# WHICH RIFLE?



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 5, 2006)

what is the best standard issue rifle?


----------



## Twitch (Apr 5, 2006)

Before this topic becomes strained by sentimental favorites and all that sillyness remember that by by 1943-44 fast moving squad tactics dictated rapid fire capability that no bolt action pre-war conceived rifle had. It was a different place out there and volume of fire was paramount. The WW I idea of popping well-aimed shots from trenches across no man's land was a long dead fantasy as was the theory of "squandering" ammo by trigger happy soldiers that every old fart establishment general knew would happen.

If you're talking "best" to kill the emeny with you need to tally semi-auto or auto rifles. Yes I have a K-98 but I'd upgrade to the M-1 and if possible to the STG 44 in a heartbeat to increase my chances of staying alive.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 5, 2006)

standard issue rifles dude, the StG-44 wasnt one


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 5, 2006)

I've always had a soft spot for the STV-40. Not quite as rugged as the Mosin but a very good weapon none the less. More than a million were issued to Soviet troops in WW2. Not 'standard issue' but still quite plentiful.

The only one I have fired is a SMLE IV, which was quite nice to fire, but with a large kick. 

If I had to take one of those into battle, the Garand and then the Mauser would be my choice.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Twitch (Apr 6, 2006)

That's why I said M-1 Garand first since the STG 44 wasn't in widespread use.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2006)

Not that I know a lot, but ill go K98...


----------



## MacArther (Apr 8, 2006)

I'd go with the Garand. I'm not sure about kick, but something tells me that if an enemy got in too close I'd want a semi-auto and not a bolt rifle. Were it me with the gun, I think I'd have to have extra ammo, cause I rail off shots when ever I use my paintball marker (which is also semi-auto)


----------



## Glider (Apr 8, 2006)

The Lee Enfield was in my view the best bolt action but the day of the bolt action was over and the Garrand is a clear winner


----------



## Soren (Apr 9, 2006)

I voted others because the Stg.44 was clearly the best "rifle" to come out of WW2. However of the rifles above, the M1 Garand is clearly the best.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 9, 2006)

Agreed Soren. Although of the bolt actions the Kar98k and the Lee Enfield No. 4 where the best in my opinion.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Apr 9, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> Although of the bolt actions the Kar98k and the Lee Enfield No. 4 where the best in my opinion.



Fully agreed.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 9, 2006)

Soren said:


> I voted others because the Stg.44 was clearly the best "rifle" to come out of WW2. However of the rifles above, the M1 Garand is clearly the best.


STANDARD-ISSUE, it is Hitlers fault that it didn't become standard issue


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2006)

Well considering the STG-44 was not a Rifle, atleast when compared to the K98 and the M1. It is more of an automatic assault rifle. Now having fired an M1 and owning several K98s, which I have fired as well. I voted for the K98. It was an all around good weapon, easy to shoot and very accurate and deadly.

Overall though I think it comes down to what you want to use it for. The M1 to me is a very close second.


----------



## Soren (Apr 10, 2006)

Well the Stg.44 is infact a "Rifle", but I can follow what you say. Maybe he should have written "Full powered rifle", then there would be no mistaken.

Also I agree that the K98k is a sweet thing to shoot, amazingly accurate and safe. I bet you could weld the barrell shut and the action still wouldn't blow up.(Wouldn't recommend trying it though)

Of the rifles above though, the M1 Garand is clearly the best, its semi-auto, easy to use, safe to use(Except there's a risk you might lose a finger when reloading  ), and its atleast as accurate as any of the rifles above out to 400m, which is more than enough in most situations.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 11, 2006)

M1 Garand is the best in my opinion for the fire and maneuver doctrine. 8 shots per clip than a K98, Semi-automatic, and a powerful .30 caliber round. It was rugged and reliable. Only problem with it was the fact that it was difficult to reload mid clip so soldiers just fired off the remaining ammo in their rifle.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2006)

Ill agree with what you are saying up there Soren. The 2 best of ww2 in my opionion when it comes to Non Assault or Automatic rifles deffinatly are the K98 and the M1. I put the K98 ahead only because I enjoyed shooting it more than the M1. Overall though the M1 probably has a good edge over the K98 for the reasons that you stated.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 2, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ill agree with what you are saying up there Soren. The 2 best of ww2 in my opionion when it comes to Non Assault or Automatic rifles deffinatly are the K98 and the M1. I put the K98 ahead only because I enjoyed shooting it more than the M1. Overall though the M1 probably has a good edge over the K98 for the reasons that you stated.


