Have fired them both (in different weapons at close ranges) but found no substantial difference. About the same weight round too (around 140 grains). 

Maybe the difference comes in at longer ranges?


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2007)

The 30-06 has the same ballistics as the .308, however with a heavier projectile. With the same weight projectile you will achieve a slightly flatter trajectory with the 30-06.

However if I had to choose between either the Garand or the M-14 for use in Iraq, then I'd definitely choose the M-14. You've got the same ballisctics but with more rounds. But if its long range shots a bolt action is always the best choice - with the exception of a few semi auto's such as the PSG-1 perhaps.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2007)

renrich said:


> The reason I say that is that I understand that the troops in Iraq have in some cases traded in the M16 for the old M14 because they like the greater pentration and longer range of the 7.62 Nato round. I qualified in the army both with the Garand and with the M14 and I think I would prefer the Garand in combat although I fortunately never had any combat experience.



The only M-14s in Iraq are used by snipers or specialized units. There are no large scale issued M-14s going around in any units serving in Iraq. 

The basic issue for a soldier is the M-16/M-4 and the units do not have M-14s for the soldiers to trade them out with nor will the Army allow them to do so.

While I agree the 7.62 is better than the 5.56, the 5.56 still kills the enemy just fine in Iraq. That is not why we are losing the war there.


----------



## renrich (Feb 9, 2007)

Right, I understand that only specialised troops or units would be issued M14s. It would be a nightmare to have troops in regular units using 2 different service rifles in 2 different calibers. I understand that the 1911 government model is being used by some special units now also. The only reason I preferred the Garand over the M14 was that it seemed easier to carry because of the lack of the box mag., it was slightly more powerful, I felt it was easier to reload under stress and it was slightly more reliable. Oh yes it would make a better club and a better mount for a bayonet.


----------



## Soren (Feb 18, 2007)

So you'd rather have a gun that goes *Pling !* every time you empty it and have a max of 8 rounds ? Btw, the mag on the M-14 isn't an irritating factor at all..


----------



## bananafoothead (Feb 19, 2007)

Go with the TAR-21. Now THAT is a fine looking weapon.


----------



## bananafoothead (Feb 19, 2007)

AND, I should add, it was designed by some guys who have been fighting a war pretty much continualy since 1948 against Iraq like opponant/s


----------



## renrich (Feb 20, 2007)

The magazine on the M14 was an irritant to me when I used it but I will admit I might be a little old fashioned. I felt that one had to turn the piece at least to the side and look down at it to insert the magazine whereas I could load the clip in the M1 without looking and without dismounting the weapon.


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

love arisakas


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

The Type 38 had many problems.

Though it was accurate the 6.5mm round was not very powerful and the rifel was also the longest used in WW2 which made it very awkward to handle for the Japanese soldiers.

Therefore they designed the Type 99 which was shorter and used a 7.7mm. There was also a long version of the Type 99 but not very many were built. The Type 99 never really replaced the Type 38 anyhow.

In my opinion the K98, Gewehr 41, Mosin Nagant, M1 Garand, M1903 Springfield, and the Lee Enfield were all better weapons.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 11, 2007)

> In my opinion the K98, Gewehr 41, Mosin Nagant, M1 Garand, M1903 Springfield, and the Lee Enfield were all better weapons.


Agreed 100%...


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

DerAlderIstGelandet knows a lot about rifles!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

Not as much as many people here, but I do research before I go and make posts about what is the best and what is not.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 11, 2007)

Logic string...

Ohka=Everything Japanese=Arisaka


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2007)

Reminds me of others here.


----------



## Soren (Mar 12, 2007)

Don't know about the Mosin Nagant, it wasn't that good a rifle. Long and cumbersome, and then there's the action, pretty unsafe. The Japanese Type 99 is better.


----------



## Soren (Mar 12, 2007)

As to the most accurate rifle of WWII, the Swedish 6.5mm Mauser M-96:


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 14, 2007)

More so than the Schmidt Ruben? Okay. I can't argue with that.


----------



## Soren (Mar 17, 2007)

The Schmidt Rubin is remarkably accurate, demonstrating accuracy in the same class as the K98k, however the Swedish M-96 is slightly more accurate.

