# What is the best rifle of WWII?



## Zniperguy114 (Feb 1, 2010)

Here are the stantard issue rifles of the following nations in WWII:

America: M1 Garand/M1 Carbine
Germany:Kar98K
USSR:Mosin Nagant M1891/30
Japan:Arisaka Type 98/38

Choose the one you think is the best!


----------



## parsifal (Feb 1, 2010)

Why isnt the Lee Enfield included, or the Stg 44. You might also consider the Mannlicher Carcano series


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 1, 2010)

Or the Tokarev SVT, G41/G43 semiatuo rifles for that matter...

Though the M1 Garand is an obvious choice overall. Semi-autos are more practical than bolt action rifles, that goes without saying. At least on the level of the individual soldier, on wider view, it also matters a lot what your other buddies carry..


----------



## ToughOmbre (Feb 1, 2010)

Gotta be the Garand!

Because I own one! 

TO


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Feb 1, 2010)

I didn't name a few of the rifles because they wern't as common nor as in servivce long in the war, like the Stg44. It came too late to save germany, and even though it was mass produced, it saw limited service in all fronts except the russian front. As for the Lee-Enfield, It was only used by Britian (and its colonies and loyal former colonies except america)and saw some use in the french resestance. In my Opinion, Britian was the smallest of the main contributers to the war, even though it was once the only allie left. As for the rest of the rifles named, and the ones i have already named, have no excuse to be excluded. sorry, but can you guys, of the rifles listed, choose the best still? 
Restpectfully,
Zniper


----------



## parsifal (Feb 1, 2010)

The Arisaka was only used by Japan, produced to about 10 million copies, and equipped perhaps 100 Division altogether. 

Atleast 17 million copies of the Lee Enfield were built, and equipped no less than 120 divisions during the war (roughly....52 Brit Divs, 12 Canadian, 40 Indian, 12 Australian, 4 NZ, 2 Burmese, 4 South African, 6 west and east african). It was used to equip formations of free french and other forces in exile, and by several European nations as well, on substantial, but not exclusive basis. It was used to equip Abysynnian guerillas in 1941, as well as a whole range of independant militias. It was supplied to the Chinese. It easily outproduced and out equipped foreign forces compared to the garand. I wont say the Garand was only used to equip the US forces during the war, because I know that isnt true, but it is valid for me to say that compared to the lee enfield, the distribution of the Garand to foreign forces was on a miniscule scale. 

If you are going to exclude a weapon as widespread and important as the Lee Enfield, how about getting your facts right first.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 2, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> In my Opinion, Britian was the smallest of the main contributers to the war, even though it was once the only allie left. Zniper



Oh boy, wait until all the Brits, Aussies, Canadians, etc... see this thread...

Edit: I added the Lee Enfield. It was one of the major contributers like it or not.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 2, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> In my Opinion, Britian was the smallest of the main contributers to the war, even though it was once the only allie left.



You may want to read more before you make a statement like that. 

For your fact bank, the British had about 452,000 military casualties in WWII, the US, about 295,000 military casualties. That would make the US even smaller of a contributor. Numbers vary widely according to sources, but the British had more casualties than the Americans. They were also in the sights of the Germans for a long time. The US had the benefit of a large water mass to protect us from the Germans.

How many countries do you think were part of the allies???


----------



## parsifal (Feb 2, 2010)

Thanks Adler, 

Having had my mandatory dummy spit over the initial choice, i should make a contribution I guess. For me the best overall rifle was the Garand, however, both the K-98 and the Enfield were very good bolt actions. The difference is in the technology....both the bolt actions were developed in the late 19th century, whilst the Garand was 40 years younger. Soren managed to convince me many arguments ago that the K-98 was a better ranged weapon, but I think as a battle rifle, the enfield was better overall. It had trhe priceless advantage of a 10 round magazine, and the rate of fire for the Enfield was better as well. 