Adler, you got your hands on a K98? How did you finance that it must have been expensive, being from the second World War.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2006)

Actually I own several of them and I paid no more than 350 dollars for each. They are not as expensive as you think. In the United States you can find M1s for as little as 150 dollars. I am a Military Collector and collect mostly 3rd Reich uniforms, tunics, and equipment. I have posted some of my stuff here in other threads. We had one going for a while called the Militaria Collectors thread.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 2, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Actually I own several of them and I paid no more than 350 dollars for each. They are not as expensive as you think. In the United States you can find M1s for as little as 150 dollars. I am a Military Collector and collect mostly 3rd Reich uniforms, tunics, and equipment. I have posted some of my stuff here in other threads. We had one going for a while called the Militaria Collectors thread.


cool, unfortunately, I'm a sophomore, too young to purchase firearms. When I'm old enough I'd like to buy a M1 and a few other WW2 paraphernalia and have a collection. I'd be sweet to have a 101st airborne uniform though the cost would be great.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2006)

Actually WW2 US uniforms are the cheapest there are in the hobby. They are so numerous. I have a WW2 IKE Jacket with the 101st patch on it. It is compete original and I paid $45 for it. The most expensive is the 3rd Reich uniforms. I paid no less than 450 dollars for one and as much as 2500 dollars for another. It is a fun but expensive hobby.


----------



## davparlr (May 4, 2006)

My vote went to the Garand with the Mauser second. The extra firepower it gave to the infantryman had to be significant (as said by Patton). It made the bolt action obsolete (except for sniper use). The Mauser and the Enfield were similar in being excellent quality weapons. I chose the Mauser as second only because it came out before the Enfield and was also the inspiration (copy) of another excellent rifle, the Springfield.

Its interesting that Garand did not make the next step on adding a removable magazine, which would have made an even greater weapon. I have heard that was not considered because of concern of using too much ammo. A concept made obsolete by WWII. Add a full auto mode and voila, an M-14.


----------



## MacArther (May 8, 2006)

"was also the inspiration (copy) of another excellent rifle, the Springfield."

Umm, no.... The Springfield came into being in 1903, where the Kar 98 came into being in 1898, hence the 98 in the name.

Back on subject though, I would take the M1 Garand (again). I could easily rail off enough shots to make the enemy think they were facing a Machine Gun firing in bursts. If that didn't work, then I'd have a Garand with a calibrated scope handy, so I could hit the officers, and get the heck out of Dodge. I think there was a report from Japanese defenders at one point, when they first encounterd Americans using the M1 in large numbers. The field report says that the Japanese soldiers came under fire from what they assumed to be submachine guns and machine guns from a much larger force of Americans.

PS: If anyone has that report, can ya send it to me via PM?


----------



## Soren (May 9, 2006)

davparlr, it is actually the M1903 which is a direct copy of the K98k, and in this case the original is definitely the better of the two. The americans just had to mess around with the firing pin mechanism among other things, which resulted in a weaker and less safe action than that of the K98k.


----------



## elmilitaro (May 10, 2006)

Hmmm, didn't know that!


----------



## P38 Pilot (May 14, 2006)

I think the SMLE was a great bolt action, but I would have the Garand anyday. Either that or the M1 Carbine depending on what type of comabt your doing.

Garand: Long range, stopping power, accurate.
Carbine: Short range, more ammo in clip, good for use in close combat.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (May 16, 2006)

Hi guys, sorry for not being around of late (though I guess y'all secretly loved my absense?)


All this rapid-fire malarkey...

Ever seen a Lee-Enfield "mad-minute"??

It made German soldiers actually thought they were up against MG's!!

The bolt on the SMLE is very, very differrent (and far better IMO) than any other bolt-action rifle.

I go for the Lee-Enfield No.4 - all the virtues of the SMLE only cheaper and easier to mass produce. Also very reliable with it's free-floating barrel, just a bit heavier.

Good both at close and far range and far lighter than a Garand (lighter than an MP40 infact!!).

- Kinda like a 20th Century Longbow.


The K43 was good, but standard issue?

BTW: Does the BAR count? What about the FG42?

The Cei-Rigotti?



loomaluftwaffe said:


> STANDARD-ISSUE, it is Hitlers fault that it didn't become standard issue



Too true looma, his and that idiot Goerings.



Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Only problem with it was the fact that it was difficult to reload mid clip so soldiers just fired off the remaining ammo in their rifle.



Not that hard(?) (there's a release catch IIRC?)

BTW Vassili, a Turkish 98 should be a pretty cheap way for you to get a Mauser.



davparlr said:


> I have heard that was not considered because of concern of using too much ammo. A concept made obsolete by WWII.



Not obsolete (e.g. the M16 being de-autoed).


----------



## davparlr (May 16, 2006)

Soren said:


> davparlr, it is actually the M1903 which is a direct copy of the K98k, and in this case the original is definitely the better of the two. The americans just had to mess around with the firing pin mechanism among other things, which resulted in a weaker and less safe action than that of the K98k.



Yes, I stated that very poorly. I should have said that he Mauser inspired another excellent weapon, the Springfield (which was practically a copy of the Mauser). That would have been much clearer.


----------



## Twitch (May 16, 2006)

While I own a K98 I would have been caught dead with it in 1944 Europe. Yes I'd have been dead since firepower was the paramount concern after D-Day. The Enfield couldn't hold a candle, nor could any bolt action stick to a semi-auto. Come on you all know it! You've obviously all sloshed a bolt through its positions with the attendant loss of sight picture as you shift the weapon around during the bolt slide for shell ejection and live cartridge-to-breech action. 

