# The top 10 combat rifles



## Screaming Eagle (Dec 17, 2006)

Hi everyone

I was watching a show on the Discovery Channel recently and it was called the 'Top 10'. On this particular episode they were discussing the top 10 combat rifles of all time. They are as follows:

1. AK-47
2. M-16
3. Lee Enfield SMLE
4. M1 Garand
5. FN FAL
6. Mauser model 98K Carbine
7. Steyer AUG
8. 1903 Springfield
9. Sturmgewher 44 (MP43)
10. M14

So what are your thoughts and what would you change about this list?


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 18, 2006)

I always concidered the FN FAL to be the best ,reliable ,powerful and accurate. NO.2 would be the styer aug ( made in Austria ) I belive the newer styer's have quality issiues ! No 3. AK 47. The best bolt action weapon I think has got to be the Lee enfield smle .A weapon not on the list which should be is the new HK 416.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2006)

I dont think it is a bad list but I can probably think of better guns than the M-16.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2006)

AK-47 and FN FAL need to be one and two, in either order..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2006)

AK-47 is the single best weapon of modern warfare. Atleast when it comes to small arms.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 18, 2006)

Top 10 combat rifles. Not necessarily what you would want TODAY, but what has been demonstrated as technologically superior, innovative, cheap to produce, best use materials, and/or precedent establishing. Hmmm. Here goes...

1. AK-47
2. Mauser 98
3. FN FAL
4. M1 Garand
5. SMLE
6. Springfield 1903
7. M16
8. MP43
9. SKS
10 Mosin Nagant

Notice I didn't even put my favorite in there.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 18, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> AK-47 is the single best weapon of modern warfare. Atleast when it comes to small arms.



You got that right. I own one. Unbreakable comes to mind.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2006)

That is a good list up there Matt and I think I would completely go with the list that you made.

The AK-47 might not be the best small arms ever built especially with the type of weapons that are coming out today but it revolutionized modern warfare. It is rugged, easy to use and anyone can fire it. Hell look at how many standing army's use it today and how many militias use it. It is easily the most widely used weapon and the weapon of choice for most military powers.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2006)

if asked which single small arm has most influenced post-WWII warfare it can only be the AK-47 which is why it must be no.1.........


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 19, 2006)

And they are FUN to shoot. Not as accurate as an M16 or other modern weapon, but then you rarely have to clean the bastards either.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2006)

look at the people that use the AK, what do they care or accuracy  and i'd imagine on single shot she's fine?


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 19, 2006)

The thread on the Battle of Monrovia shows that 

I would agree with the AK being top with then some of the other modern firearms - M-16 etc below it.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 19, 2006)

I think folks have a misconception of a modern day rifle that is not as "accurate". The M16 out of the box will shoot 2MOA or less all day long. An AK 4MOA. That's less than 4 inches at 100yds. Accurate enough.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 19, 2006)

Also the firepower a AK-47 is packing. 7.62mm against an M-16 or M-4 5.56mm. Now I have fired a 47 before but not an M-16 or M-4. Whoever has, what do you guys compare it to the AK-47?


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 19, 2006)

Good for you P38. When did you fire an AK? 5.56x45 kicks less. Short quick slap recoil. 7.65x39 just kinda shoves slow and gentle. Neither have significant recoil though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2006)

I did not find that either has significant recoil. I find the M-4 easier to shoot, but this my opinion. I like the AK better though. I have fired both the M-16, M-4 and AK and there was not much of a difference in my opinion. That could be though because I know how to shoot rifles.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 20, 2006)

Both have negligible recoil. But the .223 has a quicker impulse. At least that is my subjective opinion. And for some reason, the .223 high pitched sound really hurts my ears.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2006)

Ear Plugs....


----------



## timshatz (Dec 20, 2006)

Fired all three (M16, AK and FAL) Like the AK for the simple fact that when you pull the trigger you KNOW it's going to fire (if there is a round in the chamber of course). That was key. Found the AK the least accurate of the three. Just couldn't hit stuff. Again, like Der Adler said, it could be the shooter. 

Found the M16A2 to be nice. Refined. One thing I liked is the design sends the force directly back. The raised sights on the M16 are there to eliminate the pivot point rifles had right behind the trigger guard, on the M16 the force goes straight back. Sight picture doesn't change in semi-auto. The AK is the best of the old designs and the M16 is the start of a new design. Now see all new types of rifles (from the 70s on) with that same straight throwback, bullpups included. 

Found the FN-FAL to be a neat rifle to shoot. Loud, kicks well, accurate. Fun. A lot like the M1. Big round too. Of the three, I found it the easiest shooter, but not neccessarily the best shooter. Again, could be my shooting ability. But it was fun.

Of the three rifles, I definitely think the AK made the most impression on the world. On the flag of Nambia, simple to use, mass produced. You can break the thing down in no time at all. Designed for people who did not really know what they are doing to use. It's also familar to almost everyone in the world. Probably right up there with Coca-Cola or McDonalds.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 20, 2006)

Thanks guys. I liked the AK-47 for its ruggness and firepower but wanted to know how it compared to other rifles.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 20, 2006)

I will always beleive the M-16 is the best because of its lightness and its low recoil, its reliability is acceptible now days, if a soldier routinely cleans his rifle like soldiers are supposed to do then the weapon is just fine


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Dec 20, 2006)

That was one of the problems that the M-16's had in Vietnam


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 20, 2006)

And the recoil spring makes a hell of a racket rattling on your cheek. Gotta love that weapon. I have a AR-15 16in shorty and an AR-15A2 equivalent with 20in barrel/ACOG 4x sight. Gotta love the latter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 21, 2006)

my dad's got an AR-15 in .22 which he uses for compitition shooting... doesn't cut it nearly as much as a 12bore for rabbiting


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> I will always beleive the M-16 is the best because of its lightness and its low recoil, its reliability is acceptible now days, if a soldier routinely cleans his rifle like soldiers are supposed to do then the weapon is just fine



Well since the AKs recoil is negligable as well I would take the AK for its ruggedness over the M-16 any day.


----------



## glennasher (Jul 28, 2007)

The M16 has been in service longer than the M1 Garand by now, so it would have to make the list, though not at the number one spot, for certain. I do find it curious that the HK G3 isn't there, it sold in large numbers to countries using the FAL, as it was less costly and easier to make. I don't see the MP-43 as being worthy of the list, personally.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 28, 2007)

I'll take the M16A1, M16A2 over the AK any day. They are far more accurate. The AK47 is a fine weapon and reliable but the A1 version of the M16 corrected (with the forward assist mechanism) the jamming problems encountered by the early M16s circa 1965 in Viet Nam. More improvements came with the A2. Not to forget the M1 Garand, Thompson M1 and the M14.


----------



## trackend (Jul 29, 2007)

Never thought the FN was that brilliant the mech was not very well sealed against dust and fine particals (specially the gas regulator) so required a fair bit of maintenance however It may have improved since the late 60,s.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Jul 29, 2007)

Not that i have fired any of them happens to be a law in aus that you are not allowed to own an auto of any kind period.
Even Semi-autos have been a lot hader to get since some guy down in Tasmania killed 30 people. 
Sign to think that the actions of one wacko screws the who thing up sort of angers me but thats life.
Just pure speculation but wasn't the M16 susseptable to jaming ?
And was the calibure of the M16 .223 if so would'nt the AK have the edge over it for stopping power as it was in 7.62 wasn't it ?

Anyway i thought that the M 1 garand was used in WW2 !!!?
By the way screaming eagle where abouts in Qld do you live i'm near gympie about 200 klicks up from Brisbane


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2007)

glennasher said:


> The M16 has been in service longer than the M1 Garand by now, so it would have to make the list, though not at the number one spot, for certain. I do find it curious that the HK G3 isn't there, it sold in large numbers to countries using the FAL, as it was less costly and easier to make. I don't see the MP-43 as being worthy of the list, personally.



I would take the G36 anyday which replaced the G3.

It is a damn good weapon, I really enjoyed shooting it when we were training with the German Bundeswehr. I prefered it over our M-16s.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 29, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> Just pure speculation but wasn't the M16 susseptable to jaming ?



See my previous post, A1 version of the M16 corrected the jamming problem. 



Aussie1001 said:


> And was the calibure of the M16 .223 if so would'nt the AK have the edge over it for stopping power as it was in 7.62 wasn't it ?



Not really. The M16 had a higher muzzle velocity than the AK. Also the M16 rounds tumbled in flight giving it all the stopping power it needed. 



Aussie1001 said:


> Anyway i thought that the M 1 garand was used in WW2 !!!?



WW II and Korea. 

"The greatest battle implement ever devised."

-- General George S. Patton, Jr.


----------



## trackend (Jul 29, 2007)

There's been talk for sometime Chris that the 36 will replace the SA80 as standard British infantry weapon I have only handle the 80 and not discharged one but it does'nt feel a very robust rifle and having spoken to a guy who worked in Royal Ordinace during it's development he told me the original test weapons were excellent but after they had to reduce the unit costs it turned into a poor gun although the later upgraded version is supposedly reliable.


----------



## rogthedodge (Jul 29, 2007)

Absolutely true trackend, it was down to RA being told to produce it for £x a weapon. Stupid when you factor in the cost of the H&K upgrade.

As I understand it it was a political decision not a Forces budget decision that caused all the problems.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2007)

trackend said:


> There's been talk for sometime Chris that the 36 will replace the SA80 as standard British infantry weapon I have only handle the 80 and not discharged one but it does'nt feel a very robust rifle and having spoken to a guy who worked in Royal Ordinace during it's development he told me the original test weapons were excellent but after they had to reduce the unit costs it turned into a poor gun although the later upgraded version is supposedly reliable.




I have fired the SA80 when we did training up in England and honestly I would take G36 over the SA80 anyday. But then again I also preferred the M-16/M-4 over teh SA80 as well.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jul 30, 2007)

glennasher said:


> The M16 has been in service longer than the M1 Garand by now, so it would have to make the list, though not at the number one spot, for certain. I do find it curious that the HK G3 isn't there, it sold in large numbers to countries using the FAL, as it was less costly and easier to make. I don't see the MP-43 as being worthy of the list, personally.



The reason the MP-43/Sturmgewehr 44 is on the list is because it was the world's first true "assault" rifle; sturmgewehr literally translates as "assault rifle", which is where we get the term from. True, it was very heavy compared to a modern assault rifle (it's almost exactly twice as heavy as an M-16A2), but it was the first automatic weapon to fire a rifle-caliber bullet with reasonable accuracy. If Germany had equipped her armed forces with this weapon at the beginning of WWII instead of at the end, I think things would've turned out differently. It was, quite literally, years ahead of it's time.


----------



## RevJoel (Jul 31, 2007)

I'm going to pick a nit here. I saw the program and I believe that to include assault weapons in the list is comparing apples and oranges. Neither the AK, the Mouse-16, the AUG or the MP 43 can be considered a combat rifle (MBR). First and formost, the 5.56mm and the 7.62 short and the 7.92 Kurtz are intermediate power cartridges and not MBR cartridges such as the 303 Brit, 30-06, 7.92 Mauser round or the 7.62 x 51. Just my humble opinion!

Pax Christi
Rev. Joel+


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2007)

What are you talking about?

The M-16 and AK are fine combat weapons. I used the M-16 for years when I was in the US Army.


----------



## rogthedodge (Jul 31, 2007)

I've got the answer:

If you're carrying it? - M-16

If you're cleaning it? - AK47

If you're drilling with it? - Lee-Enfield

Hordes of Ruskies appearing at 300 yards? - FN FAL/'tweaked' SLR (with 30 round Bren box on it)


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Aug 1, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> By the way screaming eagle where abouts in Qld do you live i'm near gympie about 200 klicks up from Brisbane



Sorry for the lateness of my reply I live in Gladstone, near rocky.


----------



## T4.H (Aug 1, 2007)

In my army-times, I only used the G3, Uzi and MG3.
G3: nice weapon, on 200 m precise (I always hit the 6 to 10...).
As long you were not in a sandy area...
JAM...

As I know, they realy like the new HK G36 in the German army. One I know, he said it is the best one in the world now. If it is true, I don't know.


----------



## renrich (Aug 1, 2007)

Good stuff Rog and if you have a regiment of German infantry in the open at a range of 800 yards in 1914, the 3O3 British SMLE and trained like the "Old Contemptibles" were.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2007)

T4.H said:


> As I know, they realy like the new HK G36 in the German army. One I know, he said it is the best one in the world now. If it is true, I don't know.



He very well could be right. When I was in the US Army we had a partnership with a Bundeswehr unit and we got to go and shoot to qualify for the German Schutzenschnur and we had to shoot the G36 among other weapons and it was an outstanding weapon.

After that fun filled weekend we all decided we would trade our M-16 in for a G36 anyday.


----------



## Stupid (Aug 5, 2007)

I think the M-1 garand was better then the Enfield but in my opinion. It was used all the way into Viet Nam and was very accurate, I can understand the AK-47 being ahead of the M-16.

And again in my view everything Hekler and Koch makes is the bomb diggity!


----------



## Luis Miguel Almeida (Apr 10, 2008)

Hi guys!
I`ve only found this thread now, so if you don`t mind i will post my opinion!!

herei s the list:
1. HK G36
2. AK-47
3. HK G3
4. M-16
5. Mauser model 98K Carbine
6. M1 Garand
7. Lee Enfield SMLE
8. 1903 Springfield
9. Sturmgewher 44 (MP43)
10. M14

has for the FN FAL, is a sorry excuse for a rifle!!!
I will tell you why, the Portuguese Air Force Paratroopers used it in The colonial wars in the 60s, and was even worst them the AR-15 they allready used, the barrels bent with the use! not something you are loking in your rifle is it? we had no trouble with the substitute for it! the Portuguese made HK G3
only problem is only uses 20 rounds in Mag! or it would be nr.1 for me!!


----------



## smg (Apr 11, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> 1. AK-47
> 2. Mauser 98
> 3. FN FAL
> 4. M1 Garand
> ...



i have to agry whit this list bout i think they shoud put the g-36 in there


----------



## smg (Apr 11, 2008)

this woud be my second shoise

1.AK-47
2.Mauser 98
3.Springfield 1903
4.M1 Garand
5.Sturmgewher 44 (MP43)
6.Lee Enfield SMLE
7.M-16
8.HK G36
9.m14
10.fx-05


----------



## parsifal (Apr 11, 2008)

Garand was a good design, but I am loathe to describe it a great design. It was a little on the heavy side, not quite as resistant to mud and dust as it should be, and slightly less accurate than the springfield, or even the lee Enfield. 

The success of the garand owes more to the soundness of US small arms procurement policy than to the outstanding nature of its design. Credit must be given to the fact that it was the first self loader to be adopted enmasse by any army in the world, but this is hardly reason to place it in the upper echelons of the "best of the best" 

Its also interesting to look at the M-16. During the Vietnam war, the Australian forces used as their standard side arm the FN FAL, or SLR as we called it. There was some use of the M-16 as well, but it was not generally liked by the Australians, because it was thought to lack killing power (something I dont agree with). There were three versions of SLR, but as rifles thre were really only two, the L1A1 20 round version, and the L2A1 30 round version. The 30 round versions were known to be slightly more prone to jams. 

The SLR was seldom used in an automatic capacity (as built it does not have such ability, but mods can be made in the field to make it automatic. The Australians adopted a much more conservative approach to jungle warfare than the American, who had a reputation to blunder about the place, with their automatic weapons making one hell of a racket. My opinion is that the Australians were more successful in the jungle than their American cousins, brought about in part by the weaponry they were carting about the place. So, in my opinion, FAL rates as a better weapon than the M-16, at least in some circumstances


----------



## renrich (Apr 11, 2008)

Parsifal, with respect, you are way off on your appraisal of the Garand. It was the first successful semi auto battle rifle, just as accurate for infantry purposes as any other battle rifle and was probably more resistant to dirt and mud than any other semi auto ever made. It was rugged, easy to maintain, powerful, accurate, fast to load without undue exposure to the user, was little more heavy than the Mauser or Springfield and bottom line, it gave a huge advantage to the US soldier over his enemy. I never was in combat but during training I never once had a stoppage and saw few stoppages with other soldiers. I was absolutely dumbfounded to see the Army teach guys who had never fired a weapon before to hit a target at 500 yards fairly consistently with iron sights and the Garand. The only change I would have made with it was to have gone to a round similar to the .270 Win. It was a war winner!


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 11, 2008)

renrich said:


> The only change I would have made with it was to have gone to a round similar to the .270 Win. It was a war winner!



Really ... why? 

I love the .270. I have a pre-64 model. It shoots flat, fast and accurate but the bullet is kinda small. With a semi-auto and the average foot soldier, i'd rather have the heavier round. Soldiers with semi auto capability tend to be ammo wasters and pin point accuracy is not always an advantage in combat situations. often the more rounds you can put down field wins the day and if those rounds have more stopping power... all the better.



Single shot, I'd take the .270.

.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 11, 2008)

Hi Renrich

I wont argue the point because my experience with the garand is very limited. My father saw it in use in PNG during the war, and thought it too prone to stoppages in the mud and slush of the jungle. I saw it on hunting trips once or twice, and observed a number of stoppages that I thought should not occur

I knew if I put that post the Americans would come at me like whirling dervishes. I will concede the point, in the intersts of keeping good relations. 

Regards

Michael


----------



## parsifal (Apr 11, 2008)

There was one further important point I forgot to mention. The Firing mechanism in the garand was not conducive to providing a grenade launcher. Not sure why, but it just isnt good at it. Consequently the US forces that used it generally had to rely on hand thrown grenades, which may, on occasion, have placed the US fforces at a slight disadvantage


----------



## renrich (Apr 11, 2008)

Comis, glad you asked. I used to do a lot of handloading and hunting and here is what I found out. The standard military round is the 150 grain spitzer bullet. One can actually load the 270 with a 150 grain bullet to a higher velocity than you can the 06. BUT, I would have loaded the 270 Win (actually a .277 bullet) in the Garand to the same velocity as the 06. Since the 277 bullet has better sectional density and better ballistic coefficent than the 06 of the same weight and shape, you will have a bullet which weighs the same that has better downrange ballistics. It will shoot flatter and arrive with more velocity thus more energy and with more penetration. The place where an 06 out performs the 270 is with big bullets like the 220 gr but they have a rainbow trajectory and are not as suitable for the battlefield. The British tried a bullet of around .274 and considered adopting it but backed off. Same with the US. I believe the reason they stuck with the 06 was because of commonality and all the other weapons using the 06 but it would have been better in the long run IMO to have gone to the 277. Parsifal, the users having trouble with stoppages probably did not know the critical parts of maintaining a Garand. I don't know where the problem with the rifle grenade comes in. I know there were plenty of Garands firing rifle grenades in WW2 and I personally fired one and saw others fired in basic. I got lucky and mine went right into the cave where I was aiming. The cadre made a big deal out of it but I just acted as if all Texans knew how to fire rifle grenades.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 11, 2008)

Interesting. The theory seems sound. Thanks.