The only rifle I can think of which can match the Swedish M-96 in accuracy would be the Gewehr 98b, this rifle adds another 25- 30 m/s of velocity to the 7.92mm 198gr sS round, which means a MV of ~810 m/s plus a faster spin because of the extra barrell lenght.


----------



## Jank (Mar 17, 2007)

"this rifle adds another 25- 30 m/s of velocity to the 7.92mm 198gr sS round, which means a MV of ~810 m/s plus a faster spin because of the extra barrell lenght."

Spin rate (inches of travel per a single rotation of the bullet) is determined by one thing, the twist rate of the rifling. Barrel length has nothing to do with it. A faster twist is necesary to stabilize longer bullets. I have a 1:12" twist .223 rifle that results in keyholes at 100 yards when using 77 gr bullets. My 1:8" twist rifle shoots them just fine. If you were to increase the velocity of the 1:12": barrel such that the twist rate in 'revolutions per second' were equal to that of the 1:8" twist barrel, the bullets would still keyhole. It's twist over linear distance and not twist over time that stabilizes the bullet.


----------



## Soren (Mar 17, 2007)

You're right in theory, however the projectile doesn't always grip the rifling 100%, the forces involved make sure of that, and generally the longer the projectile is in contact with the rifling (ofcourse there's a limit) the faster the spin. But the tiny amount of extra spin caused by the longer barrel doesn't affect accuracy anywhere near as much as the extra velocity.

But in short you're right Jank.


----------



## Jank (Mar 17, 2007)

Soren, there is no "extra spin" imparted on the bullet by a longer barrel. The skidding effect takes place initially before there is a good bite on the bullet. By the time the bullet has traveled 18" inches down the barrel, the bullet is rotating right along with the rifling. Extending the barrel out another 6" even will not affect this. 

I would be interested in any source you can cite that even discusses the relative differences in a bullet's rate of twist imparted by extra barrel length in a rifle. 

Since you mentioned extra barrel length as a source of accuracy, a longer barrel can have a detrimental effect on accuracy for the following reason. Barrel whip. When the bullet travels down the barrel, the barrel actually moves in a wave like whipping fashion. In a heavy barreled target gun, the whipping effect is overcome by the structural strength of the heavy barrel but in most military and sporting arms, it can be measured and does have a small effect on accuracy. I believe this is partly to blame for the accuracy problems experienced by the Ruger Mini-14. You also see sporting rifles today that have tunable weights for harmonoc stabilization of barrel whip.

In sum, a shorter barrel of the same diameter will have greater stiffness and similarly overcome what would otherwise be a propensity to whip.


----------



## Soren (Mar 18, 2007)

It sounds like you're talking about pistol rounds Jank, not full powered rifle rounds. AFAIK a rifle projectile rarely achieves a 100% grip on the rifling.

And about barrel whip, yes this a problem - esp. on rifles with free floating barrels.


----------



## Jank (Mar 18, 2007)

No, I am talking about your assertion that, "this rifle adds another 25- 30 m/s of velocity to the 7.92mm 198gr sS round, which means a MV of ~810 m/s *plus a faster spin because of the extra barrell lenght*."

I have a 16" barreled AR-15 rifle. If the barrel were 24" with the same rate of twist, the bullet would not have a "faster spin" (inches of travel per rotation of the bullet) from the 24" barrel.

On a related note, one of the first things a gunsmith will do to improve the accuracy of your gun will be to free float the barrel. As a rule of thumb, you are always better off without the stock pressing against one or more points on the barrel.


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2007)

Yes your bullet will infact have a faster spin from your 24" barrell, maybe not pr. distance travelled but pr. amount of time. In any case everything else being equal a faster muzzle velocity means higher accuracy. 

About the free floating barrel, its usually used on high precision rifles, however it doesn't emmidiately in itself improve accuracy, however over time it'll prevent accuracy from deteriorating.


----------



## Jank (Mar 19, 2007)

"_In any case everything else being equal a faster muzzle velocity means higher accuracy._"

No. If you handloaded, whether for a rifle or a pistol, you would know that accuracy generally deteriorates at the higher velocities. The most accurate loads are generally not the highest velocity loads. *Look at any reloading site that tracks the group size with the listed loads and you will see that the most accurate loads are amost never those with the highest velocity*. Higher velocity means flatter trajectory (with any given bullets). Group size is what determines accuracy and that is entirely different. 