It's not a thing about quality or what anyone like as a favorite rifle. It's about being on par with the enemy in the high firepower mobile assault technique of France 1944.

By then the bolt action arm was completely eclipsed except in sniper work. It was as dead then as entering a battle field today would be with a semi-auto versus full automatic arms.


----------



## davparlr (May 16, 2006)

Twitch said:


> By then the bolt action arm was completely eclipsed except in sniper work. It was as dead then as entering a battle field today would be with a semi-auto versus full automatic arms.



I agree. I certainly would want to be able to squeeze off a few rounds without have to operate a bolt. It seems obvious.


----------



## davparlr (May 16, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Not obsolete (e.g. the M16 being de-autoed).



I suspect that you can still lay down a good amount of fire support with the present design, even with three shots a pull,....and not have to operate a bolt.


----------



## timshatz (May 16, 2006)

Like the Garand over the others. It is really in a seperate class, given it is semi-auto and the others are bolt action. You'll never get a bolt action up to the speed of a semi in RPM. Just not there. But once you take the Garand out, you are left with a much closer bunch. All had their advantages. The K98 and Springfield are very close. The K98, it is my understanding, is a carbine version of the full length rifle. And the Springfield's action is a copy of the Mauser action so much so that the German's sued the US Govt either during or after WW1 for compensation!

As for the Enfield, smooth, pretty and evenly balanced. Large magazine and very good action. Can put out a lot of rounds fast. 

Arisaka is a clanky thing. Has a dusk cover that is a bit odd. Fires a 6.5mm round. Probably longer than it needs to be too. 

MN is a good rifle. But the action is weird. Loose. Doesn't seem to matter if you oil the thing or not. It keeps on going. 

Fired about half of the and they are all accurate, heavy kicking (though the M1 loses a tad due to the semi feature) and around 9lbs. 

What I find interesting compared to newer rifles is the almost complete lack of stamped parts. All are machined. Lots of machining too. And the furniture is all wood. Not that there were other viable options (bakelite is fragile and Nylon/Polyester was just invented in the mid 30s). But there are very expensive rifles to make. 

One last point, the US did graft a BAR magazine onto an M1 in the later part of the war. Called the T1 or T3, I've seen pictures of it. Looks a bit like the M1A/M14 family.


----------



## herman1rg (Jan 5, 2017)

Enfield all the way for me, you can recock and keep your sights

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 5, 2017)

Twitch said:


> While I own a K98 I would have been caught dead with it in 1944 Europe. Yes I'd have been dead since firepower was the paramount concern after D-Day. The Enfield couldn't hold a candle, nor could any bolt action stick to a semi-auto. Come on you all know it! You've obviously all sloshed a bolt through its positions with the attendant loss of sight picture as you shift the weapon around during the bolt slide for shell ejection and live cartridge-to-breech action.
> 
> It's not a thing about quality or what anyone like as a favorite rifle. It's about being on par with the enemy in the high firepower mobile assault technique of France 1944.
> 
> By then the bolt action arm was completely eclipsed except in sniper work. It was as dead then as entering a battle field today would be with a semi-auto versus full automatic arms.


Whilst I would agree that the semi auto has advantages over the Enfield and was one of the first mass production semi auto weapons overall the differences were not huge. Given the choice I would take the Garand Rifle but its worth remembering that althought the M1 stayed in service for many years it started to be replaced in 1957 I think, by the M14, which in rifle terms is quite a short period of dominance


----------



## parsifal (Jan 5, 2017)

_Before this topic becomes strained by sentimental favorites and all that sillyness remember that by by 1943-44 fast moving squad tactics dictated rapid fire capability that no bolt action pre-war conceived rifle had. It was a different place out there and volume of fire was paramount. The WW I idea of popping well-aimed shots from trenches across no man's land was a long dead fantasy as was the theory of "squandering" ammo by trigger happy soldiers that every old fart establishment general knew would happen.

If you're talking "best" to kill the emeny with you need to tally semi-auto or auto rifles. Yes I have a K-98 but I'd upgrade to the M-1 and if possible to the STG 44 in a heartbeat to increase my chances of staying alive_.


Volume of fire is not always the optimal approach. Where there are logistics issues such as occurred in the jungles and often on the eastern front, where re-supply to say the least was nearly always problematic, conserving ammunition was the overwhelming consideration. US soldiers armed with the high rate of fire Garand were often caught out by this when confronted with ammunition shortages and suffered inordinate casualties as a result.


The other issue to consider is concealment. Blasting away wildly has the problem of giving away your position. It adds little to your personal safety and essentially makes the infantry a target. In most battle situations, where one side has an artillery advantage (or advantage of some other description in terms of firepower, eg air support or AFV support). Friendly Infantry waits until enemy (inferior) artillery is suppressed or neutralized, then fires for effect. Defending (ie opposing) Infantry is fired upon, revealing friendly Infantry’s position and often driving it into cover. However the enemy Infantry is now exposing their position and draws fire from the friendly supporting artillery and must either relocate, but more likely retreat under darkness to avoid destruction.