I know what u mean by "rainbowing". I use to shoot the Garand at competition matches. I remember a cold day in Oregon shooting at targets 600 yards away. The round left the barrel with a vapor trail that you could follow all the way to the bullseye. It was like a tracer. I was impressed at how accurate you could be with the peep sight even with a drastic arch.

.


----------



## renrich (Apr 11, 2008)

Parsifal, I agree with your Aussies who believe the M16 lacks killing power. I am not a combat veteren but have killed a lot of game and consider the .223 inadequate for deer which are about the same body weight as a man. When I was on active duty in 61-62, I carried a carbine and it was easy to carry and handy but if we had gone into combat against the Warsaw Pact countries, I would have wanted something more powerful. To me something on the order of the power of the 7x57 would be ideal in a self loading battle rifle and I don't believe full auto is necessary. One more thing on the Garand. If one has a stoppage he is reduced to a bolt action rifle which was the same as the Mauser or Arisaka.


----------



## fly boy (Apr 11, 2008)

m1 grand rifle that my favorite gun in the world next to the colt.45


----------



## parsifal (Apr 11, 2008)

Guys

having trouble with my access. keeps dropping out. this is ajust a test to see if I am connected now. Will reply propperly If i can get better connectivity


----------



## parsifal (Apr 11, 2008)

Hi Guys

I am not a vet, served in the RAN 77-85, was trained by guys who did serve (in the army before transfer to RAN as QMGs). 

Will defer to your superior knowledge on this one.

Am curious about people who have seen the newer sidearms in action, particualrly the new steyr rifle being carried aound by the diggers. The couple of guys I have spoken to think its great. I have heard that the Brits are unhappy with their new side arm. Not sure whay, any clues???

On the issue of the AK, my wife is Russian. One day I was showing off (as you do), and proudly stated how long it took me to strip down and re-assemble my SLR. She just laughed saying if i was in the Red Army I would have been put back through the small arms course, because I was too slow. She said to me that as a schoool girl (junior high) she could strip down and re-assemble the AQK in about three minutes. If there are any Russian guys or people with AK experience would like to hear. TInternet says that the regulation time to strip and re-assemble is just 38 seconds....wow

Why is there so much vision at the moment of US forces carrying around AKs. US military have been aroun this weapon a lot before, and I never saw them use it in preference to their own side arms to this extent before. Are the Yanks short of bullets or something????


----------



## Torch (Apr 11, 2008)

Speaking of M1's, I just bought a converted Garand in a .308,great shape,new barrel, had a smith check it over.i paid 625$ for it. I know it's not a collector piece but I have a ton of .308 that I need to shoot and this will be a fun rifle to do it in. looking forward to some range time.


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 11, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Am curious about people who have seen the newer sidearms in action, particualrly the new steyr rifle being carried aound by the diggers. The couple of guys I have spoken to think its great.



Hi parsifal, I'm ex-Army and I loved the steyr. It was simply to use, light, easy to clean and strip and I can't remember ever having a stoppage. The recoil was minimal and the adjustable front hand grip was a benefit when firing in different positions. The only thing I didn't like was the crosshairs in its 1.5x optical sight, but that was only a personal opinion as others I know liked it.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 12, 2008)

Thanks Wildcat. Do you know people in Adelaide. One of my best mates is Kev Reid, recently retired from the RAAF, a W/O, was a loadmaster serving in the C130 J sqn?

I see as usual that people are nominating the mauser. There is no easy way to put this, its a terrible gun, very nasty. Not outstandingly accurate (at least the 1935 98K, mostly because of the short sight radius), slow and cumbersome in the action, hard to build relatively, at the end of the war suffered from QA problems, small magazine.

The 98K was the standard issue weapon of the Wehrmacht

Whereas Allied soldiers were often only too willing to use other captured german weapons (like pistols smgs and the like) there are very few examples of the Mausers being employed in this way....reason, poor performance.....


----------



## parsifal (Apr 12, 2008)

renrich said:


> Parsifal, I agree with your Aussies who believe the M16 lacks killing power. I am not a combat veteren but have killed a lot of game and consider the .223 inadequate for deer which are about the same body weight as a man. When I was on active duty in 61-62, I carried a carbine and it was easy to carry and handy but if we had gone into combat against the Warsaw Pact countries, I would have wanted something more powerful. To me something on the order of the power of the 7x57 would be ideal in a self loading battle rifle and I don't believe full auto is necessary. One more thing on the Garand. If one has a stoppage he is reduced to a bolt action rifle which was the same as the Mauser or Arisaka.



In some respects, not killing your opponent is more a burden on your enemy, than killing him outright. The effort needed to get the guy off the battlefield, and then rehabilitated is a heavy burden on any army. At Squad level, wounding even one of the guys can pretty much bring the forward motion of the squad to a halt. Its eithe that, or leave the wounded guy to his own devices. 

On the o0ther hand, I believe that a wounded guy is quite dangerous. Even guys who have been hit fatally, for a few seconds can be pumped with adrenalin and still cause a lot of havoc. This is basically how a lot of Purple hearts (and in Aus, Victoria Crosses) are awarded. The guy just dos not know how to stop. 

Gorey subject.....not my favourite


----------



## renrich (Apr 12, 2008)

Parsifal, you have hit on,to me, an interesting question. Why would the US go into WW2 with a modern rifle like the Garand and a country like Germany that was always pretty much in the forefront of weapon design still arm it's troops with a design dating back to the 1800s? The US Army was not noted for developing revolutionary small arms in spite of a thriving gun industry in the US. Our troops were somewhat out gunned by the Indians at the Little Big Horn. Many of them had repeaters while the 7th was armed with single shot trap door Springfields which was a design that was a modified muzzle loader. Our troops in some cases were still using that trap door Springfield in 1898 during the Spanish American War while many of the Spanish had Mausers. Our handguns in the Phillipines during the Phillipine Insurrection were a SW 38 that was so puny the Army had to recondition a bunch of 1873 cavalry model Colts 45s in order to put down a Moro. Even the 03 Springfield was a knock off of the Mauser and we had to learn from the Germans that a spitzer bullet would give much better performance than our round nosed heavy bullets. Yet, the US adopted the semi-auto Garand in the 30s to replace thousands of 03s and 1917 Enfields that were still servicable. One can somewhat understand the British sticking with the SMLE because in the 20s and 30s they were too busy spending money on social programs to do much upgrading of their military. But Germany when Hitler came to power was spending money like a drunken sailor on it's miltary but left it's infantry with an outmoded bolt action. Hitler was an infantryman also but must have forgotten his beginnings. Thanks be too or there would have been a lot more dead Allied soldiers. On the M16 topic, a book called "We Were Soldiers Once and Young" coauthored by Lt Gen Hal Moore about a battle in the Ia Drang valley in 1965 states that they part of the credit for their survival against great odds goes to the M16. I know Hal very well and I never got around to asking him why he said that. To me, that light bullet with high velocity would not make a good jungle weapon. A heavier bullet at somewhat lower velocity would not be as likely to be deflected by a twig or big leaf.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 12, 2008)

Hi Renrich

US has always had a strong civilian arms industry , and guns play a significant part in the upbringing of most American lads. Consequently, even if the army went into certain bwars somewhat less than well equipped, there was a strong indigenous market that could support a bevy of gun manufacturers. With large numbers of gun manufacturers, comes competition, with competition comes innovation. hence while the army sometimes lagged, the country never has.

Firms such as Winchester, Colt, Remington, Smith Wesson, Harrington and Richardson and many others were always ready to react to government cpontracts. 

The weapons carried were selected by Ordinance department of the Department Of the Army. No other country had quite the same level of centraizedplanned procurement (except the USSR I guess). Germany, in particular, did not have nearly the same rigid, disciplined approach to procurement. The rigid procurement machine, coupled with the strong domestic suppliers, gave the US the ability to produce the best of sidearms. 

The garand was the product of numerous committee recommendations and tests, but ultimately it was forced through as the main US sidearm by General macarthur

The US procurement mechanism was is really the best in the world. Unlike the Axis powers, the Americans selected good designs from the begining, but more importantly used standardised ammunition sizes that reduced the logistic difficultires enormously. Compare this to say italy, who at last count had something like twenty two differnt types of small arms ammunition. 

The 30-06 cartridge can be criticized today, but in 1940 it had few equals. 
The .45 in pistol ammunition was a tad big, but it at least gave the US ttroops the confidence to believe it had a killer knockout punch.

So, in essence the American advantages were a strong domesticc market, and a centralized and professional procurement machine. it was a war winning formula

By contrast the germans lacked this central control, believe it or not. Nazi Germany was more like a series of feudal fiefdoms rather than a highly centralized government system. This is the fundamental weakness of the Fascist system, one man cannot run everything, so he delegates to people without any real methods of accounting. The normal system of checks and balances, and accountability that we aree used to simply is not there.

The decision to adopt the 98K seems to be the result that all the talent in the general Staff was being lured into the more exotic areas, like transport, tanks, airborne and the like. Also by 1935 germanies economic and factory space situation was already starting to shown the signs of overburden. The adoption of the 98K was a quick and easy expedient that suited the economic and industrial situation facing germany at the time.

In other areas the germans showed great vision. German small arms industry had, as its trademark, the ability to turn out many weapons with a minimum of machining. The redesigned MP40 is an excellent example of this. It takes roughl;y half the factory time to produce as compared to the MP-38, and about a third as much less againas the thompson. The really big issue with small arms, when thinking on a national scale is not so much the quality of the side arm, but the quantity. The overriding issue needs to be output. That, and standardization are the number one priorities for any nation. The US got the design issues right, had vastly more factory space (so was not so worried about manufacturing times or costs), and adopted standardized ammunition from the very start. 

The M-16 is a good weapon, its just that its "philosphy" in the Jungle is not so great. The big thing about the jungle are stealth, not firepower (well, not until you ahve located your enemy). The other thing, in my opinion, is the limited logistic system. You cannot feel more naked, if you are stuck out in a foxhole somewhere, and have used up your last clip firing wildly into the jungle. your scared Sh*tl**ss, and you have an automatic weapon on your shoulder, what are yoou going to do, fire in every direction, I would think


----------



## renrich (Apr 13, 2008)

Parsifal, I believe your explanation about the Germans sticking to the Mauser 98 may be on the mark. I am still a little surprised that the US adopted the Garand. An example about the thinking of the US Army was that during the Civil War an inventor offered the Army the Spencer carbine, a breech loading with seven shot magazine repeating rifle with metallic cartridges. The army turned it down. The story is that the inventor got in to see Lincoln and he took the carbine out to shoot it in the yard at the White House. Lincoln liked it and advised the Army to adopt it. They bought some in the carbine and musket model and it served well. Our boys(Confederates) hated it. After the war, the army discarded the Spencer and went to the trap door single shot Springfield. Go figure.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 13, 2008)

yep, some decisions are like that.....not much to add i guess. I am waiting for the germanophiles to arrive to be honest


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 13, 2008)

Top 10 in modern history? Don't get me wrong, I admire the G36. But Top 10? That's rareified air.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 13, 2008)

renrich said:


> To me, that light bullet with high velocity would not make a good jungle weapon. A heavier bullet at somewhat lower velocity would not be as likely to be deflected by a twig or big leaf.



The theory was (and it has more or less been borne out) that most combat, especially in the jungle, took place at <100 yards; a larger bullet was not required for these ranges and, also, a soldier is able to carry about twice as much 5.56mm ammo as 7.62mm ammo. Yes, "leaves twigs" make a difference, but if there are leaves twigs between you the enemy, you probably can't see him anyway; that's what the M60 was for.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 13, 2008)

Nevertheless, firing blind, and wildly is only going to give away your position, and use up precious ammunition. IMO, it is better use of ammunition to locate your enemy first, and then use targetted fire to eliminate the threat, rather than just rely on the squads firepower advantage.


----------



## gazzaMAN (Apr 13, 2008)

AK47 is ok but the 74su is much betterand the austyer (austalia's modified version of the steyer AUG) is much better screw the AK47

and the austeyer has a small muzzle flash compared to the ak47 parsfal is right about muzzle flash giving away your position


----------



## davparlr (Apr 13, 2008)

renrich said:


> Parsifal, I believe your explanation about the Germans sticking to the Mauser 98 may be on the mark. I am still a little surprised that the US adopted the Garand. An example about the thinking of the US Army was that during the Civil War an inventor offered the Army the Spencer carbine, a breech loading with seven shot magazine repeating rifle with metallic cartridges. The army turned it down. The story is that the inventor got in to see Lincoln and he took the carbine out to shoot it in the yard at the White House. Lincoln liked it and advised the Army to adopt it. They bought some in the carbine and musket model and it served well. Our boys(Confederates) hated it. After the war, the army discarded the Spencer and went to the trap door single shot Springfield. Go figure.



You are right about this. Other weapons turned down that could have shortened the Civil war was the Henry and Gatlin. I guess someone was inspired by the Garand. We certainly didn't know how to build and test torpedos!

As for the Garand, as far as common issue infantry weapon of WWII, it is superior to all, too much fire power. In all my exposure to military history, I have never heard the M-1 being less than rugged and I think most military historians will consider it one of the worlds great rifles (along with the Mauser, Lee Enfield, Springfield).

If I were choosing sides of squads, and both squads were of equal capability and one side had any sort of bolt action, Mauser, Lee Enfield, and the other had M-1s, I would certainly pick the M-1 side in a typical WWII battlefield environment. The M-1 squad could just put up too much firepower. So, don't pick any bolt action over an M-1 for typical combat.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 14, 2008)

I think it goes without too much argument that a semi-autometic self loader, is going to have ahigher rate of fire than any bolt actions. The best of the bolt actionss must be the British 0.303 SMLE Lee Enfield. it gave a trained soldier the theoretical rate of fire of 15 RPM. Thats quite adequate, but to achieve 15 RPM of accurate fire, you newed a lot of practice, and thats the problem in wartime. The average grunt is never going to be better than an average shot, at best, and never goiong to achieve 15 RPM of accurate fire. This is a figure easily achieved on a semi-autometic rifle. If you assume 1 shot per moving target, a Garand equipped soldier might get off 15-20 RPM of accurate fire (ie within about a metre of the target, over 100 metre ranges. I am not completely sure of these figures, would not mind some help from someone with better, more complete experience on the M1


----------



## renrich (Apr 15, 2008)

Parsifal, it has been a long time, 1959, since I was in basic and I have never been in combat but our rapid fire exercise was we started with a round in the chamber and when the order was given to commence firing we had 10 seconds to fire that round load a new clip and fire eight at a target at 100 yards from the prone position. It was easy to get off that many rounds in that time and with a loop sling from prone it was pretty easy to stay in the black which as I remember was a 20 inch bull. I recall the orders from the range officer were: "Lock one round load, the flag is up, the flag is waving, the flag is down, you have ten seconds.........commence firing! There would be about 75 or so men on the firing line and after the firing order you would hear someone bust that first cap, then another and another and then as the clips were loaded a nonstop rattle of musketry until the order to cease fire. I would say that under ideal conditions a well trained man with the Garand could get off 40-50 aimed rounds in a minute. The "Old Contemptibles" the British regulars in August, 1914, were trained to get off it seems to me about twenty rounds per minute of accurate fire at ranges of up to 800 yards at enemy troops in the open. When the Germans first met that kind of fire they thought they up against machine guns.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 15, 2008)

Hi Renrich
Yes What you are describing is the basic way that basic, basic rifle fire is taught. I went through the same sort of training.

How the effective rate of fire is calculated, i am not exactly sure, but I recall that when I did my QMGs course (which was a precursor to more advanced small arms courses), I had to pass an excercise that was rather more difficult. I was on the range, with an instructor behind me. There were multiple numbered targets down the range, at distances that varied from between 150 to 300 metres. The instructor would call out a number behind me, I would sight up, and have to hit the target I think three times (cant remember exactly how many). I had to hit a certain number of targets, a certain number of times, in a given time period. This was a much harder excercise than the one you have described

With what equates to moving targets, the effective rates of fire drops greatly, and in those circumstances, the theoretical rate of fire advantage of the garand might not be as great as you say.

In close combat the Garand had definite advantages. basically, you dont need to aim, you just fire. So in a trench assault, once you made it to the enemy trench the Garand in my opinion would probably be have a real advantage. But not as much as might be expected. The weapon par excellance in the trench situation has to be the SMG. It only takes one or two SMGs per squad in the close combat to negate all benefits the semi-auto equipped squad might otherwise enjoy (this is whether or not both sides have the benefit of an SMG). Intersetingly, SMGs are pretty much seen as obsolete nowadays. i think this is because close assaults of the kind I am describing are considered pretty rare. i wonder how the Iraqi vets think about that theory!!!!

Dont get me wrong, I am not trying to bring out some sort of revisionist history to assert that the bolt actions were somehow equal or superior to the semi autos. They are not. But what I am saying is that the margin of difference in squad firepower as a result of the garand alone is not as great as might be assumed by the theory. 

Regards

Michael


----------



## Soren (Apr 16, 2008)

Parsifal,

I can't agree with you I'm afraid. The German smallarms industry was infact well ahead of anyone elses, Germany's clear lead in aerodynamics ballistics combined with their prowess in engineering enabling them to produce more advanced and effective weapons ammunition than anyone else.

For example Germany was the first country to design, build and deploy a truly effective dual purpose machine gun, the MG-34. The MG-34 was a breakthrough in machine gun design, being very light, accurate, fast firing and beltfed it was like no other MG in history and no'one had anything like it. To no surprise the Allies really came to fear this weapon and even more so its improved offspring, the MG42, arguably the best machine gun in history. 

In North Africa where the were many large open stretches of land the British came to refer to the MG34 42 as automatic cannons, as they were often being engaged at ranged past 3000m, and effectively so, much to the surprise of the poor British troops caught in the fire. 

The Allies failed to design any such effective machine gun during the war.

As for SMGs, well the Germans were the first to put these to use during WW1 and the Wehrmacht were very well equipped with SMGs at the breakout of WW2, infact it was equipped with more SMGs than any other army of any other nation.

Moving on to rifles,

Well the StG.44 was the best infantry rifle/smallarm of the entire war, and the G-43 was a very good semi auto rifle which was comparable to the Garand.

On the StG.44:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SccU2BppZeg_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOFSdtUUQj0_
Being fired (one alongside AK-47):

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_XIN7VMUzc_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRYm11j3wwA_

Germany also fielded the most accurate sniper-rifle of the war, the bolt action Karabiner 98K. Being the prime smallarm for most German soldiers up until very late in the war, it lacked the firepower of the semi automatic rifle and was very much due to be replaced as the std. infantry rifle by either the G43 or StG.44, it however came completely into its own right once deployed as a dedicated sniper rifle. Equipped with the best optics in the world ranging from 1.5, 4, 6 to 8x scopes from Zeiss or Hensoldt Dural-Dialytan, and firing heavy boattailed projectiles, it was every sharpshooter's dream rifle. For long range sniping nothing came close. 