"_About the free floating barrel, its usually used on high precision rifles_,"

Today, it is also a standard feature on many sporting rifles. 

"_however it doesn't emmidiately in itself improve accuracy_,"

No. The reason it is a standard recommendation of gunsmiths and self-help books / articles for improving accuracy is because it usually does improve accuracy and dramatically so.

"_Yes your bullet will infact have a faster spin from your 24" barrell, maybe not pr. distance travelled but pr. amount of time_."

I think I see your misunderstanding now. You think that the increased velocity results in faster spin and thus greater accuracy. (Otherwise why point out the merit of a "faster spin" from greater velocity?) 

Soren, a bullet derives it's stability in flight not from its rotation over time but its rotation over distance. If rotation over time were a factor in stabilization, then you would indeed be correct that a faster velocity would create more stability as the bullet would "spin faster" over any given period of time. That is not the case though. If it was, then you could stretch the twist rate of a .308 from 1:10" to 1:20" and derive the same stability by merely doubling the velocity. 

Even you can recognize the fallacy in that reasoning. *No one manipulates velocity in an attempt at fine tuning stability through spin rate over time.* If you can cite any source that even discusses such a phenomenon, I and other handloaders would like to see it.


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2007)

> No. The reason it is a standard recommendation of gunsmiths and self-help books / articles for improving accuracy is because it usually does improve accuracy and dramatically so.



I repeat it doesn't emmidiately improve accuracy, however it does so over time, the benefit being that the action and barrell won't skid around within the wooden stock.

That being said I've shot sub MOA 5 shot groups with the K98k and M-96 at 300m, and somehow I don't think free floating the barrel would've helped.



> No. If you handloaded, whether for a rifle or a pistol, you would know that accuracy generally deteriorates at the higher velocities. The most accurate loads are generally are not the hot highest velocity loads. Look at any reloading site that tracks the group size with the listed loads and you will see that the most accurate loads are amost never those with the highest velocity.



I disagree, a higher velocity does generally increase accuracy. Its common knowledge in my former business infact 

PS: the Gewehr 98 is infact generally more accurate than the K98k, and since there's no difference between the two rifles, besides barrel lenght, only muzzle velocity can be the colbrit here.


----------



## Jank (Mar 19, 2007)

"_I repeat it doesn't emmidiately improve accuracy, however it does so over time, the benefit being that the action and barrell won't skid around within the wooden stock_"

Soren, it does immediately improve accuracy as the pressure point is immediately relieved and the effect on hormonic stabilization is immediate. You said that the action and barrel "_won't skid around within the wooden stock_"? Do you know how ridiculous you sound?  Can you cite any discussion antwhere on the web about floating the barrel not having an immediate effect on accuracy? (Perhaps someone floating their barrel and wondering why their accuracy hasn't improved?)

"_I disagree, a higher velocity does generally increase accuracy. Its common knowledge in my former business infact_"

In your former business? What, your paper route when you were 12? I am not sure what you mean by "higher velocity." Do you mean higher than the lowest velocity you can achieve without running the risk of a hangfire? Then yes. 

I will just repeat what I said as you may be saying something different, "The most accurate loads are generally not the highest velocity loads. *Look at any reloading site that tracks the group size with the listed loads and you will see that the most accurate loads are amost never those with the highest velocity*."

There are plenty of reloading sites on the web. Look it up for yourself. Most reloading manuals have a good primer on ballistics. I suggest you read one or two. You can also read tips on how to make your rifle more accurate and will notice that floating the barrel is probably the most common suggestion. You will also not the absence of any mention of it taking time after floating the barrel to notice an improvement in accuracy.

"_PS: the Gewehr 98 is infact generally more accurate than the K98k, and since there's no difference between the two rifles, besides barrel lenght, only muzzle velocity can be the colbrit here."_

I am not aware of any field tests on these two guns and thus am not in a position to accept your assertion and agree or disagree with your conclusions. If true, there can be lots of reasons for that. Different sights, different stocks that make contact with the barrel, different production plants with different machinery (better rifling), etc. I just don't know. 

Late last year, Gun Test Magazine did tests between the Savage 10 FP with a 20" barrel and the Savage 12 BVSS with a 26" barrel. Both are chambered in .308. The 20" barreled model was more accurate. This frankly surprised me. It may be due to variations in the individual guns tested. I don't know. At any rate, at a minimum, it would in and of itself tend to refute your conclusion above.