Both rifles were relatively expensive to build, using machined parts instead of stampings and forgings like the MP-40 SMG. The Garand also had this problem. It took quite a bit of training to build even average proficiency in both rate of fire and accuracy for any bolt action, compared to the garand, according to most of the books I have, though I am not quite sure why. The Lee Enfield was modified with the mk-4, to simplify the sghts and make it easier to train men to a certain standard, though these sights were somewhat less accurate than the original types fitted to the MkIII. It was not really necessary to train soldiers on the garand to get their ROF up, they could let the machine do it by itself. 

But sepite my affinity to the Enfield, and my belief that it was the best bolt action of the war, I still think the garand was the best overall. If the StG-44 had been included I would say that rifle was the best....but it aint here


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 2, 2010)

the advantage of semiauto rifles it's too large, garand it's the best, 
i don't understand because the M 1 carabine it's in the poll


p.s. and garand it's alone rifle that i used


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 2, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> In my Opinion, Britain was the smallest of the main contributors to the war, even though it was once the only ally left.
> Respectfully


Respectfully?
We'll assume the capital 'o' for opinion was a freudian slip.. 

If I don't ask you someone else will
facts, figures, statistics, manufacturing output, boots on ground from mainland UK, operational aircraft from UK factories, naval force projection out of British shipyards.

Then compare and contrast with the same for our Allies - we don't however, pretend to have the industrial might and capacity of the US.

We'll overlook the fact that the two best fighters in the world at the time were fighting for the fate of the free world and one of them was ours.

Of course, you may have meant the smallest geographically...


----------



## renrich (Feb 2, 2010)

TO, the serial number of "my" Garand in basic was 5182609. It was made by International Harvester, I think, and was very accurate. You don't happen to have it, do you? At a guns show in Montrose, CO during the early nineties, I saw a Garand that was very close to that serial number. Despite being broke, I would have bought it if it had been "my" rifle. Obviously, I voted for the Garand, but agree with Michael that the Enfield was a great battle rifle, because of it's ROF, superior to the Mauser.


----------



## stona (Feb 2, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> In my Opinion, Britian was the smallest of the main contributers to the war, even though it was once the only allie left.
> Restpectfully,
> Zniper


As that's your opinion I won't dignify it with a reply. I'll just say you need to read a lot more.
Steve


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 2, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Thanks Adler,
> 
> Having had my mandatory dummy spit over the initial choice, i should make a contribution I guess. For me the best overall rifle was the Garand, however, both the K-98 and the Enfield were very good bolt actions. The difference is in the technology....both the bolt actions were developed in the late 19th century, whilst the Garand was 40 years younger. Soren managed to convince me many arguments ago that the K-98 was a better ranged weapon, but I think as a battle rifle, the enfield was better overall. It had trhe priceless advantage of a 10 round magazine, and the rate of fire for the Enfield was better as well.
> 
> re



I agree with you about the K98. I think it was an excellent ranged weapon (2nd to none), but I would rather carry a Garand into battle. I have a K98 back in the states and it shoots very very well.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 2, 2010)

Since the German FG-42, G-41 -43 and Russian SVT-38 -40 are omitted, how about making separate, repeating-rifle self-loading-rifle polls?


----------



## Demetrious (Feb 2, 2010)

I love the Springfield, much for the same reason I love the Kar98- they were both reliable, powerful battle rifles that never let their users down. (The Springfield was such a shameful copy of the excellent Kar98 that Springfield had to pay Mauser royalties after WWI, IIRC.) They're essentially the same rifle, and excellent ones at that. 

With all that said, though, the M-1 used the same full-sized, powerful round, and the same ruggedness, but combined it with a semi-automatic capability that gave American forces superior firepower in every theater of war from the word "go." (Springfield-equipped Marines in the early Pacific days nonwithstanding.) It was heavy, yes, but that helped hold down the beastly recoil of the rifle, so it was a net plus. No other rifle did so much to further it's nations victories then the M-1, in my opinion, both because of it's technical superiority and it's ruggedness and power.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 2, 2010)

Anybody on this board spend any time shooting the Nagant? I've got a carbine I've fired from time to time and a full sized rifle as well. Both of them have flakey actions. Rattle around a lot (I know that it was intended that way) but I find ejecting spent cartridges to be a hassle. Usually, they don't come out well, if at all. 