As for ammunition;

Germany was the first nation to deploy boattailed projectiles as-well, the most common types being the heavy, low drag and very high BC 198gr Patr. sS [Schwere SpitzGeschoss] FMJ-BT projectile and the 178gr Patr. SmE [SpitzGeschoss mit Eisenkern] AP FMJ-BT projectile. These two projectiles feature very high ballistic coefficients, the Patr. sS having one around .580 to .590, while Patr. SmE has one around .510 to .520, MUCH higher than any Allied rifle projectile of WW2 and infact also higher than todays 7.62mm M118 Matchking sniper projectiles.



> The 30-06 cartridge can be criticized today, but in 1940 it had few equals.



It did have one superior though, the 7.92x57mm Mauser.



> The .45 in pistol ammunition was a tad big, but it at least gave the US ttroops the confidence to believe it had a killer knockout punch.



The key word is "believe" as the 9x19mm Parabellum is more accurate and has a high kinetic energy. Nonetheless the effect is the same, they're both sidearms and so they aren't knock overs.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 16, 2008)

Hi Soren, 

No argument that the german small arms industry was advanced, but its procurement machine left a lot to be desired. The US was streets ahead of them on that score. 

My comments, are directed almost exclusively about the selection of the 98K as their main sidearm. As a combat rifle it was not particulalry accurate because of the configuration of the sights, which were unfortunately too short to be effective. I dont have any real criticisms of the sniper version, its the main combat version that I am critical of. 

The really big drawbacks of the 98K were threefold. Firstly it has a relatively slow bolt action. if you accept the Lee Enfield as having a theoretical rate of fire equalling 20 rounds per minute, then the mauser has to be rated at about half that, ie 10 rounds per minute. if the Enfield is 20 rounds per minute, the Garand is 30 rounds per minute. This means that the standard german Infantryman is going into battle at a marked disadvantage compared to his opponents.

Secondly, the magazine capacity is only five rounds, compared to the enfields ten, and the garands eight. The small magazine capacity only serves to reinforce the slow action of the bolt. It decreases even further the amount of firepower that the standrard german Infantryman can generate.

The last weakness of the design is not unique to the 98K, the same criticism can also be levelled at both the enfield and the garand. All three weapons were relatively expensive to construct, using the time honoured methods of vast amounts of machinng, lathe turning and the like. This is wasteful in terms of time, and in terms of materials. The majority of steel used in the fabrication of these weapons ends up as floor waste on the factory floor. But whereas the US, and to a lesser extent, the british, had the steel making capacity to absorb this waste, the germans did not, So in that sense, the choice of the 98K as a mainstay weapon becomes even more difficult to comphrehend

The G-43s and G-44s that you mention were both quite good, But they each had problems. The G-43 was somewhat poorly balanced, and quite heavy, its unloaded weight was 9lb 8oz, compared to the 8lb weight for the 98K. It had the same weight as the garand, but the garand was a nearly perfectly balanced weapon. 

The MK43 was never going to amount to more than a sideshow curiosity (given its late introduction at the end of the war), for one reason, its ammunition. It needed the production of a special reduced power round. If it had been more widely adopted, it would have meant that the vast amounts of "old style" 7.92 mm rounds would have been obsolete. the germans could have introduced a dual logistics system, but this would doubled their logistics problems, and undoubtedly led to many embarrasing moments at the front. 

As I said at the beginning, the germans certainly displayed great ingenuity in their production of certain items, this is particularly true of their MGs, SMGs, and late war self loaders and semi autos. But they were badly let down by their procurement machinery, which meant, of the big three (US, Brit and germany) they were relatively, the worst equipped forces for the most part. they were consistently short of weapons and ammunition as the war progressed. Against the russians i am not as sure, but can quite easily look into the issue. I have heard from several east front vets that the german SMGs were not as good as, and not as well supplied, as the russian PPSHs, despite the agricultural look of the Russian weapon.....but i will leave this for now.

Your comments about the german ammunition are noted and accepted, although I really question the need for even more hitting power....the problem with the old wartime rounds was not that they were not powerful enough, but in fact were too powerful. modern ballistics, tends towards lighter weight and calibre rounds, with a reduced power rating. this makes the design of of firing mechanisms much easier, and there is no real sign that killing power is that badly affected...so i guess my question to your suggestion about german rounds being more powerful is...so what


----------



## renrich (Apr 16, 2008)

Remarks about 9mm parabellum being more accurate and having the same effectiveness in combat as 45 ACP are not borne out by experience both in warfare and in law enforcement. Please show me how the 8x57 JS is superior to the 3006. So Germany had better gun designers than that fellow from Utah, name of Browning? Hmmmm!


----------



## parsifal (Apr 16, 2008)

Hi renrich

I can understand your exasperation about the comments concerning the 45 cal. It was basically an elephant gun. Yanks used it to great effect in bunker busting. Its hard to believe that ther is any doubt about its effectiveness. i certainly dont have any, well, with one exception (being the adequacy of the magazine ...the number of rounds I mean).
I have to say, on the flip side, that I am an absolute follower of the browning. i never had any problems vis a viz the killing power of the 9mm (although I never killed anybody with it), and having 13 rounds up the spout is kinda cool. No-one that i know has ever criticized the browning. It is a very good pistol indeed. Another big advantage of the browning is that it used the same ammunition as that for the SMGs of the war, thereby easing logistic problems.


----------



## fly boy (Apr 16, 2008)

Torch said:


> Speaking of M1's, I just bought a converted Garand in a .308,great shape,new barrel, had a smith check it over.i paid 625$ for it. I know it's not a collector piece but I have a ton of .308 that I need to shoot and this will be a fun rifle to do it in. looking forward to some range time.



nice buy torch the m1 rifle is semi auto rifle so it can pack a punch


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 16, 2008)

fly boy said:


> nice buy torch the m1 rifle is semi auto rifle so it can pack a punch



Adler, got another quote for your signature here . . . . .


----------



## renrich (Apr 16, 2008)

Parsifal, I can certainly understand where you are coming from and I too have never shot anyone with either my Browning Hi power in 9mm or my two 1911s in 45ACP. However, most of the "experts" seem to think that the 45ACP is the weapon of choice for a more sure man-stopper. As you know the 45ACP was the caliber the Thompson gun was chambered in and some of the Stens were chambered in 45 also as well as the grease gun. I qualified with the 1911 and having quite a lot of handgun shooting experience including with the 41 and 44 magnum, I never found the 45 to be hard to handle. On paper, the 45 is superior to the 9mm and I understand that many of the special forces types in the Middle East are back to 1911 types in 45ACP. Strictly intuitive but I suspect that the Browning Hi Power would not be as reliable in the field as the 1911 but 13 in the mag is a lot more than 7 although a lot of the 1911 derivatives now have more mag cap.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 16, 2008)

Hi Renrich

Well i know what i would do if i saw a man pointing a 45 at me. It would be "Yes sir, whatever you say sir!" But then again, i probably would do the same if a browning was being pointed at me as well


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 16, 2008)

renrich said:


> Parsifal, I can certainly understand where you are coming from and I too have never shot anyone with either my Browning Hi power in 9mm or my two 1911s in 45ACP. However, most of the "experts" seem to think that the 45ACP is the weapon of choice for a more sure man-stopper. As you know the 45ACP was the caliber the Thompson gun was chambered in and some of the Stens were chambered in 45 also as well as the grease gun. I qualified with the 1911 and having quite a lot of handgun shooting experience including with the 41 and 44 magnum, I never found the 45 to be hard to handle. On paper, the 45 is superior to the 9mm and I understand that many of the special forces types in the Middle East are back to 1911 types in 45ACP. Strictly intuitive but I suspect that the Browning Hi Power would not be as reliable in the field as the 1911 but 13 in the mag is a lot more than 7 although a lot of the 1911 derivatives now have more mag cap.



I am no Spec Ops expert, but from what I understand, you are quite correct in that a lot of the special forces prefer the .45ACP over the 9mm; true, it doesn't have the mag capacity that a 9mm does, but if it takes one round of .45 ball ammo, versus two rounds of 9mm, to neutralize a target, I think most operators would go with the .45. I know that Delta operators prefer the .45, and that most of them have customized versions, usually either a Baer or a Kimber.


----------



## Soren (Apr 16, 2008)

> But they were badly let down by their procurement machinery, which meant, of the big three (US, Brit and germany) they were relatively, the worst equipped forces for the most part.



Parsifal that just isn't true. 

If you look at the amount of the MG-34, MG-42, MP-40, G-43  StG.44's produced you'll realize that the German soldier was often the BEST equipped in the world. Now this coupled with the better training (Atleast up till late 44) is the reason behind the fact that everytime the numbers were equal the Germans always came out on top, something the Allied commanders stressed very much needed be taken into consideration before D-day, and they did. Patton mentions this as-well.

Also remember that the German doctrine revovled around the machine gun, the rifle squads only acting as supports - directly the opposite of the Allied doctrine.

Btw, you mention a _Mk43_ in your post, I'm not sure what you were refering to here cause the Germans fielded no such weapon.

As to the G-43, well I've held one quite a few times and its just as easily wielded as any other rifle, and its not that forward heavy really.

The StG.44 is a very nice rifle to hold, and I bet also to shoot, atleast it is according to all who've fired it.

As for the part about logistics, well we agree there. The Germans put out way too many different weapons and ammunition types really, and this cause some serious logistical problems.



renrich said:


> Remarks about 9mm parabellum being more accurate and having the same effectiveness in combat as 45 ACP are not borne out by experience both in warfare and in law enforcement.



Yes they are Renrich, and there are even CIA documents out there avaialble which show a completely similar effects on the target when hit by either of these rounds. Also you need to understand that both a pistol rounds and therefore they are NOT knock overs, there's simply waay to little energy. The force that is generated is just the same as the recoil you're feeling when shooting the gun (_Every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction_).

The 9x19mm Parabellum has always been more accurate, namely because it's allot more streamlined and flies faster.

Don't be fooled by Hollywood's film tricks Renrich.



> Please show me how the 8x57 JS is superior to the 3006.



Sure. The 8x57 JS fires heavier, higher SD BC bullets at higher velocities than the 30.06 is capable of, and esp. during WW2. Today the 30.06 fires lighter bullets at slightly higher velocities, that's it, when bullet weight increases the 8x57 JS takes over quickly.



> So Germany had better gun designers than that fellow from Utah, name of Browning? Hmmmm!



Yes, one by the name of Paul Mauser. Mauser is perhaps the best gun designer of all time, the M98 action being the most widely copied in the world and still considered the best.

During the war Walther, Mauser, Krupp Rheinmetall consistantly designed and produced better guns than anyone else, namely the below:

Smallarms:
K98k
MG-34
MG-42
FG-42
StG.44
Solothurn S18-1000

Larger guns:
30mm Mk108 Mk103
75mm KwK/PaK42 L/70
88mm KwK36/FlaK 18/36 L/56
88mm KwK/PaK43 L/71
105mm LeFH 18/40 42
128mm PaK44 L/55 L/60
150mm K-18
173mm K-18
210mm K-18

Just to name a few....

Now this having been said Parsifal rightly points out that Germany was the country of the three big ones which thought the least of logistics, and this did cause a lot of problems.


----------



## renrich (Apr 16, 2008)

Soren, my manual says you are wrong. To begin with the 3006 case has more capacity than the 8x57JS. In practically every loading the 06 surpasses the 8 Mauser. With the 150 gr bullet, the 8mm gets a MV of 2899 fps with a chamber pressure of 49,030 psi chamber prssure. 06 gets 2906 fps with a lower chamber pressure of 48080. The 8 Mauser with 198 gr bullet gets 2440 fps with 47550 CP. 06 gets 2600 fps with 200 gr bullet and 46730 CP. I don't have data for heavier bullets for 8 Mauser. Since in the same weight and shape bullet the 06 is going to have a better BC and CD than the 8 Mauser it will also have better down range performance. As to your opinion on the 9 versus the 45 most experts don't support you. In fact I know of no authorities that give the 9 anything like the lethality of the 45 ACP. As for accuracy the 45 is inherently accurate. In a good handgun, it is renowned for accuracy. In fact I know a Ranger in Texas who can hit a target less than one foot in diameter 3 of 5 times at 225 yards with an accurised 1911 and handloads. Soren, do yourself a favor and look up John browning and the Paul Mauser of wiki. Get educated. I don't get any information from Hollywood.


----------



## Soren (Apr 16, 2008)

I'm not the one who needs to educate myself here Renrich, I know how these things work. You on the other hand seriously need to educate yourself on the 8x57 JS Mauser as well as Paul Mauser!

The 30.06 has more case capacity yes, but the 8x57 JS has a larger diameter neck which means a larger surface area for the gasses to push on = higher velocities.

As for your manual, well which is it Renrich ? The full power European 8x57 JS loads will easily push a 150 gr bullet past 3,000 fps, and 200 gr ones past 2,700 fps. 

The std. German rifle round during WW2, the 198gr Patr.sS, did 785 m/s in the K98k (600mm barrel), which was achieved at just 70% of the case's maximum pressure which is ~62,000 psi MAP. However the LW used the V-patr. (V stands for Verbessert which means Improved) which was the same round except loaded to much higher pressures, this round propelled the 198 gr sS projectile to 868 m/s through a 600mm barrel, which gives you a pretty good idea of the power of the 8x57 JS.

Check this out (All loads are below 56,000 psi MAP): Real Guns - Handload Data - 8x57mm JS Mauser

Other sites to check is reloadersnest.com, they have a lot of hot loads as-well.

As for the .45 ACP being a knock over, it's pure folklore and Hollywood deceit, people don't skip across the floor or fly backwards if hit by one, there's simply not enough force. The std. 9x19mm 124gr Parabellum round actually has a higher KE than the std. 230 gr .45 ACP round.

The std. .45 ACP round fires a 15g (230 gr) projectile at 260 m/s, which equals a kinetic energy of 507 Joules.

The std. 9mm Parabellum round fires a 8g (124 gr) projectile at 360 m/s which equals a kinetic energy of 518 Joules.

To no surprise these rounds are very similar to each other in terms energy brought to the target, and since both used FMJ bullet in the military so is their effect.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 16, 2008)

Hi guys

Firstly, we are not debating for sheep stations here...its meant to be a friendly discussion, to try and expand our collective understanding of the issues. Just because someone does not agree with something, does not mean that we need to take them out the back and shoot them. Lively debate is a very good thing, but personalising the argument is goiing to achieve nothing except getting the thread closed down.

Now, Soren, I have to reply to some of the issues you have raised



Soren said:


> Parsifal that just isn't true.
> 
> *If you look at the amount of the MG-34, MG-42, MP-40, G-43 StG.44's produced you'll realize that the German soldier was often the BEST equipped in the world. Now this coupled with the better training (Atleast up till late 44) is the reason behind the fact that everytime the numbers were equal the Germans always came out on top, something the Allied commanders stressed very much needed be taken into consideration before D-day, and they did. Patton mentions this as-well*.
> 
> ...


----------



## parsifal (Apr 16, 2008)

*As for the .45 ACP being a knock over, it's pure folklore and Hollywood deceit, people don't skip across the floor or fly backwards if hit by one, there's simply not enough force. The std. 9x19mm 124gr Parabellum round actually has a higher KE than the std. 230 gr .45 ACP round.

The std. .45 ACP round fires a 15g (230 gr) projectile at 260 m/s, which equals a kinetic energy of 507 Joules.

The std. 9mm Parabellum round fires a 8g (124 gr) projectile at 360 m/s which equals a kinetic energy of 518 Joules.

To no surprise these rounds are very similar to each other in terms energy brought to the target, and since both used FMJ bullet in the military so is their effect.[/QUOTE]*

They may have similar amounts of energy brought to the target, but this is not a good indicator of killing power. Killing power is a function of work, not kinetic energy, and in the physics associated with work, the mass factor is much more important


----------



## Soren (Apr 17, 2008)

Parsifal,

As a std. infantry rifle the K98k wasn't as good as the Garand, that is very true, it simply didn't have the same firepower. That we can definitely agree about. However compared to the Lee Enfield it's another matter entirely as the K98k was better in many ways, one of them was a longer effective range and better accuracy at long ranges. (There's a reason the Enfield was phased out and the Mauser still is used today)

Moving on...

The German doctrine revovled around the machine gun as the main squad weapon, the riflemen acting as support. The Allied doctrine was that the rifle was the main squad weapon, and the machine gun acted as support. You see the difference ?



> Mk43 stands for Maschinen Karabinier 43. Later models of the MK43 were renamed Sturmgewehr 44 (in English....Assault Rifle Model 1944). The design barely changed however.



Parsifal there was no smallarm designated Mk43 by the Germans during WW2. The weapon you're talking about is the MP-43 (Maschinenpistole 43), which wasn't produced in as large a number as the StG44 (_Sturmgewehr 44_) of which 425,977 examples were built alone.

You can read about why it was called the MP-43 and later StG44 on wiki as-well: StG44 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The 98K production amounted to about 11000000 rifles, whilst MK43 and G-43 each accounted for about 300000 each, give or take. That means that the 98K was going to be encountered 95% of the time.



You can't conclude that the K98k was going to be encountered 95% of the time by looking at numbers produced Parsifal. Remember that the K98k was being produced waay before WW2 even started and that a vast amount of countries bought litterally millions of examples.

Also keep in mind that the German army at its height numbered around 5.5 million.

Numbers of most of the weapons used by the German army:
MG-34 = 354,020
MG-42 = 414,964
FG-42 = 7,000
StG.44 = 425,977
MP-43 43/1 = ~70,000
G-43 = 456,200
MP-40 = 1,000,000
G-41 = 122,997
P-38 = 1,200,000
MG-26 30(t) = 33,000
S2-100 MG30 = 10,000
MG-81 = 46,000
MP-35 = 40,000
MP-41 = 26,700
_______________________
In all: 4,206,858 (excluding the P-08 Luger and many other weapons)

K98k = ~7,000,000 (11,000,000 produced in all)

So we can assume that around 60% of the German army was equipped with the K98k, and although not the ideal std. infantry weapon it did afterall perform beautifully and was repected the heck out of by everyone in the conflict, remember this was gun which was used for popping heads out past 1,000 meters.



> I am not conceding this point, but even if you are right, do you think the g-43 was greatly superior, or even equal to, the garand. It carries two more rounds in the magazine, thats about it from what i can see. i know this...I would rather 6000000 garands over 300000 G43s any day



The G-43 is not superior to the Garand but it's atleast its equal, having the advantage of two extra rounds and a interchangable magazine, something which will come in handy during combat, trust me.