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2007)

With normal rifles, the barrel rests in contact with stock. In particular if the stock is manufactured of wood, environmental conditions or operational use may shift alignment of the stock, which may cause the barrel to shift its alignment slightly over time as well, altering the projectile flightpath and impact point.

A free-floating barrel is one in which the barrel and stock are designed to not touch at any point along the barrel's length. The barrel is attached to its receiver, which is attached to the stock, but the barrel "floats freely" without any contact with other gun parts, other than the rifle's sights. This minimizes the possible mechanical pressure distortions of the barrel alignment.


----------



## Jank (Mar 19, 2007)

From Wikipedia (a source for quick information when a person doesn't know what they are talking about but wants to sound like they do):

Free-floating barrel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*With normal rifles, the barrel rests in contact with stock. In particular if the stock is manufactured of wood, environmental conditions or operational use may shift alignment of the stock, which may cause the barrel to shift its alignment slightly over time as well, altering the projectile flightpath and impact point.

A free-floating barrel is one in which the barrel and stock are designed to not touch at any point along the barrel's length. The barrel is attached to its receiver, which is attached to the stock, but the barrel "floats freely" without any contact with other gun parts, other than the rifle's sights. This minimizes the possible mechanical pressure distortions of the barrel alignment.*

The text you wrote didn't sound like you and I had a hunch. Apparently correct. Let me guess, you just forgot to reference the citation right?


----------



## Jank (Mar 19, 2007)

Double post which I have deleted.


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2007)

Oh don't get so grudgy when you're proven wrong Jank, it wasn't meant to sound like me, was meant as a quote.. Was actually not my entention to post it without ""'s, and I wasn't even finished with that post before you posted yours !

But like I said, only over time will free floating prove beneficial.


----------



## Jank (Mar 19, 2007)

Exactly how have I been proven wrong? When the contact point and pressure is removed, there is an immediate affect on accuracy. 

Again, from by post above:

*Soren, it does immediately improve accuracy as the pressure point is immediately relieved and the effect on hormonic stabilization is immediate. You said that the action and barrel "won't skid around within the wooden stock"? Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Can you cite any discussion anywhere on the web about floating the barrel not having an immediate effect on accuracy? (Perhaps someone floating their barrel and wondering why their accuracy hasn't improved?)*

Did Wikipedia inform you about the action and barrel "skidding around" too?


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2007)

Thats your claim Jank, and I dare you to prove it.

Your whole contact and "hormonic" relief theory is ridiculous and is absolutely not the reason why free-floating barrels are used on precision rifles, the real reason is so the stock wont deform around the barrel and action, causing like the quote said "the barrel to shift its alignment slightly over time as well, altering the projectile flightpath and impact point". And about the action "skidding" inside the stock, well I've experienced this with some old rifles, and this will affect accuracy quite abit. I remember on my very first rifle I had to constantly check wether the stock was fastened properly to the action.


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2007)

Here's a rifle with a free floating barrel, the Blaser 93:


----------



## Jank (Mar 19, 2007)

"_Your whole contact and "hormonic" relief theory is ridiculous_"

RSI - Barrel Harmonics

Barrel harmonics can be altered by the use of either a weight or through pressure (contact) with the barrel Einstein.

Ooh look! A cheapo, run of the mill $500 hunting rifle with a free floated barrel too. Free floated barrels are pretty standard today and not reserved for high end tactical and varmint rifles.

Savage Arms Hunter Series Model 11G

I feel like I'm arguing with a 12 year old so why don't we just agree to disagree. Clearly you know far more on this subject than I do.


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2007)

"Builders of accurate rifles agree if the barrel's movement can't be eliminated, the next best thing is that it move consistently with each shot. That's why good shooting rifles have stiff barrels and their actions are firmly bedded in the stock with nothing touching the barrel in front of the receiver (free floating)."

There's your skidding..

Lesson for the future: next time read your own links Jank...


----------



## Jank (Mar 19, 2007)

"_There's your skidding.."_

??? Huh? Skidding? Soren the next time you talk to someone who actually knows something about this, be sure and mention that your action and barrel "skid" and report back on the puzzled look on their face OK?