Anybody else have that problem? I've tried several different bolts in both weapons and the problem is the same.


----------



## Demetrious (Feb 2, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Anybody on this board spend any time shooting the Nagant? I've got a carbine I've fired from time to time and a full sized rifle as well. Both of them have flakey actions. Rattle around a lot (I know that it was intended that way) but I find ejecting spent cartridges to be a hassle. Usually, they don't come out well, if at all.
> 
> Anybody else have that problem? I've tried several different bolts in both weapons and the problem is the same.



I'm sure somebody has. The Moisn Nangant was so over-produced by the Russians during the war that endless quantities of surplus rifles are still knocking around, and can be had for $80-120 dollars in some cases.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 2, 2010)

"..... In my Opinion, Britian was the smallest of the main contributers to the war, even though it was once the only allie left"

Give your head a shake.

MM


----------



## ToughOmbre (Feb 2, 2010)

renrich said:


> TO, the serial number of "my" Garand in basic was 5182609. It was made by International Harvester, I think, and was very accurate. You don't happen to have it, do you? At a guns show in Montrose, CO during the early nineties, I saw a Garand that was very close to that serial number. Despite being broke, I would have bought it if it had been "my" rifle. Obviously, I voted for the Garand, but agree with Michael that the Enfield was a great battle rifle, because of it's ROF, superior to the Mauser.



No ren, unfortunately it's not your Garand. It's a Springfield Armory (1485424). When I traced the serial number I found that it was manufactured in April 1943.

Actually, read a story though about a guy who bought his father a Garand for his 80th birthday. Turned out that the rifle was the exact one that his father carried during thre Korean War. And with 5,468,772 M1s produced, the odds of that happening is like winning the lottery.

TO


----------



## Demetrious (Feb 2, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> "..... In my Opinion, Britian was the smallest of the main contributers to the war, even though it was once the only allie left"
> 
> Give your head a shake.
> 
> MM



Everybody gives that comment a big frowny-face, but I didn't see the Americans using British tanks, aircraft, or ships. Or Russian ones, for that matter. Meanwhile the British were operating P-40s in Africa, B-399 Buffalos in Asia, P-51 Mustangs, Sherman tanks and chassis, etc. 

If you want to go by blood shed:







Objections to that statement in a qualitative sense I can understand, as well as a relative one, (England gave 100% of what she could give,) but in a quantitative sense I don't see how he's far wrong. 

I may as well head off any comments accusing me of disparaging the British right now; without the technological co-operation between England and America the Allies chances of winning the war by 1945 would have been drastically reduced. England punched well above it's weight class throughout the war due to ingenuity and great technology. Many make a great deal of the "secret weapons" of the Luftwaffe, but nobody mentions England's total victory in the "battle of the beams" which had them directing German night bombers where-ever they pleased, code-breaking contributions, the complete defeat of the Abewher by British intelligence, etc.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 2, 2010)

Actually, there were Americans that flew Spitfires and Mosquitos in USAAF markings. If you look in Roger Freeman's book _The Mighty Eighth: The Color Record_, there are photos of some of those.


----------



## Demetrious (Feb 2, 2010)

evangilder said:


> Actually, there were Americans that flew Spitfires and Mosquitos in USAAF markings. If you look in Roger Freeman's book _The Mighty Eighth: The Color Record_, there are photos of some of those.



NO WAY! Were they using British Reece birds? What theater? To what end? Spits in the USAAF is something I need to know more about.

EDIT: Wiki says they equipped "Four squadrons in England and the Med." The unit descriptions indicate that all four were American "Eagle" squadron volunteer groups that were made official USAAF Squadrons upon America's entry into the war, much like the AVG. 

Now this is fascinating. I never knew that Spits flew in US markings...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 2, 2010)

You already answered your own question. I was going to post the same info. 