----------



## Soren (Apr 17, 2008)

parsifal said:


> They may have similar amounts of energy brought to the target, but this is not a good indicator of killing power. Killing power is a function of work, not kinetic energy, and in the physics associated with work, the mass factor is much more important



The .45 ACP makes slight larger entry hole that's really it. On the other hand the 9mm Parabellum penetrates better.

Here's the wound cavity for the Parabellum 9mm 124 gr FMj bullet:






And the .45 ACP 230 gr FMJ:





*Note:* The picture are not in similar scale, the illustration of the Parabellum is smaller.

These were the projectiles used by the military and as you can see there's no real difference in effectiveness overall, despite the larger temporary cavity created by the 9x19mm at what would be the back of the person if the front torso was hit. They're both just as lethal to a human, and trust me I know this. You have to aim at the right place to drop a man instantly with one of these rounds. For example hit a man right in the middle of the torso with a 9mm and the bullet will sever the spinal cord and the guy is incapacitated instantly. (And then there's the head which is the prime target in most situations when you have to use a sidearm in the military, or spec ops atleast)


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2008)

Hi Soren

The mauser over open sights was not a better weapon at long range to the Lee Enfield. The reason is that the Sights on the Mauser were exceedingly poor.

I have experience with both weapons, and should point out that i am a qualified QMG, which would allow me to move to the next phase of my training, which is to qualify as a sniper. What you are saying is just not a true statement. The lee Enfield can easily out perform the Mauser for accuracy at ranges beyond 200 metres. This has nothing to do with the guns performance, it has to do with the exceptionally poor positioning of the open sights, and the short radius of those sights. 

Comments about the allied doctrine are just completely untrue. I have seen the Australian training manuls, which centred the squads firepower arond the squad MG (and other supporting arms. Your statment is just incorrect mate. 

MK 43...oh yes there is. You are relying on a wikiapedia site to prove your point. right at this minute I have six hard copy books open on my desk, all of them referring to the MK-43. they secondarily refer to this weapon as the stg-44. The correct name is the MK-43. Sorry, but once again you are wrong. The assualt rifle we are both referring to is also known as the MK-43
I know the MP-43, and I am NOT referring to the MP-43

With regard to your next point, yes i can conclude that 95% of front line units were equipped with the 98K. Previously i advised you that the only units equipped with the MK-43 were 2.5 divs. Thats out of a total of 72 divs on the western front at the time. Assuming the units that did not participate in the offensive would not have been equipped with Germany's premier sidearm, that means 2.5/72 or 3.5% of the formations on the western front were equipped with the weapon you are referring to 

Your refernece to 60% (with the remainder being met by the newer weapons) is just incorrect, because the total army returns are too low. The german armed forces actually amounting to 9.5 millions at their peak. even in late 1944 the amount of men in uniform amounted to 7.6 million. You cannot discount the LW Kriegsmarine, SS Replacement Army, and other paramilitaries just because they are notin the field grey. its a nonsense. My source for this, incidentally are the original Ersatzheer records, of which i have copies...It may be that 60% might just be right actually, but the difference is made up mostly by the foreign castoffs I referred to earlier, and not so much the wonder weapons that you would like to see there instead. So the quality of the German inventory is actually a lot lower than you think. 

So we can at least agree that the G-43 is not more efficient than the garand, so...that means that the 6000000 garands produced during the war are going to have a much greater impact than the 300000 G-43s, or are we going to redraw the boundaries here as well???

Have run out of time, will reply to your later post concerning killing power a bit later. It is wrong as well I am afraid, because it does not understand the basic physics behind the theory.....


----------



## eddie_brunette (Apr 17, 2008)

Everybody failed to mention the Galil and it is an icredible weapon. I've been lucky enought to shoot with some of the abovementioned weapons an IMHO only the AK is closed to it.

IMI Galil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2008)

hi eddie

Dont know much about it. Can yoou give a bit more detail. Why do you think it is so good, attributes and the like. i am interested to hear from you


----------



## Ramirezzz (Apr 17, 2008)

eddie_brunette said:


> ...an IMHO only the AK is closed to it.
> 
> IMI Galil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



no wonder regarding the fact that practically it IS an AK only with much better ergonomics


----------



## renrich (Apr 17, 2008)

Yep, the nine is such a great load that the FBI and many other law enforcement agencies quit using it and went to the 10mm, 40 and back to the 45 ACP. As we mentioned before many of the special ops groups in our military will not use the Beretta in 9mm but are using 1911 derivatives in 45 ACP. But, what do they know?


----------



## Soren (Apr 17, 2008)

That's because the Beretta is a piece of **** for a pistol Renrich, that's the only reason for that change. An FN Browning is a whole other story!


----------



## Soren (Apr 17, 2008)

Parsifal,

I disagree with you, according to all my sources you're wrong about everything in your post really, and I'd like to see the sources you have which mention the weapon designated Mk43 that you're refering to. There was no such weapon.

The German designations for the weapon (StG44) were first MP-43 then MP-43/1, these were to get the weapons to the front despite Hitler's denial, and it worked when he saw the excellent combat reports of the weapon. Having accepted weapon in light of its excellent performance in the field Hitler himself named it the Sturmgewehr and the designation from then on became StG.44. I have the manual for the weapon as-well if you're still not convinced.

Another site noting difference between the versions:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SccU2BppZeg_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2Xf0H-WkX0_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOFSdtUUQj0_

And as for shooting the K98K and Lee Enfield, Parsifal I own both rifles, and with iron sights they're just as accurate if you know how to use the V sights, many people don't which is the problem. I started out shooting with V sights, so I know how to use them. And there's nothing poor quality about the sights on the K98k at all! And that's fact! The iron sights on the K98k are sharply and precisely made, the tip of the front sight being very sharp which makes it great for long range shooting. (My K98k is a 1938 made model btw)


----------



## renrich (Apr 17, 2008)

The law enforcement agencies were not using the Beretta. The reason for the change was to get more lethality in the cartridge.


----------



## Soren (Apr 17, 2008)

Got proof ?

I've already shown that there's nearly no difference between the two's terminal ballistics..


----------



## Soren (Apr 17, 2008)

Oh and Spec Ops in general don't prefer the .45 ACP over the 9mm, some do that's true and others do the opposite, liking the 9mm better. A matter of taste. The effect on the target is the same.


----------



## Soren (Apr 17, 2008)

Anyway getting back on track my vote is for the G-36. A dream rifle.

German H&K's new HK416's internals are the same as the G36's, and look at how that beauty performs:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZpZryZEiY4_


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> Got proof ?
> 
> I've already shown that there's nearly no difference between the two's terminal ballistics..




No you havent. What youve shown is that you dont understand how to calculate hitting power. Dont make claims that you cant substantiate


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> Parsifal,
> 
> 
> And as for shooting the K98K and Lee Enfield, Parsifal I own both rifles, and with iron sights they're just as accurate if you know how to use the V sights, many people don't which is the problem. I started out shooting with V sights, so I know how to use them. And there's nothing poor quality about the sights on the K98k at all! And that's fact! The iron sights on the K98k are sharply and precisely made, the tip of the front sight being very sharp which makes it great for long range shooting. (My K98k is a 1938 made model btw)



Your position has changed. Previously you claimed that the 98 wa more accurate. Then I read in one of your posts that it was accurate out to 1000 metres, now you are saying it is just as accurate. So what is your actual position please

For the record, my position is the the sights on the wartime mausers were poorly set up, with insufficient radii. You have not responded to that, indicating that in fact you dont know what you are talking about. You see, I will rely on actual experience and proper research every time over unsubstantiated dogma. for me, your research is shoddy and questionable, and your experience minimal. Your dogma and blind obstinancy, however, is to be complemented.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> Parsifal,
> 
> I disagree with you, according to all my sources you're wrong about everything in your post really, and I'd like to see the sources you have which mention the weapon designated Mk43 that you're refering to. There was no such weapon.
> 
> ...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 18, 2008)

Soren said:


> Oh and Spec Ops in general don't prefer the .45 ACP over the 9mm, some do that's true and others do the opposite, liking the 9mm better. A matter of taste. The effect on the target is the same.



This is mostly true; I understand the SEAL teams went with 9mm a long time ago (back in Marcinko's day) and never looked back. Dunno about Army Spec Ops or MAU's, but Delta certainly prefers the ole M1911A1.


----------



## Soren (Apr 18, 2008)

parsifal said:


> No you havent. What youve shown is that you dont understand how to calculate hitting power. Dont make claims that you cant substantiate



Really ?? Enlighten me please!

All I can say is I find it funny you disregard actual test illustrations of both rounds terminal ballistics, oh well...



> My sources are
> 
> WWII Small Arms, John weeks, Orbis Publishing 1979
> 
> ...



I sense a hint of lying here Parsifal! But to give you a chance show me just a SINGLE reference to the StG44 EVER being designated Mk43.



> Your position has changed. Previously you claimed that the 98 wa more accurate. Then I read in one of your posts that it was accurate out to 1000 metres, now you are saying it is just as accurate. So what is your actual position please



My position hasn't changed at all. The K98k is a more accurate rifle, when you put a scope on it that is, otherwise it's the same, unless shooting at very long ranges where the K98k is better with iron sights as-well owing to its superior ballistics. Actually you'll find it very difficult to find any meaningful differences in accuracy between most of the rifles of WW2 if you're shooting them through iron sights.


----------



## Soren (Apr 18, 2008)

> so if you want to be further demolished, please, go ahead and say you dont believe me



ROFLMAO!!


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2008)

Soren said:


> Really ?? Enlighten me please!
> 
> All I can say is I find it funny you disregard actual test illustrations of both rounds terminal ballistics, oh well...
> 
> ...



So...are you arguing that the 98K was as accurate over open sights or not???


----------



## renrich (Apr 18, 2008)

The only proof needed is that the FBI and many other law enforcement agencies quit the nine and went to the larger calibers. Why would they do it if not advantageous? My Ranger friend considers the nine inadequate relatively!


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2008)

> Watch who you call a liar you little twirp



ROFLMAO!! 



> One source....okay John Weeks, Small Arms, Orbis Publishing Page 29 Armour Press . have scanned the relevant page and hopefully it will attach (not familiar on how to do that



Let me guess, another book from the late 60's right ? Get some more accurate updated sources Parsifal. 

I suggest that you take a look inside this book amongst many others: _German Automatic Weapons of World War II_ by Robert Bruce from 1998. An excellent book.

In short however the Germans NEVER and I repeat NEVER designated the weapon Mk43 (Maschinen karabiner 43), the first prototypes were designated Mkb42(H) Mkb42(W), which ironically stands for Maschinen Karabiner 42, the H standing for Haenel and the W for Walther, the two companies competing for the contract.

*Mkb42(W)*





*Mkb42(H)*





Haenel eventually won the rights and the MP-43 (Maschinen Pistole 43) rolled off the production lines.

*MP-43*





*MP-43/1*





*MP-44*





*StG44*(Exactly the same as the MP44, only diff. designation)





And here's a site you should read as-well Historic Firearm of the Month, February 2000, with sources listed at the bottom. I have the book by Peter Senich as-well his books on German Snipers, all excellent books.

From the site (And book):
_"Most interesting is the change in nomenclature from the machine carbine to machine pistol, which had heretofore indicated a submachinegun suitable for use at short distances only. This terminology issue dates to the prewar period, when, in German military circles, a machine carbine came to mean a short, semiautomatic rifle without an automatic fire capability. Despite this, when the Heereswaffenamt specifications for a new multipurpose infantry shoulder arm were outlined in the late 1930's, the term machine carbine was believed to best characterize the idea. However, in early 1942, Adolf Hitler began to deeply involve himself in the development and introduction of new weapons. Apparently, Hitler expressed more than a little displeasure at the thought of introducing an entirely new weapon and cartridge, and ordered work to cease on the machine carbine program. Despite this, certain groups within the Heereswaffenamt were more interested in fielding effective weaponry than respecting the Fuhrer's unreasonable orders. Therefore, the project continued on a more or less covert basis, with all references to the MKb being dropped altogether, and work continued under the designations MP42 and MP43 - the idea being to convey that these referred to improvements in existing weapons. Hitler was eventually clued in as to the true nature of the MP43 project and ordered an immediate termination to the project. However, a "special series" limited to those quantities of guns and parts already in production was authorized in March 1943. The forces behind the intermediate rifle concept took a very liberal view of what was already "in production." As an epilogue, when faced with very positive combat evaluations of the MP43 from Russia, Hitler finally changed his views, and in September 1943, the project was given official blessing and could continue openly. "_



parsifal said:


> So...are you arguing that the 98K was as accurate over open sights or not???



It was as accurate at all practical ranges and more accurate at very long ranges.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 21, 2008)

*Let me guess, another book from the late 60's right ? Get some more accurate updated sources Parsifal. *

Soren, John Weeks is an internationally recognized expert on small arms. I picked it because I thought it would be simple enough for you to understand. My version is a 1979 version incidentally. Also, the generally held concensus on how to conduct proper research is that the closer to the actual event, or item, in time, the more likley it is to be accurate. Later renditions on the same topic can perpetuate and accentuate an error from an earlier piece of research ion which that work is based. Im not saying that necessarily your quoted sources are suffering from this, what I am saying, my friend, is that your basic approach to reseach is incorrect. the closer to the actuall event of the work, the more reliable the source (as a general rule) 


*I suggest that you take a look inside this book amongst many others: German Automatic Weapons of World War II by Robert Bruce from 1998. An excellent book.

In short however the Germans NEVER and I repeat NEVER designated the weapon Mk43 (Maschinen karabiner 43), the first prototypes were designated Mkb42(H) Mkb42(W), which ironically stands for Maschinen Karabiner 42, the H standing for Haenel and the W for Walther, the two companies competing for the contract*.


Well I have presented evidence that suggests otherwise, which is good enough for me. We are talking about the same firearm soren, so no, i am not going to take up your offer and go and look again. I have better things to do frankly. 


*It was as accurate at all practical ranges and more accurate at very long ranges.[/QUOTE]*

Again, Ive got evidence and experience to suggest that over open sights the 98k suffered in terms of accuracy, because of the poor sight radii of the sights, and the positioning of the sights on the firearm itself. Obviously I am never going to be able to convince you of this, but I dont accept your position. Its a mexican standoff. One last point, however, the enfield has not been withdrawn from service. It is no longer considered a first line weapon, but is still held in considerable numbers by most Commonwealth countries.; in places like India in particular, it was used as a main sidearm until the '70s at least. It is still used as a police issue and second line weapon, and is extensively used as a training weapon as well. 

I dont think I am inclined to respond to any further replies from you on this issue. My background checks of you reveal that you have a bit of a history at this sort of never ending rubbish. Whilst I congratulate you on your obstinancy, this does not make for interesting and engaging conversation my friend. I have no wish to waste time on this issue much further, though I am sure we will cross swords again.


----------



## fly boy (Apr 21, 2008)

ok heres my list 
1ak-47 of corse
2 m-1 grand
3 m-16
4 m-4 carbine
5 mouser 98
6 mp43
7 spring field 1903
8 winchester
9 mousen megent
10 m-14


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2008)

My understanding as well is that there was no *Mk43*.

There was however a *MKb42.* The *MKb42* stands for *Maschinenkarabiner 1942, which litterally translates to Machine Carbine.

There was also a MKb43 based off of the MP43, but as far as I know it was never actually produced except for prototypes (not sure if this is correct though).

However Soren and parsifal, you both need to tone it down a bit. You can discuss this reasonably. Dont get this thread closed either.

My question is this: Whenever a thread does get closed why is it usually a thread that Soren is involved in?*


----------



## Kurfürst (Apr 21, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Thanks Wildcat. Do you know people in Adelaide. One of my best mates is Kev Reid, recently retired from the RAAF, a W/O, was a loadmaster serving in the C130 J sqn?
> 
> I see as usual that people are nominating the mauser. There is no easy way to put this, its a terrible gun, very nasty. Not outstandingly accurate (at least the 1935 98K, mostly because of the short sight radius), slow and cumbersome in the action, hard to build relatively, at the end of the war suffered from QA problems, small magazine.
> 
> ...



The Mauser 98 was basically the AK-47 of its time, bought, licensed by dozens and dozens of countries. The Springfield is basically an Americanised Mauser, for example. It was just an increadibly successfull design, and the famous `98 Mauser system is still widely copied, its very good, strong and smooth indeed! The British planned to replaced the SMLE with a Mauser system bolt action rifle as well, but, WW1 intervened and they needed rifles fast, hence the SMLE stayed.

As to criticism like small magazine, short sight radius - I can`t really understand this, the Mauser 98 shares the 5 round clip magazine, relatively short sight distance with the majority of bolt action rifles of the time, so I don`t really get why to pick at the `98 because of that. It`s a nice, compact and handy, reliable bolt action rifle of which what, something like 100 million+ was built..?

Otherwise, I think the original thread starter`s list is very reasonable, and I can agree with it, though I am personally a great fan of the Steyr AUG, I can accept its historical importance is much less than these classic weapons, no matter how much I like the design itself.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 21, 2008)

Der Adler

I dont want the thread closed down. I hear you, and wont let my comments get out of hand again on this thread. I got angry when I was accused of being a liar, and when i saw other people being verbally bullied. 

I have been told by some cooler heads that the best way of dealing with this situation is to ignore the inflammatory posts, this is what i intend to do

Its obvious to me that the references to MP-43, and MK-43, and Stg 44 are, for practical purposes, refernces to the same design. There is little further to be gained by further arguing that strand of the debate in my opinion.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 21, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> *The Mauser 98 was basically the AK-47 of its time, bought, licensed by dozens and dozens of countries. The Springfield is basically an Americanised Mauser, for example. It was just an increadibly successfull design, and the famous `98 Mauser system is still widely copied, its very good, strong and smooth indeed! The British planned to replaced the SMLE with a Mauser system bolt action rifle as well, but, WW1 intervened and they needed rifles fast, hence the SMLE stayed*.
> 
> The SMLE was planned to be replaced during WWI principally because of the rough handling it had received with the Boers. Basically the british were terrible shots. Having made the decision to stay with the Enfield, the British concentrated on improving the marksmanship of the tommys. After Mons, there was never any doubt in the british minds that the decision to stay with the Enfield was the right one
> 
> ...



Agree with you about the shortlist, although some of the newer weapons have not been included, probably because they are not so well known


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 21, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Its obvious to me that the references to MP-43, and MK-43, and Stg 44 are, for practical purposes, refernces to the same design. There is little further to be gained by further arguing that strand of the debate in my opinion.



Agreed; as far as I'm concerned, an Stg44 is an Stg44 is an Stg44. Arguing about the many permutations of it's nomenclature is pretty pointless. I will always like the Stg44 because it was the first true assault rifle, designed as such from it's inception. It is, if nothing else, the grandaddy of the AK, M16, G36, and FN-FAL.


----------



## Soren (Apr 22, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> My question is this: Whenever a thread does get closed why is it usually a thread that Soren is involved in?[/b]




Because I stand by what I say perhaps ??