The barrel movement that you are referencing ("*if the barrel's movement can't be eliminated, the next best thing is that it move consistently with each shot*") is the harmonic movement you moron. What the hell is "skidding"? 

Finding the "sweet spot" (sorry, not sure you will find that one on Wikipedia) entails using weights and/or relieving pressure by free floating to standardize the wave pulse such that when the bullet exits each time, the barrel will be similarly situated along the pulse which will result in tighter groups. 

I don't expect you to understand any of this as you won't find a nutshell explanation you can quickly find on Wikipedia and pass off as your own. 

Soren, doctors, lawyers, accountants, aircraft and and gun enthusiasts all have a special vocabulary that is tapped into in discussing a relevant subject. Unfortunately, its just too difficult to fake with ease. When you talk about "faster spin" as an advantage due to an increase in velocity or "reduced power" loads or the "skidding" of your action and barrel, you betray your profound ignorance.

I'm sorry you had to hear it from me in the midst of this heated discussion.


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2007)

Feeling confident enough to call others morons are we Jank ? 

The skidding I'm talking about is the action moving within the stock ! Its quite common with old rifles. Like the quote says: "their actions are firmly bedded in the stock". 

And yes I understand completely the issue of Harmonics, however we were discussing the effect of free floating barrels have on accuracy, consistent harmonics is something both full stock and frre floating barrel's share, however one will suffer with time, the other won't.

Oh, and as to gun experts, well I wouldn't call myself that, not even a big enthusiast, but I've worked with guns (Which means shooting them and taking them apart) for over 20 years and have learned my fair share... I'm not a professor on the subject though.


----------



## Ajax (Mar 19, 2007)

Although I am a big fan of British ingenuity, guns are somthing they aren't too good at. I do know the M1 Garand was simple with a good rate of fire and easily available. In a large scale war, that's just what the doctor ordered. My vote goes to our waffle-eating cousins across the water.


----------



## Jank (Mar 19, 2007)

"_consistent harmonics is something both full stock and frre floating barrel's share_"

"full stock"? This is what I mean Soren. Do you really understand what free floating even is Soren? I notice the picture of the Blaser you posted. Do you think that rifles with "full stocks" aren't free floated? I have free floated three rifles. It entailed taking sandpaper and just sanding a bit of the stock making contact with the barrel. They were "full stock" rifles too. Many standard "full stock" sporting rifles come free floated from the factory. I linked to a very cheap one for you. So what exactly did youy mean by "both full stock and free floated barrels"? 

Savage 11G with free floated barrel:






"_I'm not a gun professor though."_

I'm making a note of that.


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2007)

What I meant was obviously free floating barrel's and barrel's which are not, all have somewhat consistent harmonics (Unless something isn't fastened properly), however over time the free floating barrel is the more accurate as nothing is in contact with it. I must admit I'm very skeptical about the éffect free floating the barrel on the old military rifles will have, esp. since I know good shooters who have done this and not achieved results much different from when it was a full stock - I'm talking litterally using a whole new stock for the action (Originally a K98k), a perfect fit, barrell hanging freely, yet no noticeable improvement on accuracy - and this guy is a good shot, I've seen him shoot 4" tin cans at 800m with his .338 M-98 Magnum, which btw AFAIK doesn't have a free floating barrel. This is not to say accuracy got worse though, cause it didn't, but neither did it improve.


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2007)

"Pressure on various points along its length from high spots in the barrel channel cut into the stock can cause the barrel to bend ever so slightly as it heats up, which naturally may cause bullets to fly someplace other than where the previous shot(s) went.

Since a floated barrel doesn't touch the stock along its length, that variable is removed from the equation. Sometimes it works to improve repeatable accuracy, and sometimes it doesn't. Floating is at its best when used with rifles that have relatively heavy (large diameter) "bull" barrels, because they are less flexible than slimmer barrels. Lighter "sporter" barrels are less stable, and may flex enough during the shot that accuracy will suffer."

Exactly what my experience tells me.


----------



## renrich (Mar 23, 2007)

Have any of you folks seen anything about a new AR type weapon in a caliber 280? The bullet I believe is actually .277(the old 270 win) I saw it being fired I think in burst fire mode and it did not seem to have excessive recoil. Of course the case is not the 270 win case. Seems like the bullet was 140 gr. They may be on to something.