In the end however, what all the others are saying is that the British and the Commonwealth contributed as much toward the victory as anyone else (except maybe the Russians...) when it comes to the blood and sweat. They also fought the Germans for the longest time. So to say they contributed the least is wrong as well.

However I will refrain from getting into this kind of discussion in this thread, because well frankly it is off topic and has nothing to do with what is the "best rifle".


----------



## Demetrious (Feb 2, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You already answered your own question. I was going to post the same info.



I've a subscription to WWII magazine and I've been obsessed with this conflict since age 10, and yet I still learn something new every time I post here. I love this place.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 2, 2010)

The US also installed Merlin engines into their Mustang fighters. They accepted a large number of ASW escorts into their Atlantic Fleet....and the list goes on.

Britain and the commonwealth paid a hefty price in blood and gold to win the war. They could not have done it alone, but then no nation could have defeated the axis alone, not even the US


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 2, 2010)

Demetrious said:


> ...I didn't see the Americans using British tanks, aircraft, or ships.
> 
> Or Russian ones, for that matter. Meanwhile the British were operating P-40s in Africa, B-399 Buffalos in Asia, P-51 Mustangs, Sherman tanks and chassis...


Ever heard of Eagle Squadron?
You might not have used our ships but you sure as hell borrowed our steam catapult...
...and WE sure as hell didn't win the Battle of Britain in P-40s and Buffaloes; have a think where your next unsinkable aircraft carrier would have come from if we'd lost...

I do seem to recall saying that we didn't pretend to have the industrial might or capacity of the US but hey, what's a short attention span amongst friends... I was also unaware that the US were 'the Allies'. There is no doubt of their key role during WWII but I seem to remember there were others too?

This subject has raised its head before and it's just as offensive as it was then - qualitative OR quantative; I suggest we return to the theme of the thread: _What is the best rifle of WWII_ and give this other issue its own thread to run, or we drop it completely for the tactless brainfart that it is.

Mr Zniper: in the 30 or so posts that you've been with us, you've proven that it's always best to:

i. engage brain
ii. submit post

in that order


----------



## evangilder (Feb 2, 2010)

Demetrious said:


> NO WAY! Were they using British Reece birds? What theater? To what end? Spits in the USAAF is something I need to know more about.
> 
> EDIT: Wiki says they equipped "Four squadrons in England and the Med." The unit descriptions indicate that all four were American "Eagle" squadron volunteer groups that were made official USAAF Squadrons upon America's entry into the war, much like the AVG.
> 
> Now this is fascinating. I never knew that Spits flew in US markings...



It was more than just Eagle squadrons, these were American units flying those aircraft with American markings, not British markings. I will dig out the book when I get home to get more info. They were in England with the 8th AF.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Feb 2, 2010)

I'm gonna go with the Garand. I mean, I like the Lee Enfield and the Mosin Nagant, but I like the fact that I can fire eight bullets almost nonstop, and not having to throw the bolt back for every bullet. That, and reloading is a lot faster. Of course, you have to worry about jamming though, but you will have that problem with most guns.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 2, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Ever heard of Eagle Squadron?
> You might not have used our ships but you sure as hell borrowed our steam catapult...
> ...and WE sure as hell didn't win the Battle of Britain in P-40s and Buffaloes; have a think where your next unsinkable aircraft carrier would have come from if we'd lost...
> 
> ...



Very nice post my friend, and I agree. This thread is way off topic. I suggest everyone return to the original topic, as we all know how this discussion turns out.


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 2, 2010)

evangilder said:


> It was more than just Eagle squadrons, these were American units flying those aircraft with American markings, not British markings. I will dig out the book when I get home to get more info. They were in England with the 8th AF.


31st FG went operational in August 1942, Spitfire Vs
67th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in late 1942, Spitfire Vs

Just before the Eagle Squadrons joined the US 4th FG, they converted from Spitfire Vs to Spitfire IXs

25th BG used Mosquito PRXVIs


----------



## stona (Feb 2, 2010)

From 1939 until June 1941 and operation barbarossa the Lee Enfield was effectively the only allied rifle in the game.
On D-Day,I've rounded these figures, 73,000 U.S.troops landed. The "smallest contributer" and her friends landed 83,000 (61,000 were British but there were many Canadians as well as men from all over the Empire/Commonwealth and contingents from countries under nazi occupation)
Getting off topic but as an example the Soviet Union received nearly 3000 Hurricanes,and many Spitfires.