To maximise your own infantry’s survival, in the jungle at least, it is important that you have large magazines and a reliable weapon. ROF is generally a liability because of the aforementioned logistics issue.


You may keep your garand thanks very much.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 5, 2017)

SVT-40 does count as a service weapon as it was in service and would have been standard had war not interfered.
The best 5 shot rifle I would go with the Arisaka type 38. Although the SMLE would be my choice for bolt action. One weapon which isn't on there is the MAS 36 and that should be and would be a good choice

I would choose the FG42 if I had a choice although it isn't standard but the StG44 or even StG45 would gain interest.

I suppose you would have to by default go with the Garand. Simply because it's ease of loading and semi auto fire makes it the clear favourite.
Not the most reliable in very adverse environments but tops the list.

Wouldn't pick the Mosin or the Carcano although a 7mm Mauser would be of interest.

A magazine M1 would have around if the war dragged on a year or two but isn't relevant to WW2.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 5, 2017)

Blaming the rifle for excessive ammo consumption rather over looks training/doctrine and command function (or lack of it). 
Deliberately equipping your infantry with a slow firing rifle to _prevent_ them from running out of ammo in a fire fight is an admission of inadequate training. Both of the riflemen and the non-coms or low rank officers commanding them. 
Granted it is a lot easier to fire off ammo with a semi-auto but about the only ranged infantry weapons that could NOT fire off a basic load of 80 rounds in 15-20 minutes over the last 500 years would be crossbows using winches and rifled muzzle loaders using patched round balls. Granted some of the black powder guns tended to foul making it difficult (if not impossible ) to get the later rounds down the barrel. 
Firing 80 rounds from a muzzle loader at 4 rounds per minute would be exhausting work but theoretically possible. 
One can look at the study of guns picked up at the Battle of Gettysburg to see what _some_ troops were capable of however. several guns were picked up with 12 or more loads rammed into the barrel and one gun had a record 22 loads of alternating powder and minie ball. One would think that the lack or recoil (or cloud of smoke coming out the barrel ) would have been a clue let alone the ramrod only going about 1/2 to 1/3 the way down the barrel. Dozens of rifles had 3 or more rounds loaded and double loaded rifles may have numbered over 100. 
Does mean the the troops should have been issued bows and arrows instead so they (and the sargents ) could more readily tell if the "weapon" was loaded or not? 
Anyone somewhat familiar with a bolt action magazine rifle that loaded from clips could fire 10 to 15 rounds a minute and could get rid of 80 rounds in 5 to 8 minutes.
An expert could fire a Snyder rifle at about 10 rounds per minute. 
Type of action is no guarantee that careful aim at identified targets is being done. 

When comparing the Garand to other rifles the comparison tends to focus on rate of fire and reliability. The Garand also had sights that were arguably among the top 3 even if perhaps not the best. However they did require training and checking to make sure they are not out of adjustment. The ring or aperture rear sight is much easier to use (assuming the troops even use the sight) under stress or poor conditions. The MAS 36 was the only other rifle aside from the No 4 rifle to use aperture sights in first line rifles (US used aperture sights on late 1903, 1917s and M1 Carbines).
The shooter merely has to look through the rear sight ring, place the front sight on (or just under the target) and pull the trigger. NO trying to make sure the front sight is in the "notch" left and right and that the top of the front sight is level with the top of the rear sight. 
*IF *the shooter is actually looking through the rear sight (and not over it) then front and rear sight alignment is automatically taken care of (at least at common combat ranges) and the shooter can concentrate on putting the front sight on the target. 
The shooter's eye only has to focus on two different different distances, the end of the barrel and infinity (target) and for most people of military age they won't even notice the difference in focus. The notch rear sights mounted on the rear of barrel mean the eye has to focus on 3 different distances or two different practical distances , the rear sight _around_ 8 inches (200mm from the eye) and the end of the barrel/target. Theory says that if you have to choose, focus on the front sight and let the target go a little blurry. Fine on the target target range with a black bullseye on buff/tan or white background, not so good on soldier in a uniform designed to blend into shadows or foliage. Trouble with the notch rear sight is even if the front sight and target is clear a slightly fussy rear sight means the gun may be out of alignment and the gun is actually point left or right of the target or above or below even if the front sigh t is dead on. 