----------



## Soren (Apr 22, 2008)

> Whereas Allied soldiers were often only too willing to use other captured german weapons (like pistols smgs and the like) there are very few examples of the Mausers being employed in this way....reason, poor performance.....



Pure fabrication! 

There's a freakin reason it's the most copied rifle of all time !! It's an excellent performer which frequently kicked the ass of the SMLE in combat, and mostly because of its longer effective range.


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2008)

Sorry Soren but this posting is rubbish. 
There is no doubt that the British at least often used German SMG's in fact it was the policy of the Essex Regiment to dump Stens and replace them with German MP's.
There is also no doubt that the Allies did not use the Mauser 98, the Americans because the Garrand Rifle was a major improvement in combat over any bolt action rifle.
The British because the Lee Enfield was a better rifle. With a faster rate of fire and double the ammunition it had clear advantages. 
As for the range question. All three rifles were more than accurate enough for normal combat ranges and as for maximum ranges there was nothing in it but its worth noting that the Lee Enfield Sniper is considered to be a classic. 

I haven't used the Mauser but I have fired the Lee Enfield at 700 yards with good results. 
It was fitted with peep sights not the normal iron or telescopic sights.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 22, 2008)

Something to keep in mind as well, the overall impact of sidearms as a whole was actually quite minor. I have read somewhere some years ago about a study made in the US on the origins of battlefield casualties in WWII. Something like over 50% of casualties were the result of artillery, with small arms like rifles etc only accounting for something like 10% of casualties. I cant verify this claim, because I cant remember the source, but I know that I read the thing somewhere, and the study appeared credible to me. 

Facts are that Infantry weapons are primarily defensive, and Infantry has two main functions in life, to keep the enemy Infantry away from ones own killing machines, and to occupy enemy territiry. There are a lot of other functions as well, I know, but these are the defined chief functions of the Infantry force


----------



## Soren (Apr 22, 2008)

Glider said:


> Sorry Soren but this posting is rubbish.



Nope.



> There is no doubt that the British at least often used German SMG's in fact it was the policy of the Essex Regiment to dump Stens and replace them with German MP's.



Agreed, and never disputed that, I was refering to the Allies never using the Mauser, I know they did and I even have pictures to prove it.



> There is also no doubt that the Allies did not use the Mauser 98,



Rubbish, that is a claim you can't substantiate with any evidence.



> The British because the Lee Enfield was a better rifle. With a faster rate of fire and double the ammunition it had clear advantages.



It wasn't any bit a better rifle and it had some clear disadvantages, namely shorter effective range, weaker action and rimmed ammunition.



> As for the range question. All three rifles were more than accurate enough for normal combat ranges and as for maximum ranges there was nothing in it but its worth noting that the Lee Enfield Sniper is considered to be a classic.



And the Mauser is considered the best bolt action rifle of all time, so as you can see there's a difference.



> I haven't used the Mauser but I have fired the Lee Enfield at 700 yards with good results.



Me as-well, aint that hard, the Lee Enfield is a very accurate rifle there's no doubt about it, but beyond 700m and you're starting to have trouble. The faster, lower drag and heavier 7.92mm bullet solves that problem and is what makes the K98k the best rifle of the era for long range work.



> It was fitted with peep sights not the normal iron or telescopic sights.



Peep sights are std. on the Enfield rifles, the volley sight is more exotic.

As for peep sights vs V sights, I prefer V sights for accuracy. The problem many people have with the V sights is directly linked to their vision not being good enough, they simply can focus well enough. But for people with good vision the V sight is great and very accurate, as long as you know how to use it properly ofcourse.


----------



## renrich (Apr 22, 2008)

Let me see if I have this right. The Mauser used by the Germans in WW1 and WW2 was designed in the late 1800s. It is considered the best bolt action rifle of all time. No one has been able to improve on that design in more than a century. And it had more range than any other Allied rifle in WW2. Hmmmm. Wonder why the snipers the US military has don't use Mausers or Mauser actions?


----------



## road_apple1861 (Apr 22, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I dont think it is a bad list but I can probably think of better guns than the M-16.



Yea i can too. M-16 has had a long road since it was intorduced with jamming and constant cleaning.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 22, 2008)

I have only one thing to say . . . . .


----------



## Soren (Apr 22, 2008)

renrich said:


> Let me see if I have this right. The Mauser used by the Germans in WW1 and WW2 was designed in the late 1800s. It is considered the best bolt action rifle of all time. No one has been able to improve on that design in more than a century. And it had more range than any other Allied rifle in WW2. Hmmmm. Wonder why the snipers the US military has don't use Mausers or Mauser actions?



There isn't any action in the world today which is markedly better Renrich. The only major improvements in design between the bolt action rifle designs back then and now is the thicker free floating barrel and the tricker mechanism, the actions arent any better. 

_Most "improvements" on the Model 98 design are in fact attempts to cut production costs--the Mauser 98 is an expensive action to manufacture._

The M98 action was designed in 1898 to be exact, and has been copied ever since till this day, hence why it's considered the best of all time.

Oh and as for the US snipers, well the Remingston action they use is a very close copy of the M98 action. Btw I like the way you just dismissed the choice of arms by the rest of the Sniper units in the world..


----------



## Soren (Apr 22, 2008)

> the closer to the actuall event of the work, the more reliable the source (as a general rule)



Parsifal that is so very far from the truth, and you go ahead and ask nearly every person on this forum about that. It has taken till the early to mid 90's before many documents have at all become available for researchers writing about this stuff, and thus much of their work is either incorrect or incomplete.

The designation Mk43 might have been an Allied designation for the weapon, but it wasn't a German one, I can assure you of that. Most likely it is just the author's designation for the weapon, I see mistakes like this so very often in books that old.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 22, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> I have only one thing to say . . . . .



Yep....I apologise for contributing to this train wreck. still, its kinda cool to watch as the tragedy unfolds dont you think


----------



## Glider (Apr 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> Rubbish, that is a claim you can't substantiate with any evidence.



Show us your photographs of British troops using the Mauser as a preference to the Lee Enfield. I have never seen any such photos or heard of any reference to this being done.



> It wasn't any bit a better rifle and it had some clear disadvantages, namely shorter effective range, weaker action and rimmed ammunition.


This is rubbish. It had at least as good a range as the Mauser ( I take it you know that the first Lee Enfields were sighted to 2000 yards for volley fire)
The action was perfectly reliable and the 303 ammo didn't have any problems of any note and was used for many years as standard in many weapons.

Its worth noting that at extreme ranges the Lee Enfield had one advantage over the Mauser. It was more tollerant to varied ammuition quality whereas the Mauser wasn't. 

*Question* Are you saying that having half the ammunition and a slower rate of fire *isn't *a disadvantage?



> And the Mauser is considered the best bolt action rifle of all time, so as you can see there's a difference.


By Whom?



> Peep sights are std. on the Enfield rifles.



These were Target shooting peep sights which differ from the standard sights.



> As for peep sights vs V sights, I prefer V sights for accuracy. The problem many people have with the V sights is directly linked to their vision not being good enough, they simply can focus well enough. But for people with good vision the V sight is great and very accurate, as long as you know how to use it properly ofcourse.



Out of interest, can I ask how accurate are you with a V sight at 700 yards? I admit that I would be lucky to hit the target using the V.


----------



## renrich (Apr 23, 2008)

The Mauser is considered the best bolt action rifle of all time by that imminent authority, Soren. However, that authority has just stated that" there isn't any action in the world which is markedly better." Hmmmmm, perhaps there might be an action which is a tiny bit better or slightly better. I am glad all those gun makers haven't labored for over 100 years without making at least some progress. The facts are that in the summer of 1914, the "Old Contemptibles" regularly outshot and outranged the German troops. The British were armed with the Enfield and Mausers armed the Germans. Horrors! Perhaps the Brits were just better trained at rapid, long range fire than the Germans. Yep, I used the US military sniper weapons as an example for the simple reason that no other country has had the combat experience that the US military has had since 1945.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 23, 2008)

Dont bother Richard, you are wasting your time.


----------



## Messy1 (Apr 23, 2008)

My personal favorite is the M1 Garand. I am planning on owning one in the near future! 


I just like to add that these long posts make for some dangerous reading at work!!


----------



## renrich (Apr 23, 2008)

If you can find a Garand in good condition you are getting a piece of history that will always be worth more than you paid for it.


----------



## Messy1 (Apr 23, 2008)

renrich, I have been trying to find an original service rifle, but pickings around here are becoming slim.


----------



## Soren (Apr 23, 2008)

renrich said:


> The facts are that in the summer of 1914, the "Old Contemptibles" regularly outshot and outranged the German troops.



Bullshit. 

The Mauser outranged the Endfield easily, and the German snipers demonstrated that very thuroughly during WW1. Go ahead and read Peter Senich's book on German snipers throughout WW1 2.



> Yep, I used the US military sniper weapons as an example for the simple reason that no other country has had the combat experience that the US military has had since 1945.



A simple but very illogical reason.. So let me get you straight, you just brush aside the epxerience the Royal Army, French Foreign legion, Russian army, German army etc etc has accumulated over the years ??? Ignorance at its highest.

Just so you know the US sniper training program used today is based on the German sniper training program from WW2, yep it's nearly an exact copy and they're not the only country using it today either.

And as for Sniper rifles, guess who still makes the most accurate: Germany.

Notably: Erma, DSR Walther.

*DSR-1, sub .2 MOA rifle.*


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


wrong again the US used the Canadian Sylabus after the US forces had deemed the sniper redundant in the early 70's they omce again reinstaed the sniper training using the Canadian model


----------



## Soren (Apr 23, 2008)

> wrong again the US used the Canadian Sylabus after the US forces had deemed the sniper redundant in the early 70's they omce again reinstaed the sniper training using the Canadian model



Which is nearly a true copy of the German program: Read Peter Senich's book.


----------



## Soren (Apr 23, 2008)

German sniper training was much ahead of its day and Germany was also the first country to have actual Sniper Schools for training snipers, which was a long affair:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKIxXsclyw8_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngN9STonvxA_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVQAbbdrGwQ_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL-00gV2hmM_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lafV-g3w-4A_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ1zqlX2Ucc_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0HJE2-ZuyE_


----------



## Soren (Apr 23, 2008)

A little more showing some varius training exercises:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORlN2fmNmsY_


----------



## Soren (Apr 23, 2008)

> Show us your photographs of British troops using the Mauser as a preference to the Lee Enfield.



In preference ?? Err, how the heck are you gonna tell that from a picture ? 

Ever seen a German soldier with a Lee Enfield ?? NO.

Here's an American GI with a K98k:


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 23, 2008)

Soren you can't tell from that pic if that US Soldier took that Mauser so that he could use it.

In fact I seriously doubt he took it so that he could use it.

Why?

Look at his right shoulder and what is slung over it. It is is his personal rifle and he is holding the Mauser at port arms.

Why?

Because he picked up the Mauser and was having a photo taken with it. The soldier was not going to walk around with 2 rifles for the hell of it.
*
That picture is no evidence at all! Come on you are smarter than that!*


----------



## Kurfürst (Apr 23, 2008)

Glider said:


> The British because the Lee Enfield was a better rifle. With a faster rate of fire and double the ammunition it had clear advantages.



The SMLE didn`t have a faster rate of fire. It may have been more suitable for fast firing than the old WW1 Mauser with its straight bolt handle (which OTOH was ballistically superior), the Kar98 which had a similiar bent bolt handle. Practical rate of fire was the same. 

As to double the ammuniton, I fail to see the point. The SMLE magazine holds 10 rounds,_ but it was fed by the same 5-round clips as the Mauser, Mosin, Springfield etc._ I don`t see much difference between inserting two five-round clips and then firing 10 shots, or firing 5 shots, insert a five-round clip, fire 5 shots again, insert another five-round clip. In practical terms, the second clip is probably much more difficult to insert into the SMLE, given you already have rounds in the magazine. More than five rounds in these clip fed bolt action rifles do not seem to have gained any popularity with designers and soldiers - for the WW1 Mauser Gewehr 98, the Germans introduced a 20-round magazine, but it was abandoned.

Infantry soldier carried apprx. the same number of rifle rounds with them, ie. 45 to 60.

As to the merits of the two design, IMHO the extreme success of the Mauser 98 based bolt action rifle systems speaks for itself. As I said, it was the AK of its time. No country that had any say in it choose the SMLE over it, the latter is pretty much restricted to the British Empire and its former colonies/dominions. Even the British wanted it before WW1 over the SMLE, leading to their Pattern 13 rifles with the Mauser bolt.

As to using enemy weapons, ammo is a big consideration. British troops could pick up an MP 40 and use it without problem, their Sten fired the same 9mm Parabellum round; the bolt action rifles OTOH fired completely different rounds.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 23, 2008)

May I ask Soren what subject your not on expert on , it isn't aerodynamics,artlilery, submarines , armour ,jet propulsion ,please let me know as i feel insignificant with your overpowering intellect


----------



## Soren (Apr 23, 2008)

Adler, like I said: how the heck are you gonna tell that from a picture ??

I have pictures of German soldiers running around with US M1 carbines. Why ? Because they were low on ammo ofcourse and so they'd happily grab an enemy weapon in order to be able to defend themselves. Got pictures of Germans carrying Sten guns as-well, a weapon which wasn't exactly known as a prize winner.

The point however is that Soldiers from all sides took and used each other's weapons, sometimes because they prefered the other weapon but most oftenly because they had no more amo for their own and there always was plenty of enemy ammo around.


----------



## Soren (Apr 23, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> May I ask Soren what subject your not on expert on , it isn't aerodynamics,artlilery, submarines , armour ,jet propulsion ,please let me know as i feel insignificant with your overpowering intellect



Expert ? Have I ever claimed to be an expert in all of these fields or even one of them ??

Quit the bullshit pbfoot.


----------



## Glider (Apr 23, 2008)

I think this site will be of interest going into detail of German Snipers. What I find interesting is that the second highest scoring German Sniper used a captured Russian snipers rifle. 
Also the G43 didn't have a good reputation in this field and 600 mtrs was the normal maximum range for the vast majority.

Snipers Paradise


----------



## Soren (Apr 23, 2008)

Sepp Allerberger used the captured Nagant only for two years Glider, he then got accepted for Sniper training and recieved the K98k which he btw says himself was the best.

Oh and note that Hetzenauer could hit a standing man at 800m with 100% guarantee, pretty darn good with a six power scope!

As for the G43, well it's a semi auto rifle and semi autos are inherently less accurate than bolt action rifles which have far less moving parts. The cycling mechanism alone decreases accuracy.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> Expert ? Have I ever claimed to be an expert in all of these fields ??
> 
> Quit the bullshit pbfoot.


every time you talk you claim to be the expert I've never read a statement were you say , I'm not sure or I may be mistaken or anything akin to that


----------



## Soren (Apr 23, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> every time you talk you claim to be the expert I've never read a statement were you say , I'm not sure or I may be mistaken or anything akin to that



Well here's some advice for you then: Read my posts.

I have never claimed to be an expert in any of those fields pbfoot, and I challenge you to find just a single time where I announced myself an expert on any of those subjects.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well here's some advice for you then: Read my posts.
> 
> I have never claimed to be an expert in any of those fields pbfoot, and I challenge you to find just a single time where I announced myself an expert on any of those subjects.


read your own posts I'm punished everytime I do


----------



## Glider (Apr 23, 2008)

Kaufaust Re the rate of fire a few quotes I would appreciate any example from yourself supporting your claim that the K98 was as fast.

_It was estimated that the highly trained British Expeditionary Force that arrived in France in September 1914, were able to fire 15 rounds per minute. The Lee-Enfield could be aimed accurately over about 600 metres but could still kill someone over 1,400 metres away._ Lee Enfield Rifle

_Much to everyone’s surprise, the S.M.L.E. turned out to be an excellent combat rifle. The British troops, now superbly trained in musketry (particularly accurate rapid fire), were handing out a thorough drubbing to the German infantry. On occasion, the Germans believed themselves to be under machine gun fire, such was the accuracy and rapidity of the rifle fire directed at them._ 

_With the outbreak of the Great war British troops were still armed with the "poor" SMLE Mk.III rifles, which soon turned far from any "poor", giving some hard time to the Germans. In fact, the SMLE Mk.III was a really good rifle, quite accurate, reliable and suitable for rapid and accurate firing. British soldiers were rigorously trained for both individual and volley fire marksmanship, and were routinely capable of firing 30 aimed shots per minute, which was quite a rate of fire for any non-automatic rifle.

British Commonwealth forces used the Lee Enfield Mark 4 as their main rifle. Although bolt action, its locking mechanism made it the fastest bolt action rifle in the world. Its long service also permitted its design to be optimized over time to make it very rugged and reliable.
The trained soldier could fire 30 aimed rounds at a target 200 meters in one minute (known as "the mad minute")._

Re your comment on the ammunition capacity. Are you really telling me that you wouldn't prefer to go into action with 10 rounds in your rifle instead of 5 rounds. Because if you are I would ask you to find anyone to support that view.

Re your comment about the British wanting the Walther version this was considered but disregarded as the Lee Enfield proved itself.

If the Lee Enfield was so poor then why was the Sniper version in use until the 1980's remembering that the British always put a high premium on accuracy and sniper skills.


----------



## Kurfürst (Apr 23, 2008)

With you tendency for name calling and childish, nationalistic arguements, you have earned your place on my ignore list, Glider.

*Re your comment on the ammunition capacity. Are you really telling me that you wouldn't prefer to go into action with 10 rounds in your rifle instead of 5 rounds. Because if you are I would ask you to find anyone to support that view.*

Oh I can find plenty. After all, everybody wanted Mausers. Persians wanted it. Yugos wanted it. The Swedes wanted it. The Yanks copied it. Should I go on how many countries choose it as their service weapon...? Hell even _the French_ copied it and replaced the famous Lebel with a Mauser-action rifle, the MAS 36. All had 5-round capacity, as did the Mosin bolt action rifles (which are unrelated to the Mauser, and pretty clumsy, I own 3 of them. Still, they are sufficient weapons for a simple soldier.).

Nobody wanted the SMLEs, outside the British Empire that is, where there wasn`t that much of a choice.. It wasn`t a weapon of choice for most countries, the Mauser was. As a matter of fact, even the British wanted a 5-round magazine, as the Pattern 13 and 14 rifles, designed by Enfield engineers that were to replace the SMLEs reverted to a 5 round magazine.

*On occasion, the Germans believed themselves to be under machine gun fire, such was the accuracy and rapidity of the rifle fire directed at them. *

Funny the same story can be found in every British book... always without a source or any confirmation from the German side. 

As the rate of fire achiavable with a Kar 98, I suggest you check the end of this youtube clip:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ck2v4iehVY_

Of course this type of firing is totally pointless for anyone who has some experience on the range - there`s no way to fire at this as accurately 
I guess British obsession with this RoF thing was a result of their colonial wars, and certain Zulu chieftains habit of using British army officer skulls as teacups.