Equating deaths with contribution to a war effort is nonsensical at best and I'm trying to be polite.
Snypeguy's sort of revisionism really pees me off and I suspect I'm not alone.
Cheers
Steve (off for a pint)


----------



## parsifal (Feb 2, 2010)

A good read for Spitfires in US service: American Spitfire Aces of World War 2 By Andrew Thomas, Chris Davey

I know that for more than a year the Spitfire equipped the 52 FG, and may also have equipped the 31st FG


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 2, 2010)

parsifal said:


> ...and may also have equipped the 31st FG


Yes
they were equipped with Mk Vs though I'm unsure of where they were stationed; given the range of the Spitfire very likely SE England


----------



## riacrato (Feb 2, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree with you about the K98. I think it was an excellent ranged weapon (2nd to none), but I would rather carry a Garand into battle. I have a K98 back in the states and it shoots very very well.



Actually I rate the Mosin Nagant the better sniper rifle overall. For one it has a higher muzzle velocity, but more importantly it had much more standardisation when it comes to optics as opposed to the various scopes the K98k used. Hence my impression is the ratio of scoped / unscoped rifles was much better in the Soviet army.

K98k vs Lee Enfield, SMLE has the higher magazine capacity, but K98k is a bit stronger and better for mass production. It's more of a matter of opinion what is more important to you.

Best rifle is M1 Garand, though. SVT always had problems that were never really solved completely. MP43 is simply too late to count.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 2, 2010)

'... Very nice post my friend, and I agree. This thread is way off topic. I suggest everyone return to the original topic, as we all know how this discussion turns out."

I was about to react to the Spitfire-Mosquito "OMG I didn't know that" comment, but will refrain now.

The LeeEnfield is still a front-line rifle used in defence of Canada's great north. They're issued to Canada's Inuit Rangers because they are reliable under unbelievable field conditions, are very accurate, and besides - they also work well for hunting seal and caribou.

Are any of the other choices on the voting list still ISSUED to military forces? 

MM


----------



## timshatz (Feb 2, 2010)

Demetrious said:


> I've a subscription to WWII magazine and I've been obsessed with this conflict since age 10, and yet I still learn something new every time I post here. I love this place.



Also, during Operation Drumbeat (the Uboat offensive along the East Coast of the US), the Brits lent the US a bunch of Armed Trawlers to escort and do some ASW work. At least one of them was sunk of NC. Pretty wild fight. The U-boat surfaced and chased the Trawler. Trawler's gun jammed (IIRC) and the crew went over the side. U-boat eventually sank the trawler (or did enough damage that it ended up sinking).


----------



## Demetrious (Feb 2, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Ever heard of Eagle Squadron?
> You might not have used our ships but you sure as hell borrowed our steam catapult...
> ...and WE sure as hell didn't win the Battle of Britain in P-40s and Buffaloes; have a think where your next unsinkable aircraft carrier would have come from if we'd lost...



Those Spitfires would have stayed on Terra Firma if not for the 100 octane fuel we shipped you just in time for the Battle of Britain.



> This subject has raised its head before and it's just as offensive as it was then - qualitative OR quantative;



I have exactly zero patience with all the nationalistic ego tied up in the Battle of Britain. How, exactly, Germany was going to invade a nation that had uncontested control of the seas with a hodge-podge fleet of barges, air superiority or no? 

Compare that to D-Day, which seems to hold an iconic place in the American consciousness even though the English took their own beaches alongside us. Hollywood has always slighted that part of it. 



> qualitative OR quantative



So _any_ discussion of comparative national power- even ones that give England it's just due as an indispensable part of the Allied war effort- are _verboten?_ Given what this board is about, that seems rather problematic. And mystifying, because England's role was so crucial that I consistently hesitate to describe it as a "part," or "contribution." It's not like England can't stand on it's record.