A good shooter can do good work with most any rifle, some are easier use than others. a poor shooter will be near useless with just about anything (shotguns included). The weapon selected should be for the troops in the middle. What is the easiest weapon/rifle to master with a given amount of training. Perhaps the semi-auto is harder to field strip/clean but this training can be done in barracks and not at the range. Range time is almost always limited. 
I am pretty good with rifles on a target range and own a No 4 rifle but never had the ammo (money) or situation to practice rapid fire the way the British did it. I have fired bolt action rifles with stripper clips in matches and fired M1s in the same type match ( 10 rounds in 60 seconds in sitting position but you start standing up, 9 ring is just over 12in at 200 yrds, very many 9s and you loose). The bolt guns (not service rifles) had better sights and better triggers, were heavier (less recoil) and had better fitting stocks but the M1 gave you more time to actually aim between shots. The next stage was 10 shots in 70 seconds at 300 yds prone from standing. It usually took 20 seconds to get into position to get the accuracy we were looking for which was way more than most combat situations would call for. At some point they changed the time limits, back in the 50s/60s and early 70s the M1s got 10 seconds less per stage or string but keeping track of the different times or trying to squad all like rifles on the same relays was a pain in the a**. 

The M1 was one of the best rifles of the war. The German and Russian semi-autos had crap sights. They may have been well machined but if they are hard to see or hard to align then they are crap. The M1 could be fired faster _if need be _by troops that less experience/practice on the range than bolt guns. Fully admit that the Enfield is very impressive with a good shooter and can well cross over results with the M1 depending on shooters. 
The M1 and the Enfield No 4 are the top two. Anything else is a distant third.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 6, 2017)

For what it's worth, back in the 1980's, a co-worker of mine who was a former SS Panzergrenadier, took me to the range a few times and showed me what my Mauser could do. Literally.

He was able to sustain an accurate and high rate of fire from standing, prone and semi-kneeling that was extremely impressive. While a bolt-action may not be able to "dump a mag" downrange, he showed that a well trained infantryman (or panzergrenadier) with a bolt action rifle was a very dangerous asset on the battlefield.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 6, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Anyone somewhat familiar with a bolt action magazine rifle that loaded from clips could fire 10 to 15 rounds a minute and could get rid of 80 rounds in 5 to 8 minutes.



We trained using the Lee Enfield in the 70s and were expected, as recruits, to deliver accurate aimed fire within a 9x9 target over 250 yds at a minimum of 15 rounds per minute. we also used the cousin of the garand, the M1 carbine in similar exercises. The Lee Enfield was ideal to the purpose of training a man to shoot accurately and watch his ammunition expenditure, the M1 was not. The old SMLE NEVER failed us. it was reliable, accurate, effortless and for the average grunts like us. By comparison the M1 was a mule, with constant stoppages, vastly less accuracy but most important of all this desire to make up for those weaknesses by firing off rounds as fast as was possible. the result, by calculation, the firepower generated by a squad of enfield armed men was vastly more effective because of accuracy and dependability over the M1. I have only fired the Garand occasionally, and I would concede that its greater weight and length might make it a better proposition, but im not convinced.

some time further up the food chain, i trained using the SLR and the M-16. The M-16 had a full auto function, the SLRs (that we used) were only semi auto. The m-16 as a meaningful weapon of war was in my opinion a total waste of time. Sure, you could go nuts and spray bullets in every direction as your fear prescribed, but your ability to deliver accurate, measured fire designed to keep a target's head down whilst your mates enveloped and then repositioned themselves was inconsequential and totally ineffective when compared to the SLR. this is not just my bias talking. the RAR, considered to be far more effective in battles in Vietnam than any comparable US outfit except the very top elite forces refused to use the m-16 as a rule for those reasons and time and again proved the point that the measured, deliberate aimed fire of the SLR was far superior . 

Semi auto superiority is a theoretical advantage, but in the real world is a total crock

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 6, 2017)

To be honest, I like the M1 Carbine over the M1 Garand, but my stepfather had an affinity for it and had several in his collection.

But he also recounted that in Korea, it was worthless in the freezing temps when they needed it most. When the Chinese attacked at Chosin, they were having a terrible time getting the Garand to function and I had asked him if they "peed" on it to get them to work. That was perhaps not the best question to ask a Chosin survivor...

His response was "Who the f**k had time to piss on their rifle? Our foxholes were waist deep with freezing water and waves of Chinese were coming at us".

So thier Garands ended up being used as clubs. Or they used Chinese rifles and they used helmets, shovels, Kabars and anything else they could get their hands on...


----------



## The Basket (Jan 6, 2017)

I suppose the Chinese rifles would have been Mosins.
The Garand didn't do well in extreme environments and was a weakness. Why this wasn't picked up in testing I don't know. 
Anyway. The G43 used stripper clips to load so yes it was semi but it took time to reload. The Garand with its clip could be reloaded in an instant so not only rate of fire but it can keep up that rate of fire for longer. And that's a nice thing to have. Semi is very good in CQB so if your door kicking in urban warfare you don't want a bolt action.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 6, 2017)

parsifal said:


> We trained using the Lee Enfield in the 70s and were expected, as recruits, to deliver accurate aimed fire within a 9x9 target over 250 yds at a minimum of 15 rounds per minute. we also used the cousin of the garand, the M1 carbine in similar exercises. The Lee Enfield was ideal to the purpose of training a man to shoot accurately and watch his ammunition expenditure, the M1 was not. The old SMLE NEVER failed us. it was reliable, accurate, effortless and for the average grunts like us. By comparison the M1 was a mule, with constant stoppages, vastly less accuracy but most important of all this desire to make up for those weaknesses by firing off rounds as fast as was possible. the result, by calculation, the firepower generated by a squad of enfield armed men was vastly more effective because of accuracy and dependability over the M1. I have only fired the Garand occasionally, and I would concede that its greater weight and length might make it a better proposition, but im not convinced.
> 
> some time further up the food chain, i trained using the SLR and the M-16. The M-16 had a full auto function, the SLRs (that we used) were only semi auto. The m-16 as a meaningful weapon of war was in my opinion a total waste of time. Sure, you could go nuts and spray bullets in every direction as your fear prescribed, but your ability to deliver accurate, measured fire designed to keep a target's head down whilst your mates enveloped and then repositioned themselves was inconsequential and totally ineffective when compared to the SLR. this is not just my bias talking. the RAR, considered to be far more effective in battles in Vietnam than any comparable US outfit except the very top elite forces refused to use the m-16 as a rule for those reasons and time and again proved the point that the measured, deliberate aimed fire of the SLR was far superior .
> 
> Semi auto superiority is a theoretical advantage, but in the real world is a total crock



Seems like you are talking out both sides of your mouth here. 
"...........this is not just my bias talking. the RAR, considered to be far more effective in battles in Vietnam than any comparable US outfit except the very top elite forces refused to use the m-16 as a rule for those reasons and time and again proved the point that the measured, deliberate aimed fire of the SLR was far superior."

Now I believe that the SLR was a gas operated *semi-auto *rifle as you have stated. it had a 20 round magazine. and yet somehow it was so much better at at "_measured, deliberate aimed fire" _than the gas operated semi-auto M-1 Garand with it's 8 round magazine. Both rifles were about the same length (within a few inches) the same weight (1/2 to 1 pound) fired a cartridge of about the same power and used similar sights. The SLR may well have been more reliable in adverse conditions than the Garand. It should be, it was designed a number of years later. However an panicked, undisciplined soldier could probably fire more rounds in given period of time from the SLR than from the Garand due to it's large magazine and easier reload. 

The US standard of marksmanship during the Vietnam war started at mediocre at best and often descended to abysmal. This had much more to do with training and doctrine that the actual rifles/weapons used. The M16 could be used for measured, deliberate aimed fire out to 400-500 meters. However it required that the troops be taught that method and trained in that method and that was something the US army was not doing at the time. 
I knew some members of a national guard rifle team that switched from M-14s to the M-16 and after a short learning curve they were doing about as well with the M-16 in competitive matches. It wasn't as good at long range (this is back in the light bullet days) but at 200yds standing slowfire and the 200 and 300 yd rapid fire stages there wasn't much difference in scores. 
However this was rather an elite unit. Not only did they routinely clobber all the other national guard teams they often beat regular army teams. They had several national record holders (in other disciplines) on the team and several of their members were on the "All Guard team" which was the national team as opposed to state teams. 

The M-1 Carbine was pretty much a piece of rubbish as a "battle" rifle but then it's original intention was to replace the .45 automatic pistol. One old team mate of mine once described not being able to keep all his shots on a 4ft by 5ft target at 200yds with one. How old it was and in what condition I don't know. He had set an NCAA record in his collage years and was a member of the Army MTU in the 1960s for several years so his personal ability wasn't the problem. 

Separating training and doctrine from the capabilities of the rifles in question isn't always easy. but blaming the rifle for lapses in training and doctrine doesn't answer the question.


----------



## parsifal (May 5, 2017)

The training and doctrine that you are talking about produced two things in the US army....the inventory of weapons like the M-16, and an inability of most soldiers in the US army to not be able to hit anything smaller than the side of the barn door. Reason, they relied far too much on massed fire effects, with virtually no adequate training in aimed fire exercises. Result was that whilst rates of fire were higher, rates of effective fire were abysmal.

This all stems from faulty doctrine that extends back at least to the 1930s, and is further traceable to the introduction of the garand. with its higher rates of fire compared to standard bolt action weapons, the US command has for a long time believed it unnecessary for their grunts to be able to actually hit anything. that's in stark contrast to the way we trained, or indeed the way the british army has trained since the introduction of the self loading rifle. Our equipment reflects that fundamental difference in ideology.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 5, 2017)

parsifal said:


> This all stems from faulty doctrine that extends back at least to the _1930s_, and is _further traceable_ to the introduction of the garand. with its higher rates of fire compared to standard bolt action weapons, the US command has for a long time believed it unnecessary for their grunts to be able to actually hit anything. that's in stark contrast to the way we trained, or indeed the way the british army has trained since the introduction of the self loading rifle. Our equipment reflects that fundamental difference in ideology.



Which is it?