And of course the _propaganda-value_ RoF price goes to the French - IIRC they managed to demonstrate - with a specially trained crew of course - that they could fire their famous M1897 75mm gun at something like _90 rounds/min_. Totally useless and inpractical for anything else than propaganda purposes of course.

*Re your comment about the British wanting the Walther version this was considered but disregarded as the Lee Enfield proved itself.*

The British wanted the Mauser, not the Walther. I am not sure Walther was in business at all at the time.. The British wanted a Mauser 98 bolt system to be introduced and replacing the SMLE bolts, just before WW1, largely because the Mauser system is simply better, and more robust, also easier to manufacture. WW1 intervened, and altough the rifle was presented, the British army needed rifles, and lots of them. And after the war, they had a lot on stock, and besides, everybody was too bankrupt to even think of replacing all those millions of rifles and billions of rounds they had for them in storage.

*If the Lee Enfield was so poor then why was the Sniper version in use until the 1980's remembering that the British always put a high premium on accuracy and sniper skills.*

I guess because Britain was not in a good economical shape at the time, rather than the qualities of the rifle itself. Everyone else moved on by that time, or employed more modern bolt action designs. Most armies simply integrated a designated marksman of some kind for the infantry squad - the USSR for example with it`s famous SVD for example.

As for the SMLE, its not a poor rifle by any standard, it is just my impression that it is sorrounded in Britain, and to a lesser extent, in the Anglo-Saxon world with a sort of hype far in excess of its actual qualities. The Americans have something similiar towards the Springfield, but that`s just another Mauser 98, as are many of even todays modern hunting rifles.


----------



## Soren (Apr 23, 2008)

> Re your comment about the British wanting the Walther version this was considered but disregarded as the Lee Enfield proved itself.



Wrong, the Lee Enfield was retained because so many were in stock and because of insufficient funds and time to amass any new rifle.



> If the Lee Enfield was so poor then why was the Sniper version in use until the 1980's remembering that the British always put a high premium on accuracy and sniper skills.



The .303 Enfield stopped being used in 1960 Glider, it wasn't used in the 80's. The 7.62x51 NATO L42A1 was used up until the 80's after which is was replaced by the L96.


----------



## Glider (Apr 23, 2008)

Kurfurst
I have never called you a name, I have always supported my arguments with quotes and examples and where I have been unable to find a quote I have admitted it.
My only crime that I can think of, is to ask you to support your statements, something you have consistantly failed to do. This last posting is a good example.


----------



## Glider (Apr 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> Wrong, the Lee Enfield was retained because so many were in stock and because of insufficient funds and time to amass any new rifle.



Soren 
My posting was based on the following two quotes

_The common thinking of the period was to issue the long rifle for infantry and the carbine for cavalry, artillery and other such troops. The Brits decided to replace this variety of sizes with one, "intermediate" size, that will fit all niches. This "one size fits all" rifle was called ".303 caliber, Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield, Mark 1", or, in short SMLE Mk.I, where "short" referred to the length of the rifle. This rifle passed some improvements during the following pre-WW1 years, finalizing in the 1907 as a SMLE Mk.III. Development and introduction into service of this rifle was accompanied with constant complaints of some "theorists", which stated that this rifle would be no good neither for infantry, nor for cavalry, so RSAF was set do design another rifle, patterned after the German Mauser, which also should be more suitable for mass production, than the SMLE. This rifle finally appeared in 1914 as an ".303 caliber Enfield Pattern 1914 rifle", or simply a P-14. With the outbreak of the Great war British troops were still armed with the "poor" SMLE Mk.III rifles, which soon turned far from any "poor", giving some hard time to the Germans. In fact, the SMLE Mk.III was a really good rifle, quite accurate, reliable and suitable for rapid and accurate firing. British soldiers were rigorously trained for both individual and volley fire marksmanship, and were routinely capable of firing 30 aimed shots per minute, which was quite a rate of fire for any non-automatic rifle. There were times when advancing Germans were impressed that they were under the machine gun fire, when Tommie used their salvo-firing techniques. During the war time the basic Mk.III design was slightly simplified to better suit the mass production needs, with omission of "volley" sights and magazine cutoffs, and with some production shortcuts. _


As it turned out, there was never any question of the P-14 replacing the Lee-Enfield. Far from it. The superiority of the Lee was now firmly entrenched, and the Bisley-like refinements of the P-14 left the British soldiery profoundly under-whelmed. They were primarily used for training and general rear echelon work, although some P-14’s saw considerable front line work as sniper rifles. Here their enhanced accuracy potential could be effectively utilised, and the P-14 was highly regarded in this role. 





> The .303 Enfield stopped being used in 1960 Glider, it wasn't used in the 80's. The 7.62x51 NATO L42A1 was used up until the 80's after which is was replaced by the L96.


You are correct re the calibre in use but the basic weapon was the Lee Enfield and in my defence, I did say the Sniper Version as a general statement. This was in production until around 1985 as the L42A1 a remarkable length of service.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 23, 2008)

I thought it might be useful to look over the shoulder, and see what some other internet sites are saying. My search was on the basis of “best bolt Action in WWII” and I was staggered to find the number of entries under that parameter. There were a number of discussion forums, and one poll that I found. Opinion is sharply divided about which was the best. The consistent front runners were the Enfield and the Mauser, although there were quite a few who support the Russian Moisin Nagant, for a number of reasons.

The poll that I found, concluded that the enfield was the best rifle, being voted by 46% of those polled. The Mauser came in second, with about 37%. There sample size was 142, which IMO is pretty reasonable.

Its clear to me that there are those who are never going to accept the views of the majority, no matter what. The prejudices are simply too strong to break down.. That’s okay, people are entitled to their opinion. But IMO the Enfield is a superior military weapon to the Mauser. Guess I am one of the prejudiced as well…….

Here are the links to three of the sites that I found. I looked at a lot of sites, incidentally, and tried to take a representative sample of what I found, 

The only thing this “mini survey” shows, is that opinion is very divided on this subject. It has made me realize that it is dangerous, and erroneous to make alleged irrefutable claims about either rifle. It seems that just about anything is refutable 

Favorite WWII Bolt-Action rifle - Page 10 - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History

Best Military Bolt action of all time? - The Firearms Forum.Com

http://www.gunslot.com/blog/guns-top-ten-10-military-rifles-all-time-w-pics


----------



## Glider (Apr 24, 2008)

Kurfurst
Well you gave a reply which is good. Taking your points one at a time 

Ammunition
Well if you want to go in with half the ammo thats your funeral

Rate of Fire
Be fair I did give you 4 different quotes from different sources and all you can do is say they came from the same story. Not impressive
No doubt that the Mauser is a good weapon but you have to stop twice as many times to reload so the number of shots will drop.

Pattern 13/14
I covered that with two quotes from diffferent sources in my reply to Soren. Can you supply a quote to support your statement

Long Life in Front Line
To blame it on the cost is a poor statement which I would be interested to see, if you can support it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Adler, like I said: how the heck are you gonna tell that from a picture ??
> 
> I have pictures of German soldiers running around with US M1 carbines. Why ? Because they were low on ammo ofcourse and so they'd happily grab an enemy weapon in order to be able to defend themselves. Got pictures of Germans carrying Sten guns as-well, a weapon which wasn't exactly known as a prize winner.
> 
> The point however is that Soldiers from all sides took and used each other's weapons, sometimes because they prefered the other weapon but most oftenly because they had no more amo for their own and there always was plenty of enemy ammo around.



The point is the picture is no evidence.

I agree with you that the K98 is a great weapon. I enjoy shooting it from time to time but fact is that the Gerand had advantages over it too.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 24, 2008)

One of the discussion boards I posted raises a point, which I think will bring a smile to this rather dour discussion. Basically the Mauser as the main sidearm of nations has not won, or helped to win a single war for its owners, whereas the enfield has won every major conflict that it was a part of. Havent checked the veracity of these claims, and it was a very tongue in cheek statement, but it kinda makes you think for a minute.....does that mean that for the greatest poll, ie the ones that matter, ie the two world wars, that the enfield is leading 2-0 over the mauser????


----------



## Soren (Apr 24, 2008)

Glider,

The SMLE was only retained because:

A.) There wasn't enough time to acquire the new weapon (Vickers were only capable of building a handful)
B.) A lack of sufficient funds
C.) The Enfield proved, despite its deficiencies, that it could still fulfill the its role to a satisfactory degree.

Now regarding the RoF of Enfield and Mauser, well Kurfurst brings up some very good points. The primary difference between the M98 action and Enfield action however is that the Enfield is slightly quicker to operate, but we're talking milliseconds here, and the time is quickly gained back when the Enfield has to reload which takes over twice as long as it does for the Mauser.

Another thing about the Enfield action is that it isn't nearly as safe as the M98 action, and it'll blow your head to bits if don't clean it properly. The M98 action never blows up, and it makes sure that excessisve gasses are vented away. Nomatter what you do to the M98 action it wont blow up in your face, heck welding the barrel shut and the action still easily holds solid. 

Thus Glider, the M98 is better suited for firing ammo of varying degrees in quality, while this can be bloody unsafe with the Enfield.


----------



## Soren (Apr 24, 2008)

parsifal said:


> One of the discussion boards I posted raises a point, which I think will bring a smile to this rather dour discussion. Basically the Mauser as the main sidearm of nations has not won, or helped to win a single war for its owners, whereas the enfield has won every major conflict that it was a part of. Havent checked the veracity of these claims, and it was a very tongue in cheek statement, but it kinda makes you think for a minute.....does that mean that for the greatest poll, ie the ones that matter, ie the two world wars, that the enfield is leading 2-0 over the mauser????



So let me get this straight, you're boiling entire wars down to which rifle the various nations were issuing ??? This is as stupid as when people claim, _"The Allies won the war so everything they made was better!"_

Fact is that the Mauser is the better rifle, the mass production of the rifle up until this day prooves that point more than anything. Nearly every hunting rifle today is of the Mauser 98 design, now if that doesn't say something then what does ??


----------



## Glider (Apr 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Glider,
> 
> The SMLE was only retained because:
> 
> ...


Re the P14 I stand by the statements that I found if you can find any that support your position then that is fine.
Re the ROF can you or Kurfurst find any statement that supports your position that the K98 had a faster ROF remembering that the K98 has to reload twice as often? 



> Another thing about the Enfield action is that it isn't nearly as safe as the M98 action, and it'll blow your head to bits if don't clean it properly. The M98 action never blows up, and it makes sure that excessisve gasses are vented away. Nomatter what you do to the M98 action it wont blow up in your face, heck welding the barrel shut and the action still easily holds solid.


This is totally new to me. I have a number of books on the weapon, have checked a number of sites and spoken to people who own them but none of them mention the Lee Enfield having any tendancy to blow up in your face. Again can I ask for anything that supports this statement?



> Thus Glider, the M98 is better suited for firing ammo of varying degrees in quality, while this can be bloody unsafe with the Enfield.



Again I must differ on this. German snipers had access to special batches of ammunition which was of a higher quality than normal ammo to ensure accuracy. British Snipers used normal issue ammo. The only precaution taken by the British took was to ensure that all the ammo they used came from the same batch.

Interestingly there was one problem with the British ammo (who says I am not fair) that hasn't been mentioned. The quality of the powder was pretty low and very corrosive, so you did have to be careful about how you cleaned the barrel after firing it. Boiling water being the only sure method. A friend of mine bought a Lee Enfield that looked spotless on the outside, absolutely as new and he was delighted with it. Then he checked it, got it stripped and cleaned by an gun smith and found to his horror that the barrel was in a poor state. He shoots it at up to 300 yards but anything more and its not up to it. The general view was that it had only fired a few rounds to test it, then it was quickly cleaned and stored. However, it was enough to do the damage over the 20 years that it was stored.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 24, 2008)

Why are we discussing effective ranges of 800-1000yds for open sights. These were theoretically possible, but generally quite unrealistic ranges for nearly all standard Infantryman. It was far more common for rifle combats at ranges of 150 to 300 metres. this was the main reasoning for the reduced power rounds for assault rifles. It was found to be quite unnecessary to use the higher power rounds, because soldiers could not shoot that far effectively. Volley fire and sniper fire were the only really effective ways of reaching out to that range. As far as I know only the british used volley fire, and that was only during the opening stages of WWI.

IMO we should analyse effective ranges, not theoretical ranges, and the principal constraint for effective range was the training of the soldier, not so much the quality of the weapon.


----------



## Juha (Apr 24, 2008)

There seems to be some confusion here. Military rifles for mass armies and hunting rifles are built for slightly different use.
Military rifle of course has to have reasonable performance and must be reliable, easy to handle and accept a certain amount of mishandling without malfunctioning. Besides it must be easy to mass-product and reasonably priced.
But ROF is clearly more important than range, ordinary conscript soldier could not be counted to hit a moving target constantly at 500m range. Probably not even standing target. Sniping is a different matter. But more bullets he could fire at attacking enemy at shorter distance the better, of course within reasonable limits and within limit of supply organization to supply more ammo.

Now I read in 70s, probably on Purnell’s book on infantry weapons, that bolt of SMLE allowed shorter movement of handle than that of Kar 98k and because of that had higher rof and easier use from hip. True or not, I haven’t checked that from other sources and had not used either bolt. My only knowledge on bolt action rifles is from Finnish military rifle, which was a modification of Russian/Soviet rifle, Mosin?. With it the rather long movement of the bolt handle would have reduced the ROF in aimed fire.

juha


----------



## parsifal (Apr 24, 2008)

Soren

Your point says that is is a good hunting rifle, thats all. I am just reporting what other posts are saying. You should take your grievances up with the author.

Another post that i read said that with regard to the big three BAs, 

1) The US produced a target rifle
2) The Germans produced a sporting rifle
3) The British produced a combat rifle

I am not suggesting that the german defeat, or the British victory were entirely due to one factor, or one weapon system. What this rather light hearted comment made by another, and reported by me is saying, is that the rifles contributed to those respective outcomes. 

The important things for you to take away from my post is really quite simple.

1) Your dour approach to this issue is in stark contrast to the way other forums are handling this issue. In the end you are achieving little, because your reputation is preceding you. Nobody really wants to talk to you about anything, because you refuse to listen and are not talking to people, you are lecturing, often when it is obvious that you do not have the knowledge to do that

2) There is a wide divergence of opinion regarding which rifle was superior

3) The war ended more than 60 years ago, and our discussions are not going to change the outcome one bit. The purpose of these discussions are to exchange information, and enjoy the experience, not walk into the forum with jackboots already on


----------



## parsifal (Apr 24, 2008)

Juha

Exactly, could not agree more


----------



## trackend (Apr 24, 2008)

My brother was a qualified gunsmith for some years working for Leech and sons of Chelmsford (sadly now no longer in business) although he worked mainly in the sporting weapon field producing tailor made furniture for gaming pieces he did work on historic collections and in his opinion of the standard issued army bolt action rifles the SMLE was the best engineered weapon
For a mass produced rifle with consistancy in accuracy and quality of finish.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 24, 2008)

Someone also made comment about indifferent quality of ammunition having a great risk of exploding the enfield. In twenty years of working around them, i have never seen a single failure of the gun due to poor ammunition. There are only be two possibilities arising from that

1) I have been incredibly lucky and not encountered bad ammunition
2) The enfield is more resistant to bad ammunition than the claim would suggest

In addition the enfield was incredibly strong as its performace in the jungle during the war would surely suggest. There were numerous instances of rifles being fired, after the barrels were completely fouled by mud and water. If the weapon was unreliable, it was hardly ever reported by the troops using it. 

For that matter,neither did the Japanese, who were using the arisaka, essentially a modified Mauser action. My opinion is that each rifle was very similar in terms of reliability. However several of the posts on other sites report that the Mauser did on occasion jam up in the snow, because the bolt was machined to too finer tolerances. I cant confirm that, but it was reported on several of the sites that I visited


----------



## renrich (Apr 24, 2008)

Nice work, Glider! I remembered reading about the good rifle work of the "Old Contemptibles" in 1914 but could not remember where I read it. Perhaps in Tuchman's "Guns of August?" The "Old Contemptibles" were the British regulars in 1914, getting their nickname when the Kaiser called them "that contemptible little army." Most were gone by 1915.


----------



## Soren (Apr 24, 2008)

Glider,

The SMLE doesn't have a habbit of blowing up, that's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is that if you use to highly powered ammunition it WILL blow up, the action simply can't take very high pressures. That is one of the reasons the M98 action is so popular, you can load rounds to such high pressures that the cartridge will crack (approx. 68,000 psi), and the M98 still holds no sweat and safely vents the escaping gasses. Like I said you can weld the barrel shut and the action takes in no problem - a SMLE will blow up in your face in such a scenario. 



> German snipers had access to special batches of ammunition which was of a higher quality than normal ammo to ensure accuracy.



Err, no. Some Snipers "stole" (Besorgen) higher powered V-patr. (V = Verbesserte = Improved) used by the LW for an extra 150m of effective range, but the quality of the round was the same, excellent, the only difference being that the V-patr. featured a more potent propellant charge.


----------



## Soren (Apr 24, 2008)

> Your point says that is is a good hunting rifle, thats all. I am just reporting what other posts are saying. You should take your grievances up with the author.



Parsifal not only hunting rifles also military rifles!

The M98 has been massed produced since its introduction and nearly every bolt action sniper rifle, hunting rifle sporting rifle today are of the same design, THAT speaks for itself.



> Another post that i read said that with regard to the big three BAs,
> 
> 1) The US produced a target rifle
> 2) The Germans produced a sporting rifle
> 3) The British produced a combat rifle



Parsifal what you read in other forums and posts has no merit at all.

The Germans produced a target rifle, combat rifle, sporting rifle hunting rifle all in one. The Karabiner 98k was THE most accurate rifle of WW2, both by virtue of the ammunition used and the design of the weapon.

Now the German Mauser K98k and US M1903 Springfield are completely similar in design, the only difference being a two piece firing pin being used on the Springfield. The Springfield however fired a much lighter, less stable and therefore less accurate round.