----------



## Jank (Mar 23, 2007)

I believe you are referring to the proposed replacement of the 5.56mm NATO with the 6.8SPC. There have been reports circulating that the 5.56 doesn't put the bad guys down in solid center of mass hits as it should and the 6.8 appears to have more impressive terminal ballistics. It fires a significantly heavier projectile (115gr) that is slower but doesn't rely on high velocity for effective terminal effects. (The M4 has a short barrel which robs the 5.56 of its high velocity anyway.)

I understand that it is not quite as impressive a performer though as the 6.5 Grendel which has been looked at as well. In short though, there does not appear to be any planned adoption of the new cartridge. For now, the military is using the heavier Mk 262 77gr bullet (as opposed to the standard M 855 62gr bullet) for the special forces that is giving better terminal effects especially with their shorter 14.5" barrels.

I have had my eye on the 6.8 put out by Rock River Arms but I am planning to wait and see if the cartridge rises in popularity first.

Welcome to Rock River Arms' Online Show Room


----------



## renrich (Mar 24, 2007)

Thanks Jank. Used to do a lot of handloading and always thought that a bullet of about cal. 270 ( believe that the British were heading there at one time) in an intermediate sized case would have made a good assault rifle round. I have handloaded the 284 Win case with the bullet seated all the way out (in a custom chambered rifle) and chronographed a 140 gr bullet at a MV of 3100 fps from a 22 in barrel. However that is too hot for an assault rifle load but I like the fat case and sharp shoulder of the 284 Win round. How about a case with about the capacity of a 7x57 but fat and sharp shouldered with a 140 gr .277 bullet at about 2600 fps. The bullet would have a good Bal Coef and good Sec Den and the overall cartridge length would be short. Would the recoil be too great for a 3 shot burst fire mode?


----------



## Jank (Mar 24, 2007)

The constraint appears to be interfacing with the existing AR platform and the established preference for being able to carry a large numbers of rounds. The 6.8 SPC is a modified .30 Remington with a similar overall cartridge length and diameter as the 5.56 NATO.






This makes for a simple modification of the AR (a new bolt is required). The cartridge also fits into standard sized magazines.

The 7x57 and other "fat case" rounds are dimensionally too large to easily switch out in the AR platform. The 5.56mm measures .376, the 6.8SPC .421 and the 7x57 .472. She's just too big. In addition, fewer rounds can be carried due to the larger size of the cartridge and additional weight considerations.

The short, fat cartridges (the .300 WSM is probably the most popular of the lot) have picked up a lot of popularity recently for the inherent accuracy of a shorter powder column.

"_Would the recoil be too great for a 3 shot burst fire mode?_"

I guess that depends on what you mean by too great. The 5.56mm is absolutely a dream when attempting pin point fire in full automatic mode. There is very litle muzzle rise. I have fired an M-14 (7.62 x 51) in full automatic mode and frankly, I think the recoil is just to great in relation to the 5.56mm. The 7x57mm would have recoil very similar to but less than the M-14 in a rifle of similar weight. A cartridge sending a 140gr bullet downrange at 2,600fps is difficult to say. I think three round controlled bursts might be OK but that is just an opinion rendered without running figures on a recoil calculator.


----------



## renrich (Mar 25, 2007)

See your point about trying to stay within the AR platform. I do belong to the school of thought that says carry a few less but more effective and deadly rounds. It is my understanding that the 5.56 rd now is not as effective because the bullet is more stabilised and does not "tumble" on impact and therefore goes right through the target without making a big wound channel. I discovered what you are speaking of about the short powder column and accuracy sometime ago with my 284 win. The rifle(a mod 77 Ruger) was chambered for 7x57. Very pleasant cartridge to shoot but I couldn't find any loads it would shoot accurately. I took it to Ed Shilen and he rechambered it for 284 win with a deep throat. (sounds kind of obscene) I started working up loads with the 140 gr Nosler. The more dupont 4350 I used the more accurate it shot until I settled on 58 grains and that produced the 3100 fps. It will shoot min of angle 3 shot groups off a bench with no signs of pressure. The 284 win brass is very durable and a joy to reload. hardly any resizing necessary. Unfortunately I no longer hunt big game so a great little mountain rifle sits. also has a Canjar trigger and 2x7 Leupold.


----------