> Are any of the other choices on the voting list still ISSUED to military forces?



Actually, the M-1 is still in service with a few militaries aroudn the world, I think. Let me see if I can find who.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 2, 2010)

Attached images from USAF museum, Dayton.
MM


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 2, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> Are any of the other choices on the voting list still ISSUED to military forces?
> 
> MM



Norway still uses variants of the K98 today as a sniper weapon.

During the Balkan war of the 1990s the K98 was still in being used.

The German Bundeswehr Wachbataillon still used the K98, but that is only for parades and ceremonies. 

Examples of all of the above weapons have been found in Iraq. We got to see a nice example of a K98 and Garand in one of Saddam's Palaces.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 2, 2010)

"...During the Balkan war of the 1990s the K98 was still in being used."

If not mistaken, so did the Ross rifle, from WWI 

MM


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 2, 2010)

Demetrious said:


> Those Spitfires would have stayed on Terra Firma if not for the 100 octane fuel we shipped you just in time for the Battle of Britain.
> 
> 
> > A slight problem with that statement is that the fuel in question was paid for by the British (not give or lean lease) and was formulated to a British specification which was different than US military specifications and in fact may have been usable by US aircraft only with serious maintenance issues. The just in time part of the statement does cover the first deliveries in the fall of 1939, right?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 2, 2010)

Demetrious .. along with Spits and Mossies I want to add this to the list of UK-Commonwealth contributions:

From Wikpedia:
"... In the Mediterranean, the USAAF's 414th, 415th, 416th and 417th Night Fighter Squadrons received 100 Beaufighters in the summer of 1943, achieving their first victory in July 1943. Through the summer the squadrons conducted both daytime convoy escort and ground-attack operations, but primarily flew defensive interception missions at night. Although the Northrop P-61 Black Widow fighter began to arrive in December 1944, USAAF Beaufighters continued to fly night operations in Italy and France until late in the war."

MM


----------



## JoeB (Feb 2, 2010)

parsifal said:


> The Arisaka was only used by Japan, produced to about 10 million copies, and equipped perhaps 100 Division altogether.
> 
> Atleast 17 million copies of the Lee Enfield were built, and equipped no less than 120 divisions during the war (roughly....52 Brit Divs, 12 Canadian, 40 Indian, 12 Australian, 4 NZ, 2 Burmese, 4 South African, 6 west and east african). It was used to equip formations of free french and other forces in exile, and by several European nations as well, on substantial, but not exclusive basis. It was used to equip Abysynnian guerillas in 1941, as well as a whole range of independant militias. It was supplied to the Chinese. It easily outproduced and out equipped foreign forces compared to the garand. I wont say the Garand was only used to equip the US forces during the war, because I know that isnt true, but it is valid for me to say that compared to the lee enfield, the distribution of the Garand to foreign forces was on a miniscule scale.


Actually Arisaka types were used by the British among others, in WWI, Model 30's and Model 38's designated Pattern 1900 and Pattern 1907 by the British, around 150,000 altogether. Most were eventually given on to the Russians. In both WW's, everybody trying to build a mass army had trouble equipping everyone right away with their standard frontline weapon. WWI also saw use of SMLE's in US divisions operating within the logistical chain of the British in France.

The M1 for most of WWII was in the position of standard current production weapon in face of a huge buildup: not enough to spare to give many to anyone else. Even some US Army infantry divisions and/or many non-infantry units went overseas with M1903's or M1917's i n WWII, also the Marines in 1942 used M1903. The rebuilt French Army in 1944-5 was the main foreign user of the M1 during WWII, though small numbers were given to others including the British. Most US LL of rifles in WWII, including to the French, was leftover M1917's or M1903 versions, w/ around 1.4 mil of the latter produced new during WWII. Those were also the main Allied weapons supplied to the Chinese, SMLE's in pretty small numbers comparatively, and the massive Chinese armies had huge numbers of Chinese-produced or previously imported Mauser types as well.