The first issue of _production _M-1s (the gas trap model) wasn't until Sept 1937 and Springfield arsenal was making 10 rifles per day. It took two years to get to 100 rifles per day. The Arsenal reached 600 rifles per day in 1941 and the _existing _army was only fulled equipped ( although there were exceptions) at the end of 1941. 
According to you the army developed it's mass firepower/low accuracy faulty doctrine using 5 shot bolt action Springfields? 

The M-1 was _supposed _to allow for a higher rate of aimed fire per soldier/per unit of time in pre-war writings. What the Army may have done with it during the war may be different. But blaming the rifle for poor training and doctrine isn't fair.

You haven't answered why the M-1 is so bad and yet the SLR is so good as a combat rifle when both _semi-automatic _rifles are so similar in actual rates of fire and accuracy? 
I will grant the SLR is more reliable and better able to function in bad environments but what is the huge difference in rapid aimed fire between the two? The SLR holds more rounds and needs fewer magazine changes?


----------



## pinehilljoe (Aug 3, 2017)

All you have to do is hold and fire an M-1. I have owned an Enfield Mk III, and I have a Garand. The quality of the Garand receiver is amazing. M-1 hands down.

I would pick a Springfield after the M-1


----------



## Glider (Aug 9, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Which is it?
> 
> The first issue of _production _M-1s (the gas trap model) wasn't until Sept 1937 and Springfield arsenal was making 10 rifles per day. It took two years to get to 100 rifles per day. The Arsenal reached 600 rifles per day in 1941 and the _existing _army was only fulled equipped ( although there were exceptions) at the end of 1941.
> According to you the army developed it's mass firepower/low accuracy faulty doctrine using 5 shot bolt action Springfields?
> ...


I don't pretend to know why the M1 was worse than the SLR, but your points re reliability and all round functioning in hostile environments are not to be sniffed at in a combat rifle. I just look at the history. Post WW2 the M1 was already starting to be modified and fairly quickly was replaced by the M14 for presumably a number of good reasons.
The FN FAL rifle of which the SLR is basically a copy is closer to the M14 in that it was developed in light of experience in WW2.
What is interesting is how many countries went to the expense of buying the FN or building it under licence rather than buy the much cheaper M1 or M14. Governments don't tend to spend extra money without good reasons.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 9, 2017)

No weapon is reliable 100% just varying degrees of acceptable.
The M1 and M14 don't do well in extreme tests.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 9, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Which is it?
> 
> The first issue of _production _M-1s (the gas trap model) wasn't until Sept 1937 and Springfield arsenal was making 10 rifles per day. It took two years to get to 100 rifles per day. The Arsenal reached 600 rifles per day in 1941 and the _existing _army was only fulled equipped ( although there were exceptions) at the end of 1941.
> According to you the army developed it's mass firepower/low accuracy faulty doctrine using 5 shot bolt action Springfields?
> ...



I thought it might be helpful to post some of the academic material emanating from the US military academia on their theories of warfare, and how firepower holds sway in preference to accuracy. training in the US military to this day emphasises getting more lead across to the enemy with less regard to where it lands and more regard on how much of it is being sent. 

As a start I would recommend you look at the following:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a233505.pdf

This might work in the age of ball and musket, but in the age where firepower is measured in the hundreds of rounds per minute and where logistics is almost always an issue, such as in new guinea or the jungles of SE asia, it almost always makes your standard American military unit more of a liability than they need be. 

you are looking at the individual weapon and saying "whats wrong with it?" not much really, though I think it is generally conceded that the M1 and Garand were not as reliable as either the lee enfield or the successor the SLR (as we refer to the FAL). wars are not won on the basis of an individual rifle, but they are won by the mass effect of the doctrine to which they apply. The rifles selected by the US military are a reflection of the doctrine that they work towards, and the US military doctrine has not been particularly successful since the civil war. It works (just) mostly because of the massive material superiority that could be brought to bear in the battles it fought. In NW Europe, 1944-5, superiorities of about 8-10:1 were needed for success at the point of impact. similar advantage in number and firepower were needed to ensure success. this is far from a ringing endorsement of any aspect of the US military, including the military kit it saw fit to haul into action. On saipan, the Marines were initially confronted with odds of 20;1 in their favour at the beach heads (despite the massive levels of fire support afforded to them), they still struggled initially against an enemy clearly inferior to them in terms of firepower. 

The US objective was to use firepower to save lives, but there is strong evidence to suggest their unwillingness to close to contact and deal with the enemy accurately and effectively instead of spraying bullets in every direction except the right one cost them unnecessarily. it still does. in comparison to the germans, the Us was profligate with their personnels lives, not because they meant to, but because their doctrine was faulty 9and hence their equipment also0, and failed to deal with the enemy effectively. this is a criticism of US military performance that comes up more or less routinely in the performance assessments made of your military by allies like us


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2017)

parsifal said:


> you are looking at the individual weapon and saying "whats wrong with it?" not much really, though I think it is generally conceded that* the M1 and Garand *were not as reliable as either the lee enfield or the successor the SLR (as we refer to the FAL).