----------



## renrich (Apr 24, 2008)

I have a question about firearms performance and since this thread is about combat rifles and there are so many "experts" participating, LOL, I would like to get the benefit of the wisdom which is so abundantly present. I am an "expert" in handloading(not really) but used to do quite a bit. I know that barrel length using modern smokeless powder, depending on the burn rate of the powder, has an effect on muzzle velocity. For instance, My #1 Ruger has a 26" barrel, my model 77 Ruger has a 22" barrel and my 1895 Browning has a 24" barrel. With a slow burning powder like H4831, the velocity gain over a 22" barrel of a 26" barrel was, I think, 400fps, although it may have only been 200 fps,( my books are mostly packed.) So, there is a good reason for the long barrels used on infantry weapons in WW2 besides sight radius or other considerations. This would also be true regarding naval guns and artillery pieces. Most naval guns in the larger calibres were 50 cal, meaning the barrel length was 50 time the bore diameter, where as many of the dual purpose weapons in 5 inch or less were 38 calibre or even 25 calibre. Now, here comes my question. Since black powder was not progressive burning and it consumed itself, once ignited,in one big flash, why did smooth bore muskets and naval guns as well as artillery pieces have such long barrels with the attendant weight and unhandyness? Even in rifled muskets would not the short barreled cavalry carbines have the same MV of the longer barreled infantry versions? An extreme example of this would be the Walker Colt, first used in combat by the Texas Rangers and later the US Army in the Mexican War. Reputedly the Walker had a longer effective range than the smooth bore muskets used by both sides in most cases. The Walker was a monster( I have held one and it weighs four pounds, nine ounces and the barrel was nine inches) and carried a huge powder charge. It's muzzle energy was close to the same as a modern 357 magnum, throwing a bigger bullet at a lower velocity than the 357. If that could be accomplished with a pistol, why the long barrels of the muskets?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> This is as stupid as when people claim, _"The Allies won the war so everything they made was better!"_



Agreed but to in contrast to what you believe not everything the Germans made was superior to what the allies made...


----------



## parsifal (Apr 24, 2008)

For the record, this quote has been misquoted...here is the full text of my post

One of the discussion boards I posted raises a point, which I think will bring a smile to this rather dour discussion. Basically the Mauser as the main sidearm of nations has not won, or helped to win a single war for its owners, whereas the enfield has won every major conflict that it was a part of. Havent checked the veracity of these claims, and it was a very tongue in cheek statement, but it kinda makes you think for a minute.....does that mean that for the greatest poll, ie the ones that matter, ie the two world wars, that the enfield is leading 2-0 over the mauser????


----------



## parsifal (Apr 24, 2008)

Richard

You would know more than I on this subject, but in the simplest terms, barrel length isnt only about MV, I think it is also about achieving better accuracy as well. in the case of muzzle loaders, the long barrel i think is required to make the very heavy and none too ballistic ball travel as straight as possible


----------



## Soren (Apr 24, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed but to in contrast to what you believe not everything the Germans made was superior to what the allies made...



I don't believe everything the Germans made was superior to everything the Allies made. When have I ever said that ?

In your previous post you tried to make it look like I claimed the K98k was a better std. infantry rifle than the Garand! I've always said the exact opposite!

So perhaps if you read my posts a little better you wont get that faulty impression of me.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> I don't believe everything the Germans made was superior to everything the Allies made. When have I ever said that ?
> 
> In your previous post you tried to make it look like I claimed the K98k was a better std. infantry rifle than the Garand! I've always said the exact opposite!
> 
> So perhaps if you read my posts a little better you wont get that faulty impression of me.



I read your posts just fine Soren, just like everyone else. Frankly it is getting very old, very quick.

Here I will give you an example of what convos with you sound like:

*12345 said:* British Field Rations were great!

*Soren said:* Thats Bullshit! German Rats were way better!

*6789 siad:* American Band Aids are great! 

*Soren said:* Utter Rubbish and nothing more than Allied propaganda! German Band Aids were far superior.


----------



## Soren (Apr 24, 2008)

A longer barrel increases MV, hence why the German AT guns were of such a high lenght caliber.

However depending on the ammo used the barrel can only be so long before it decreases MV. If for example you use a 740mm barrel for a 9x19mm round the bullet will just lodge itself in the barrel. 

For AT guns a lenght caliber ratio of 71 - 73 is generally believed to be the optimum before MV stops increasing and starts to drop.


----------



## Soren (Apr 24, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I read your posts just fine Soren, just like everyone else.



Well no you obviously don't.




> Here I will give you an example of what convos with you sound like:
> 
> *12345 said:* British Field Rations were great!
> 
> ...



Hehe despite having never said anything like that I'd like to see real examples which resemble it thank you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Hehe despite having never said anything like that I'd like to see real examples which resemble it thank you.



 

I am not going to waste my ****ing time going back and finding your ****ing posts.

People are tired of the Bullshit Soren! Why do you think people dont get along with you?

1. They are tired of you talking down to them.
2. They are tired of your holier than thou attitude.
3. They are tired of the Everything German is better than anything else BS.

Why are you so ****ing blind to it!

I actually agree with a lot of what you say about different topics, but I hate the way your present yourself. 

Get over yourself Soren...

I will let this go for now, because this is not the place for it.


----------



## Soren (Apr 24, 2008)

Adler,

I don't talk down to people if they don't talk down to me. If you care to look back you'll see when I start talking down to people it has always been triggered by them starting off talking down to me.

Take Parsifal for example, he pushed my buttons when he used the phrase _"If you want to be further demolished"_. What kind of thing is that if not demeaning to say ?? And hence I lost my respect for him that very second as it showed me he knows nothing of what he's talking about (There was no Mk43).

Anyway like you said this isn't the place to discuss this, so I'll leave it for now.


----------



## Glider (Apr 24, 2008)

Renrich
At my rifle club they do a lot of black powder shooting. I will ask around as they are more likely to know than most.

Soren was close when he talked about the MV reducing if the barrel is to long. It also impacts accuracy and handleing. 
If the barrel is to short the powder in the cartridge is still expanding when the bullet leaves the barrel. As a result the bullet is 'pushed' causing a slight wobble impacting long range accuracy. It also causes a nasty kick which is one reason why the Lee Enfield Mk5 was a horror to use. The thing kicked like a mule and had to be zeroed in every time you wanted to use it.
If the barrel is to long, the bullet is going faster than the expanding powder causing a suction effect in the barrel. This also causes a wobble as the bullet leaves the barrel impacting accuracy, it also has a small impact on MV.

One of the benefits of the Lee Enfield was that the barrel more by accident than design it must be admitted, was exactly the right length. Mass produced ammunition varied in its quality in all armed forces. One reason that the British were able to use 'normal' ammunition was that the effect of under or over powered ammunition averaged out and the actual difference in performance wasn't that great as long as the batch of ammunition was the same.

Hope this helps

I hope this helps


----------



## parsifal (Apr 24, 2008)

Hi Richard

So how did your home reloads work anyway. The only home reloads I have ever done was as a kid, for a shotgun that I owned back then. They worked okay, but then I just sort of drifted away from it. Am interested to learn more...

So barrel length has not much to do with accuracy? I am surprised...or am I just misunderstanding you and Glider?


----------



## Soren (Apr 24, 2008)

Glider,

Remember there's a huge difference between shooting black powder firearms and smokeless powder ones.

The barrel has to be much too short for it to impact accuracy the way you describe it. The kick of a rifle also has to do with its weight vs the power of the round.

On the other side if a barrel is too long MV drops, and if it is much too long the bullet can lodge itself, not an ideal situation.

As for the SMLE's barrel being by accident the lenght it was, I doubt it, the same with other rifles from other nations. The right barrel lenght is a very tricky thing and only holds true if you fire ONE type of ammunition. It's a matter of using the right powder bullet combination, be it slower or faster expanding. The V-patr. for example was packed with faster expanding powder than the regular rounds. 

The K98k was optimized for firing the sS. Patr., the rifling barrel lenght being the best for that particular round.


----------



## Glider (Apr 24, 2008)

What is important is getting the barrel the right length for the cartridge. If its too long or too short there is an impact. There is a bigger impact if its too short.
To use an extreme example a small snub nosed handgun is almost hopeless for accuracy. Put the same cartridge in a weapon designed for it and things make a dramatic improvement.


----------



## Glider (Apr 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Glider,
> Remember there's a huge difference between shooting black powder firearms and smokeless powder ones.



I know, which is why I said that I would ask the people who do a lot of black powder shooting.



> The barrel has to be much too short for it to impact accuracy the way you describe it. The kick of a rifle also has to do with its weight vs the power of the round.
> On the other side if a barrel is too long MV drops, and if it is much too long the bullet can lodge itself, not an ideal situation.


For target shooting the barrel length is critical when matched to the cartridge. I used to be a County Coach for .22 target shooting and we used to go to the Eley Factory to get ammunition matched to the teams guns. Eley ammunition is of a high standard straight out of the box but matching the powder burn to the barrel was a major factor for extreme accuracy.

You are of course correct in saying that the weight/power combination is a key factor but the rifles we are talking about were more than adaquate in their weight.



> As for the SMLE's barrel being by accident the lenght it was, I doubt it, the same with other rifles from other nations. The right barrel lenght is a very tricky thing and only holds true if you fire ONE type of ammunition. It's a matter of using the right powder bullet combination, be it slower or faster expanding. The V-patr. for example was packed with faster expanding powder than the regular rounds.


The Lee Enfield did have the ideal length for the cartridge but it was more by accident than design. You are correct in the sense that this was almost a dark art around the turn of the century.


----------



## renrich (Apr 24, 2008)

Appreciate all of your comments. My handloads were extremely accurate because I tailored the load to the rifle and because my powder charges were each weighed individually. Oviously Soren is correct in that if a barrel is too long a powder charge that is no longer expanding will mean that the friction of the bullet against the lands will begine to slow the bullet down. There are many factors which have a bearing on accuracy. In the two rifles I did the most handloading for, maximum loads with the bullets I wanted to hunt with gave the best accuracy. Both rifles would shoot three shot groups at 100 yards of one inch or less which is minute of angle. Obviously off a bench rest. I also had those two loads chronographed and the muzzle velocities were well in excess of factory loads. One of the loads showed no sign of excessive pressure but that particular type of case was noted for it's strength. The other load showed a bright ring near the base but the ring was not uniform, there were no flattened primers and I never had a case rupture so I think the problem was not excessive pressure but rather a headspace or chamber shape problem in that particular rifle. The problem of too long a barrel for the powder charge is probably not relevant in modern rifles. Factors which create good accuracy are many, including precision in manufacture of the barrel as well as chamber, the right shape and weight of bullet for the velocity used and the right twist of the rifling for the bullet used at that velocity. You determine what load shoots best in your rifle by experimentation. Each rifle is an individual and reacts differently to different loads so all this talk about how accurate a particular model of service rifle is or isn't is relative. Rifles meant to be used by snipers are usually special manufacture and are individually tuned. Heat, cold, humidity, altitude and of course wind conditions are other factors also. The accuracy of all service rifles in WW2 was probably adequate for the job. I am still wondering about black powder and barrel length.


----------



## renrich (Apr 24, 2008)

My experience with handloading seems to indicate that barrel length with a scope does not effect accuracy at least directly. One rifle I handloaded for had a 22 inch barrel and the other had a 26 inch barrel and they both would print min of angle. However, the velocity gain of the 4 inch longer barrel may have had an impact on accuracy because that particular bullet at that twist may have been more accurate at a higher velocity. The main reason accuracy with a snub nose revolver is a problem is the short distance between the rear and front sight. Handgun shooting with open sights requires precise sight alignment and the longer the sight radius the more accurate the alignment. With a scope, sight radius is not relevant.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 25, 2008)

Hi richard

The reason i harped about the length of the barrel in preindustrial ordinance being a factor for accuracy was that i was thinking along the lines of a Kentucky Long Rifle, or a napoleonic sharpshooter. These pieces of ordinance were long ranged, and considered more accurate than the line muskets. The main reason was the length of the barrel, as far as i am aware.


----------



## renrich (Apr 25, 2008)

The reason the Pennsylvania and later the Kentucky long rifle and the Baker rifle in use by British skirmishers were much more accurate and with longer range than the standard infantry musket was that the rifles had rifled barrels. The Infantry musket of those days were smooth bores. The rifled barrels imparted spin to the ball which made it's trajectory much more predictable. In addition the rifleman used a ball that more closely matched the bore of the rifle so that the lands of the rifling gripped the ball and that made the powder charge more efficient. Leather or cloth patches were used also to make fit tighter. Less gas from the explosion leaked out around the projectile. With a smoothbore the patch was used only to make the fit where the ball would not roll out of the barrel if the musket was tilted down. The smooth bore musket was not accurate even at forty yards. A soldier would be lucky to hit a man size target at forty yards. A good rifleman could hit a man standing still, in the open at several hundred yards. The advantage of the smooth bore musket was that it could be loaded much faster than the rifle, perhaps as fast as 3-4 rounds per minute. A rifleman trying to be as accurate as possible might take a minute or more to load one round. Also, the rifle, with it's tight fitting bore would be fouled by the black powder residue after just a few rounds and would lose it's accuracy or even be impossible to load. The smooth bore could be fired perhaps 40-50 times before becoming impossibly fouled. The average infantryman of that day was not trained to be a marksman but rather to stand shoulder to shoulder in line of battle and deliver rapid volley fire at ranges of 100 yards or less. Even a hit at 100 yards might not be disabling because of the low remaining velocity of the ball. Of course the Minie Ball and the rifled musket changed everything but many generals did not "get it" for a few years, just like the impact of the machine gun was not recognised for a while. Having said all this, I still don't believe the long barrels of the rifles or smoothbores were necessary except for perhaps sight radius on the rifle. Maybe they were just the "style" of the day.


----------



## Messy1 (Apr 25, 2008)

Is it true that one of the main reasons the M16 would jam when it was first introduced to soldiers in the field, was the switch from ball type powder to stick type powder? I believe something like this was a big part of the problem in the M-16 jamming and needing more cleaning than the average gun, as one burned much dirtier than the other. Cannot remember which type of powder was the one they started with and switched too exactly. It's been a while since I have seen the program, or read about it.


----------



## renrich (Apr 25, 2008)

Messy, I remember hearing something about what you mentioned also. I believe they began to chrome plate the chambers to alleviate the problem.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 25, 2008)

renrich said:


> The reason the Pennsylvania and later the Kentucky long rifle and the Baker rifle in use by British skirmishers were much more accurate and with longer range than the standard infantry musket was that the rifles had rifled barrels. The Infantry musket of those days were smooth bores. The rifled barrels imparted spin to the ball which made it's trajectory much more predictable. In addition the rifleman used a ball that more closely matched the bore of the rifle so that the lands of the rifling gripped the ball and that made the powder charge more efficient. Leather or cloth patches were used also to make fit tighter. Less gas from the explosion leaked out around the projectile. With a smoothbore the patch was used only to make the fit where the ball would not roll out of the barrel if the musket was tilted down. The smooth bore musket was not accurate even at forty yards. A soldier would be lucky to hit a man size target at forty yards. A good rifleman could hit a man standing still, in the open at several hundred yards. The advantage of the smooth bore musket was that it could be loaded much faster than the rifle, perhaps as fast as 3-4 rounds per minute. A rifleman trying to be as accurate as possible might take a minute or more to load one round. Also, the rifle, with it's tight fitting bore would be fouled by the black powder residue after just a few rounds and would lose it's accuracy or even be impossible to load. The smooth bore could be fired perhaps 40-50 times before becoming impossibly fouled. The average infantryman of that day was not trained to be a marksman but rather to stand shoulder to shoulder in line of battle and deliver rapid volley fire at ranges of 100 yards or less. Even a hit at 100 yards might not be disabling because of the low remaining velocity of the ball. Of course the Minie Ball and the rifled musket changed everything but many generals did not "get it" for a few years, just like the impact of the machine gun was not recognised for a while. Having said all this, I still don't believe the long barrels of the rifles or smoothbores were necessary except for perhaps sight radius on the rifle. Maybe they were just the "style" of the day.



I know a re-enacter with a Hawken rifle, and he says it's accurate out to 200 or 300 yards with the .50 cal shot he had.


----------



## renrich (Apr 26, 2008)

I have heard of some extremely long shots made with black powder rifles but I always take them with a grain of salt. Billy Dixon, a buffalo hunter, supposedly made a shot on a Commanche war chief at the Battle of Adobe Walls of some 600 yards with a Sharps 50. The Indians supposedly gave up at that point. I read about a shot made by a British sharpshooter even longer than that with a Baker during the Napoleonic Wars. During our War Between the States, there were snipers on both sides, the Southrons being particularely adept at that trade. The most prized sniper rifle by the Confederates was, I think, the Armstrong Whitworth, made in England and with a crude telescopic sight. Near Petersburg, in 1864, a union Corps commander name of Sedgwick, much admired, called Uncle John by his troops, came under sniper fire from some incredible range, approximately 600 yards, goes the story. The General, warned of the sniper, said "Why they couldn't hit an elephant at that dis.........." Those were his last words. The Whitworth rifle and fixings cost more than one thousand dollars, which was a bundle in those days. General John Reynolds, a Union corps commander, was killed by a sniper on the first day at Gettysburg. That incident is portrayed in the movie of that name.


----------



## Soren (Apr 27, 2008)

A bit on the Enfield: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck66O0osLhQ_


----------



## parsifal (Apr 27, 2008)

Yes i saw it some weeks ago. You need to watch the whole video to understand their point. also, as an advocate of the mauser you might want to re-consider using this evidence. they rate the Enfield as the No-3 weapon, whilst the mauser is rated at No-5. 

Like i said afte the dust had settled a little, opinions are sharply divided on this issue, and both rifles have their good and bad points. My beleif is that the enfield is just slightly superior to the mause, which is a change for me, with my main reasons being the superior rate of fire (mentioned in the video) and the bigger magazine. The accuracy argument is really a crock, because the man firing is so much more the important determinant.


----------



## Soren (Apr 27, 2008)

Well I ofcourse see what you mean Parsifal, but like you say opinions are divided and I didn't use this episode as support for all the points in my argument, just as an explanation for why the Enfield was retained and not replaced by a Mauser copy. 

Fact is that most infantry combat engagements on the western front during WW2 took place at ~300m, and at this distance it didn't matter that the Mauser was a more accurate long range rifle. However during the Boer war the normal comabt engagement distances were long, and here the Mauser completely outperformed the Enfield, prompting the demand in the Royal army for a copy of the Mauser as the Enfield was found hopelessly outmatched at long ranges.


Now as to the rate of fire, well it depends on the experience of the shooter, and this is the secret behind that amazing firepower some Royal army rifle companies displayed. The British riflemen were trained to fire in continious volleys, laying down as much lead as possible and their fire was very well organized, not sporadic. The Germans relied on their MG's to lay down suppressive fire, the riflemen either assaulting to capture and hold points in the process or picking off enemies out of the MG's line of fire. In short the German riflemen weren't trained to fire in volleys, but to fire less often and more accurately. 

However, in my opinion as-well as many expert's the Mauser is the best bolt action rifle in history, and for good reasons as nearly every military commercial bolt action rifle today utilizes its design. (The Isrealies actually used K98k's as Sniper rifles up till the mid 90's)


----------



## renrich (Apr 28, 2008)

re performance of 8 mm Mauser cartridge versus 3006 Springfield- From Pg 44, "Bolt Action Rifles," by Frank de Haas. The military load for the 8x57sS cartridge was a 198 grain BT bullet at 2476 FPS at nearly 50000 psi chamber pressure. de Haas's description of the cartridge: "The 8 mm Mauser is very responsive to handloading and the careful handloader having a sound M98 military or sporterized rifle can reload the case to NEARLY equal the 30 06 in performance." My caps. A load for the 30 06 using a Sierra 200 gr Matchking bullet-2600 FPS with 46730 psi chamber pressure. Since a bullet from a 3006 of the same weight and shape of the 8 mm Mauser will have a better BC, the down range performance will be somewhat better. The two cartridges are almost ballistic twins but the 3006 having a larger case capacity, it will have an edge in performance with lower chamber pressures.