After WWII, Japanese Model 38 and 99 were probably the most common rifles in the Chinese forces early in the Korean War, from stocks seized by the Soviets after WWII (though along with all the other rifles which had accumulated in China up to then), and Arisaka's were also used in numbers by both Korea's in that war, mainly in second line type units.

In general, rifle fans can endlessly debate the pro's and cons of various 20th century bolt action repeaters, and even sentimentally/nationalistically favor a bolt action over a semi, but the latter is basically ridiculous from practical military POV for general use rifle, assuming a workable reliable semi produced in large numbers. The obvious choice among the rifles listed is the M1.

Joe


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 2, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> I didn't name a few of the rifles because they wern't as common nor as in servivce long in the war, like the Stg44. It came too late to save germany, and even though it was mass produced, it saw limited service in all fronts except the russian front. As for the Lee-Enfield, It was only used by Britian (and its colonies and loyal former colonies except america)and saw some use in the french resestance. In my Opinion, Britian was the smallest of the main contributers to the war, even though it was once the only allie left. As for the rest of the rifles named, and the ones i have already named, have no excuse to be excluded. sorry, but can you guys, of the rifles listed, choose the best still?
> Restpectfully,
> Zniper



That could be some trouble dude....


----------



## timshatz (Feb 2, 2010)

Demetrious said:


> Actually, the M-1 is still in service with a few militaries aroudn the world, I think. Let me see if I can find who.



Think I saw one in a news clip from Haiti. Whether it was a Local Military or a Peace Keeper, I don't know. But he was firing it over heads to break up some looters.


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 2, 2010)

timshatz said:


> ...he was firing it over heads to break up some looters


Looters?
Are you sure he wasn't just a lousy shot?


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 2, 2010)

I have fired the Lee Enfield No4 and SMLE, K98, M1 and a Moisin Nagant carbine.

The best by a country mile is the M1 apart from the recoil ouch a bit of a fierce kick.

Of the 3 bolt act rifles I would go with the Lee simply because for anyone used to a Lee bolt using a Mauser bolt is like changing gear with a crash box when your used to a syncro box. The Moisin was a bit worn out to say the least the safest place on the ranges was probably 10 yards in front of the muzzle. However aside from that the ergonomics felt all wrong it wasnt a smooth single action to bring the carbine from a rest position to the eye and fire like it is with the other rifles discussed it was more of a bring the back sight into view then look for the foresight which seemed to involve lifting the muzzle more than felt right. Not a good thing when you want to snap a round off though probably no problem for a sniper.


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Feb 2, 2010)

Hey all, sorry about the poor selection abilities. Iv made a new thread about semi autos, check it out and see if it is better, and agian sorry.


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 2, 2010)

A mod could have just added or deleted more rifles......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 2, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...During the Balkan war of the 1990s the K98 was still in being used."
> 
> If not mistaken, so did the Ross rifle, from WWI
> 
> MM



Between the former Yugoslav Republics and Iraq, I am sure we could even find some old muzzle loading black powder guns!


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 3, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> ...
> During the Balkan war of the 1990s the K98 was still in being used.
> 
> ...



Yep, the venerable M-48 (= ex-Yu Mauser K98) were issued even in 1993 for Croatian army. I received one, replaced it with AK-47 after 2 months.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 3, 2010)

Its worse than that....they say the most deadly weapon of mass destruction since the end of WWII was the machete....more than a million killed in Rwanda alone, and most of them hacked to death with machetes


----------



## machine shop tom (Feb 7, 2010)

Which cartridge and weapon had the longest time in active use? Which cartridge is the oldest and is still being used in action today in modern armies?

The cartridge is the 7.62x54r Russian and the weapon is the Mosin Nagant, in it's M91/30 version and other versions.

tom


----------



## timshatz (Feb 8, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Yep, the venerable M-48 (= ex-Yu Mauser K98) were issued even in 1993 for Croatian army. I received one, replaced it with AK-47 after 2 months.



Tomo, did the Yuk Mausers shoot well? Wonder as they were probably pretty old. But have heard even the old ones shoot well. 

Same question about the AK. Have fired one myself and couldn't hit anything. Frustrating, figure I am an average shot but just couldn't hit anything.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 9, 2010)

Not that old, tim. They were produced after WW2, and spent most time in warehouses (ex-Yu was preparing for Soviet onslaught, so the production was around the clock). Plus, their barrel was chromium-treated, so no problems from that end. I'd say accuracy was good.

Did you fired bursts or single shots from AK? Standing up or laying down?


----------



## timshatz (Feb 9, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Did you fired bursts or single shots from AK? Standing up or laying down?



Single shots both standing and sitting. Not a standard AK, it was a Chinese knockoff called a MAK-90. It was (still is) a dog when it came to accuracy. Nada. On the plus side, it never got close to jamming. Easy to clean and disassemble. Fired a CMTE right after and that thing was dead on. 

Amazing the difference.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 9, 2010)

Chinese Romanian copies were not well known for their accuracy here either. 
Ex-USSR (better known as 'Lithuaninan' in Croatian army back in 90's) ex-Yu pieces have much better reputation, but some ex-Yu samples, that were issued used for generations of soldiers before the war, do have substantial barrel wear.

To answer the question: generally, Mauser 98k and SKS were regarded as the 'accurate' rifles, while even the best AK-47 pieces were not that good, although not that bad as you have experienced.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 9, 2010)

Fired the SKS a bit way back in the 80s. Found it a very easy rifle to use. Good all around weapon, not spectacular, but worked well. Only thing that bothered me was that stripper clip. Annoying to use. Found mags much simpler and user friendly.


----------



## machine shop tom (Feb 9, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Its worse than that....they say the most deadly weapon of mass destruction since the end of WWII was the machete....more than a million killed in Rwanda alone, and most of them hacked to death with machetes



So why aren't there a bunch of nitwits out there trying to ban machetes?


tom


----------



## parsifal (Feb 9, 2010)

some countries have placed restrictions on the sale of "gang" knives to minors. We're getting off topic here i suspect.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 10, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Fired the SKS a bit way back in the 80s. Found it a very easy rifle to use. Good all around weapon, not spectacular, but worked well. Only thing that bothered me was that stripper clip. Annoying to use. Found mags much simpler and user friendly.



No surprise. Even the 5-round strip for Mausers requires a great deal of practice.


----------



## machine shop tom (Feb 10, 2010)

parsifal said:


> some countries have placed restrictions on the sale of "gang" knives to minors. We're getting off topic here i suspect.



Sorry about that. Sore subject with me because I see so many "civilized" countries disarming their populace...........


tom


----------



## timshatz (Feb 10, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> No surprise. Even the 5-round strip for Mausers requires a great deal of practice.



Have used those with an M1917 and your right about that. They just don't go fast. Kind of a pain in the ass. One more check in the column for Mags.


----------



## Florence (Feb 14, 2010)

The difference between the Mauser and the Lee Enfield was once described to me like this - 'the Germans designed a rifle that could shoot but the Brits built a rifle that could kill'. Like most German stuff the Mauser is a real good peice of engineering and like most British stuff the Lee Enfield is a no nonsense design that gets the job done. I love my .303's. I even have a Savage manufactured No 4 in the collection. Must've been a good rifle if the yanks produced them under licence. Anyhows...just my two cents worth.


----------



## Demetrious (Feb 17, 2010)

Florence said:


> The difference between the Mauser and the Lee Enfield was once described to me like this - 'the Germans designed a rifle that could shoot but the Brits built a rifle that could kill'. Like most German stuff the Mauser is a real good peice of engineering and like most British stuff the Lee Enfield is a no nonsense design that gets the job done. I love my .303's. I even have a Savage manufactured No 4 in the collection. Must've been a good rifle if the yanks produced them under licence. Anyhows...just my two cents worth.



And the yanks also stole the design for the Mauser and called it the "Springfield," even though they weren't fooling anybody. 

Which says volumes about both weapons, in my opinion.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