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2008)

Well that's incorrect Renrich, the larger diameter neck on the 8x57 makes sure pressures are lower at similar velocities for heavier bullets, read the loads from realguns:

Real Guns - Handload Data - 8x57mm JS Mauser

200 gr bullets are propelled to 2700 fps at pressures not exceeding 56,000 psi. And mind you the 8x57mm cartridge has a MAP of around 62,000 psi.

Furthermore the V-patr. issued by the LW fires a 198gr bullet at 2880 fps.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> However, in my opinion as-well as many expert's the Mauser is the best bolt action rifle in history, and for good reasons as nearly every military commercial bolt action rifle today utilizes its design. (The Isrealies actually used K98k's as Sniper rifles up till the mid 90's)


I had the opportunity to chat with an Israeli Sniper at least he was in 48 and 56 and he says they used the Ross Rifle


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 28, 2008)

It is my understanding through books, individuals, gun dealers that the Mauser model 98K is the best bolt action rifle of it's type. That being said, if I needed to outfit an Army in 1943, I'd be writing checks for the M1 Garand. 


.. as long as I had the logistics in place to sustain the large waste in ammunition. 

.

.


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I had the opportunity to chat with an Israeli Sniper at least he was in 48 and 56 and he says they used the Ross Rifle



Well they might have used that as-well, I don't know, but I do know that the k98k was widely used up until the mid late 90's, I have a picture of one used by the Isreali snipers below:


----------



## renrich (Apr 29, 2008)

Interesting data but I am sure you would agree, somewhat misleading. As this is a discussion about military rifles and loads of WW2, quoting figures using modern powders with ultra maximum loads with excessive chamber pressures which should only be used in rifles and actions in premium condition is not relevant. The loads quoted in the source you provided are in a 29.1 inch barrel. Since most of the rifles used by the Nazis in WW2 would not necessarily meet the definition of premium condition and since the standard length of the issue rifle barrel was slightly longer than 23 inches, the service load was as I noted earlier. Also quoting ballistics from a load used by the LW, I find rather disingenuous since that load was not used in the infantry rifle. I, of course could follow suit by quoting from pg. 133, table 12 of "America's One Hundred Thousand" where the load for the 30 cal MG in American aircraft is a 220 gr. bullet at 2660 fps MV.


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2008)

Well then Renrich did you know that the Germans used better powders during WW2 ? The Germans were firing 154 gr bullets at 2900 fps while the US were firing 150 gr bullets at 2700 fps. 

And as for the LW ammunition, like I said it was used by the infantry with no problems, but mostly in MG's and by Snipers, the K98k easily handles such loads. The K98k btw has a 23.61 inch barrel, and from this barrel it will fire a 198 gr bullet at 2880 fps, without any pressure signs.

As for he American MG's firing a 220 gr bullet at 2660 fps, well this is new to me and way above any magnum load today so I find that hard to believe as American powders weren't that good back then. Was it a round nosed bullet or a Spitzer ? The powder type would be nice to know as-well.

At any rate today with modern powders the 8x57 is always faster with projectiles of 200gr or heavier, while they are the same at about 185 gr and the 30.06 being slightly faster with lighter projectiles.


----------



## renrich (Apr 30, 2008)

Well, of course I should have known that the Nazis had better gun powder than anything the allies had since everything the Nazis had was superior. Thank the Lord for the Nazi inferior leadership and for their decision to send their troops into the field with an old fashioned bolt action rifle.


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2008)

If you doubt what I'm saying research it yourself Renrich, and spare me the stupid remarks and implication that I'm a Nazi sympathizer of some sort. I don't call you a stupid Yank, or pro-american or anything like that do I ??

The Germans simply produced some more potent powder types, not a significant advance and not that it matters much if anything, but just how it is.


----------



## Glider (Apr 30, 2008)

Re the quality of Ammunition
In July 1944 The German General of Infantry reported _'The normal Sm.E. ammunition allows no shooting of precision over 3-400 meters as must be demanded of Sharpshooters as these and greater ranges. Until now it was possible to equip the sharpshooter with select s.S. ammunition which is only available in small quantaties, or not at all_. 
He then went on to demand the the production of specialist ammunition for Sharpshooters which came on stream in early 1945

Compared this to the British situation. The British were happy that the quality control of their standard type VII ammunition was sufficient for all purposes, although it must be said that the men tended to prefer one manufacturer over another and most went for American manufacturers.

source is The Military Sniper since 1914 ISBN-10 1-84176-141-9

This would indicate that German ammunition was worse than allied ammuition although closer to British ammo than American.


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2008)

I don't know where that book gets its info from or anything but some of it is true;

The S.m.E. round is the round designed to be fired by the MG's Glider, it's an AP round firing a completely similar projectile to the S.m.K. except optimized for MG's. The S.m.E. round wasn't meant to be fired through the K98k as the K98k was optimized for the s.S. round, so obviuosly firing the S.m.E through the K98k you wont get the best results. 

However also note that Snipers wouldn't want to switch between different ammo types as their rifle scopes were designed calibrated for the s.S. Patr.. German Sniper scopes had built in range adjustment, with range adjusted in 50m increments, and this was based on the ballistics of the s.S. Patr.. Now firing s.S. V-patr. wasn't a problem as one just had to keep in mind that the trajectory was flatter, however using MG ammunition such as the S.m.E. round with different projectiles powder charges would affect accuracy as both the rifle scope were designed calibrated for an entirely different round projectile.

Next there was no "Specialized" Sniper ammo, the German Snipers however sometimes "borrowed" high power s.S. V-patr. from the LW to gain an extra 150m of effective range. So when the quote refers to specialized ammo for snipers it refers to the production of s.S. Patr. for Snipers only in 45 which otherwise had ceased.

And as for the the quality of German rounds (s.S., S.m.E., S.m.K. etc etc) it's excellent (I have these rounds myself, they're all better made than equal time period US British ammo). Esp. German tracers are very well made.

_
The German standard sS (schweres Spitzgeschoß/heavy pointed bullet) ball bullet was 35.3 mm long (1.389 in) long, boat-tailed, and very well made.[2] It was lead filled, had a gilding-metal-plated jacket, and weighed about 12.8 grams (197 grains). It offered the best aerodynamic efficiency and ballistic performance of all standard rifle balls used in World War II.

German tracer bullets were the best put out by any country, beautifully streamlined and with excellent ballistics. German armor piercers were also very good, being very stable and accurate at long ranges._

The most accurate rifle round of WW2 was the s.S. Patr., and it was therefore also prefered by Snipers. However it is true that this round as in short supply by mid 1944, and this did prompt an increase in production of it for use by Snipers only.

I recommend reading Peter Senich's book on the German sniper which notes this as-well.


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2008)

Double post.


----------



## Messy1 (May 5, 2008)

Not trying to start any quarrels or anything, just had a question. When everyone starts pulling info out of various books, and when the info counteracts each other poeples statements, how do you know which book is correct and which one is not? If one book states ammo #1 is better, and another book states ammo #2 is better, how do you go about proving which one is the correct statement?
It seems that everyone is of the opinion that their book has the correct info, how do you solve the problem? In reading through this topic, it seems various people have listed different info from several books to support their views. Just curious.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

What sources listed disagree with each other ?


----------



## Matt308 (May 5, 2008)

Not sources. Conclusions. A 154gr bullet at 2900ft/s vs a 150gr bullet at 2700ft/s does not logically lead to inferior powder. That's certainly a stretch.

As an avid reloader and collector of the guns in question, I find this thread... well... fascinating.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

Errr, no but research the subject, the Germans were ahead in this chemistry field, producing some special higher pressure ammunition types such as the V-Patr..


----------



## Matt308 (May 5, 2008)

Okay. It's all good.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

The 7.92mm 154gr vs 150gr 7.62mm comparison was merely a crude form of evidence but it is the one which stands out the most as the difference was completely because of a different higher pressure powder type. But again like I said it wasn't a significant step forward.

I can provide the powder descriptions if necessary, I have original German charts showing the different powder types used, the size of the powder grains/flakes and the weight of the charges and the name.


----------



## Matt308 (May 5, 2008)

No that's alright. We're good to go.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

Heck I'll do it anyway, might be someone who will find it interesting.


----------



## Messy1 (May 6, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Not sources. Conclusions. A 154gr bullet at 2900ft/s vs a 150gr bullet at 2700ft/s does not logically lead to inferior powder. That's certainly a stretch.
> 
> As an avid reloader and collector of the guns in question, I find this thread... well... fascinating.



Ok, maybe I should have said conclusions. Good point Matt308.


----------



## Matt308 (May 6, 2008)

Messy, I was not criticizing sources. Rather, I saw nothing that indicated that A 154gr bullet at 2900ft/s vs a 150gr bullet at 2700ft/s is a logical step to inferior powder. Maybe it is. Maybe it is not. Perhaps it was cartridge case wall thickness. Perhaps it was breech max pressure. Perhaps it was safety margins for loading deltas. Perhaps it was a weapon's inherent design limitation (gas operating pressures).

But to suggest that a common bullet weight and different velocity is in and of itself equal to "inferior" powder development is asinine.


----------



## Messy1 (May 7, 2008)

You guys are way over my head on all this. I was just trying to make a comment about how threads susch as this one seem to go back and forth between guys, and nothing ever (or very seldom) gets settled to a point where one might say, "You know, you are right, the Enfield, (or Muaser) is the better rifle."

I just enjoy reading and learning about WW2. I am humbled to be on here and to learn so much from everyone.


----------



## parsifal (May 7, 2008)

Messy

It is a rare event for a topic to reach a point of equilibrium. There is a lot of expeience in the forums, but at some point you have to say to yourself"okay, im satisfied, i can reach a conclusion on this"

The whole point of these forums is to learn from each other, The opinions expressed are just that, and all reaasonable posts should be respected. The only time that they should be disregarded is when there is no real knowledge being displayed,, like the other day when some idiot just came on line to say "Heil Hitler"


----------



## Matt308 (May 7, 2008)




----------



## Messy1 (May 8, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Messy
> 
> It is a rare event for a topic to reach a point of equilibrium. There is a lot of expeience in the forums, but at some point you have to say to yourself"okay, im satisfied, i can reach a conclusion on this"
> 
> The whole point of these forums is to learn from each other, The opinions expressed are just that, and all reaasonable posts should be respected. The only time that they should be disregarded is when there is no real knowledge being displayed,, like the other day when some idiot just came on line to say "Heil Hitler"



Very true parsifal! I'll remember that!


----------



## Matt308 (May 8, 2008)

Well that theorem holds true unless LesOfPrimus weighs in. Then suddenly everything becomes black and white. There no longer exists shades of grey, blurring logic from emotion. Dogs love cats. The sun may no longer shine during the daytime. Baseball is no longer the American pastime. And big block V-8s are for pussies.

Sometimes boys you have to live with a ruling. You must learn it. Love it. Live it.


----------



## parsifal (May 9, 2008)

so I take it you have been "re-educated" at some point?


----------



## Messy1 (May 9, 2008)

Reminds me of coming to work everyday!


----------



## SoD Stitch (May 9, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Well that theorem holds true unless LesOfPrimus weighs in. Then suddenly everything becomes black and white. There no longer exists shades of grey, blurring logic from emotion. Dogs love cats. The sun may no longer shine during the daytime. Baseball is no longer the American pastime. And big block V-8s are for pussies.
> 
> Sometimes boys you have to live with a ruling. You must learn it. Love it. Live it.



How true!

I would venture to say that les qualifies as a "force of nature", IMO.


----------



## Matt308 (May 9, 2008)

As TheLancasterKicksAss (Lanc) once said, he is the forum's Morale Officer.


----------



## glennasher (May 10, 2008)

The reason for limiting a .30/06's 150 grain bullet to 2700 fps was to keep recoil down for inexperienced draftee soldiers who were complaining about the kick. The Garand was designed for ammunition loaded with 172 grain bullets, but those had to be discontinued because of the range limitations on some National Guard ranges. The 172 grain ammo was too long-ranged and often escaped the shorter National Guard ranges, causing complaints among the populace. All this is according to General Hatcher's "Book of the Garand". Hatcher was in charge of the Springfield Armory and was the Ordnance Corp at the time of the adoption of the Garand. The 150 grain load was basically a reduced load that was safe for the range parameters at that time.
150 grain .30/06 can be loaded to 3100fps safely in a good bolt action rifle, but that overworks the operating rod of the Garand rifle, quickly putting them out of service.


----------



## Soren (May 18, 2008)

Roger that glennasher.

The 8x57mm JS can be loaded to safely fire a 150 gr bullet at 3,100 fps as-well, but that's really the maximum with such a light projectile, and the 30.06 can actually go a little faster with bullets in that weight class. 

It is with heavier bullets of 185 gr or more that the 8x57mm JS is faster than the 30.06.


----------



## Phil Robins (Aug 2, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> AK-47 is the single best weapon of modern warfare. Atleast when it comes to small arms.



Since I "learned" on an M-14, I would put it ahead of the AK-47 when you count "fixed bayonets." 8)


----------



## drgondog (Aug 3, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> I'll take the M16A1, M16A2 over the AK any day. They are far more accurate. The AK47 is a fine weapon and reliable but the A1 version of the M16 corrected (with the forward assist mechanism) the jamming problems encountered by the early M16s circa 1965 in Viet Nam. More improvements came with the A2. Not to forget the M1 Garand, Thompson M1 and the M14.



I'm inclined to agree based on handling qualities, short/long range accuracy as an infantry weapon.

The one that didn't make the list is my personal favorite - the AR-18/10. I have all the semi auto stuff mentioned including M-14/M1A and it would be my second favorite except for the way the damn thing rode in full auto.

The AR-10 is the one rifle I would pick if only had time for one.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> Roger that glennasher.
> 
> The 8x57mm JS can be loaded to safely fire a 150 gr bullet at 3,100 fps as-well, but that's really the maximum with such a light projectile, and the 30.06 can actually go a little faster with bullets in that weight class.
> 
> It is with heavier bullets of 185 gr or more that the 8x57mm JS is faster than the 30.06.



With same barrel length Soren? the last time we wandered in this discussion you were using figures for a 29" Mauser.

Do you have a set of ballistic tables for the 8x57 JS in a 24" barrel? And, in the discussion of 'safely fire', what pressures are you loading to? I generally stick to 55,000 psi although all my bolt actions will easily exceed that.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 3, 2008)

glennasher said:


> The reason for limiting a .30/06's 150 grain bullet to 2700 fps was to keep recoil down for inexperienced draftee soldiers who were complaining about the kick. The Garand was designed for ammunition loaded with 172 grain bullets, but those had to be discontinued because of the range limitations on some National Guard ranges. The 172 grain ammo was too long-ranged and often escaped the shorter National Guard ranges, causing complaints among the populace. All this is according to General Hatcher's "Book of the Garand". Hatcher was in charge of the Springfield Armory and was the Ordnance Corp at the time of the adoption of the Garand. The 150 grain load was basically a reduced load that was safe for the range parameters at that time.
> 150 grain .30/06 can be loaded to 3100fps safely in a good bolt action rifle, but that overworks the operating rod of the Garand rifle, quickly putting them out of service.



It wasn't just the recoil, but the difference between an 03 Springfield and the M-1 action. The 03 can take a lot more pressure, not so much because of the different actions but because of the gas system. 

You really don't want to fire commercial 30-06 ammo in an M-1. All the load tables that display "M-1" loads are lower in powder loads at max than the "commercial 30-06" max loads. At one time I had a Browning BAR (rifle, not the 20# varmint) and loaded it with the same loads as the M-1.

If you check Hornady, as an example - the M-1 is loaded to 2750 (Max) with 155gr and 2700 (max) with 168 gr from a 24" M-1. The next set of tables for 30-06 is 3000 (Max) for the 155 and 2900 with 168 gr from a 23 1/2" bbl. These figures will vary slightly from one reloading manual to another but consistent with loading differences.

That same manual has for the 8x57 JS, the following Max loads for a 24" barrel on M98 action.

150 gr 2800fps
170 gr 2700fps
220 gr 2300fps - (the comparable 30-06 max for the slightly shorter 23.5 barrel = 2500fps)

The rule of thumb for the slow burning powders is an extra 50fps per extra inch of barrel.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> However, in my opinion as-well as many expert's the Mauser is the best bolt action rifle in history, and for good reasons as nearly every military commercial bolt action rifle today utilizes its design. (The Isrealies actually used K98k's as Sniper rifles up till the mid 90's)



I agree, even though the M700 has an amazing rep for accuracy, I believe in the claw extractor.

I do like the FN600/Sako action better than the M98 with clip cut out as they're stiffer. I have several in the 700 action but none above 30 cal.

Lots of 'improvements' to the M98/FN but still the same great design.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> Err, no. Some Snipers "stole" (Besorgen) higher powered V-patr. (V = Verbesserte = Improved) used by the LW for an extra 150m of effective range, but the quality of the round was the same, excellent, the only difference being that the V-patr. featured a more potent propellant charge.



Soren - where did the V-patr fit from a burn rate in comparison with say IMR or VIHT powders? Near 4381 or VHT-140/150? or closer to upper ranges of slow burners like RL-22 or RL-25?

"Potent" is a hard term to understand but propellant burn characteristics would make it easier to understand what the real potential is in comparison to the modern propellants.

The pressure experience is dominantly a function of cartridge design, quantity of powder and burn rate (as you well know). Having said that the only difference between the LW and the infantry round had to be the powder - primer wouldn't make significant difference.

Using the US as a contrast - the equivalent discussion is between the A/C load for the M1919 Browning versus the 03 springfield with a commercial round, not an M-1 round which had to be loaded for reduced pressures as a semi auto. 

The aircraft round was loaded to max pressures (I am looking for the load now) and troops were warned to not use it - even in the 03 which was a Mauser 98 basically.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 3, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Someone also made comment about indifferent quality of ammunition having a great risk of exploding the enfield. In twenty years of working around them, i have never seen a single failure of the gun due to poor ammunition. There are only be two possibilities arising from that
> 
> 1) I have been incredibly lucky and not encountered bad ammunition
> 2) The enfield is more resistant to bad ammunition than the claim would suggest



Another cause would be the headspace slightly too high and the cartridge slightly too 'short' at the shoulder.

Another possible cause is a 'short' drop of powder (yes, not enough) from the reloading machines. This is an odd example but has been encountered by reloaders using reduced charges to 'blow out' a shoulder for a wildcat cartridge... still don't know why 'detonation' rather than 'burn' occurs


----------