I think this is where some of the confusion is coming from. 

M 1 Garand






M1 Carbine




Not to scale. 
Ammo




30-06 on left, 30 cal carbine in the middle and .45ACP on right. 

The Carbine weighs about 5 to 5 1/2 lbs. It's proclaimed mission was to replace the _pistol_ for troops like drivers, artillery men, signalers and other assorted support personnel that were NOT front line infantry. 
The carbine is a slug squirter. It was made in nearly obscene numbers and became a front line weapon sort of by osmosis. 
But it was NOT the shoulder arm the US Army (or Marines) developed their doctrine/tactics around either per war or for most of the war. 
The M2 version (full auto) didn't show up in the hands of troops until 1945 so this had little effect on tactics or doctrine. 

The M 1 rifle (Garand) was the replacement for the 1903 Springfield. 

I an still puzzled how and 8 shot semi automatic rifle is a bad weapon because it encourages wasteful shooting or spraying an area hoping for a hit and yet the SLR with it's 20 round magazine (firing a cartridge of almost equal power/ballistics) is an example or a firearm that encourages restrained economical use of ammunition? 

Thanks for the link, I am working my way though it but so far I fail to see the relevance. Yes the US Army as whole emphasized firepower but I am not at all sure how having a good artillery branch with good communications is evidence of encouraging wasteful barrages of rifle fire? 
I would note that the M1 Rifle had the best (most adjustable and easiest to use) rear sight of any common WW II rifle which suggests a _standard of expected accuracy_ in excess of any other nation. How well that standard was maintained (it needed good training) with the massive expansion of the WW II Army is another story. But is hardly the fault of the rifle. 

I will fully agree that post WW II the US Army did some incredibly stupid things and by the time of Vietnam the Army doctrine/training as far as accurate rifle work went was well and truly in the crapper. 

But this thread is "best standard issue rifle" and is in the WW II section not the post war or modern section.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Aug 9, 2017)

IMHO, the only fault of the M-1 is that you cant top off magazine. The whole clip needs to be inserted. When I've fired in CMP matches, i load one round and fire the one round.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2017)

I didn't think you could either but there is at least one video out there showing how to do it. I am sure that with practice it could be done but I don't think it was taught and sticking fingers/thumbs into an open M1 Breech may not be the best thing to do when hurried or distracted.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 10, 2017)

Rear sight of M1 Garand




Right knob controls elevation and has a travel of 72 clicks, is click is 1 minute of angle or about 1 in per hundred yards (at 500 yards each click is 5 in). left knob provides for 16 clicks each way from center. 
One could well criticize the sight for being overly complicated, both to manufacture and to use (over 90% of the troops will not be able to make full use of it in combat, _well over 90%) _but such a sight is hardly compatible with a philosophy or doctrine of indiscriminate rapid fire in the general direction of the enemy. 
Such a sight would resemble this




or this


----------



## parsifal (Aug 10, 2017)

Read the 300 page doctrine piece I posted, a piece put together within the confines of the US military doctrinalists, and it is immediately apparent that your assertion that the US trains for accuracy and not volume is exposed as the fallacy that it is.

The US army throughout modern history has never been known to favour target accuracy. it has always favoured a policy of volume of fire. this is as true about its procurement policy, its small arms training and both its large and small formation tactics.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 10, 2017)

You can insert individual rounds in the Garand but it's not easy. 
The Enfield 1917 should have been standard issue after ww1 not the 1903 but hey ho.
The Carcano was clip fed with varying degrees of difficulty so would be interesting to note if the Garand had similar issues with reliability and how well it fed from its clip.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 11, 2017)

parsifal said:


> Read the 300 page doctrine piece I posted, a piece put together within the confines of the US military doctrinalists, and it is immediately apparent that your assertion that the US trains for accuracy and not volume is exposed as the fallacy that it is.
> 
> The US army throughout modern history has never been known to favour target accuracy. it has always favoured a policy of volume of fire. this is as true about its procurement policy, its small arms training and both its large and small formation tactics.




Please define "modern history".
1890s on
1917 on
1935 on
1949 on
Pick a year

You made the statement implying that the US adopted the "volume" over accuracy doctrine in the 1930s in regards to small arms So far I have seen nothing to support that. 

Post war I would not disagree with you. I don't know when but the Army sure didn't speed a lot of time on precision shooting in the late 50s, 60s or 70s. a few days a year at the range isn't enough whatever the "doctrine" may have been. 

The whole idea of the Garand (and the Johnson and other competitors) was to _combine_ both accuracy and volume of fire. 
AN accurate rifle with good sights that can be fired with with less disturbance (no letting go with one had to manipulate the bolt) giving more time to aim each shot while keeping up a good rate of fire.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 12, 2017)

I agree that even a k98k is obsolete next to any semi or full auto rifle. 
Although the change from 1km to 300 metres is important when it comes to doctrine.
The SMLE still had volley sights in ww1 so getting rid of volley sights and extreme range accuracy was as important as technology


----------



## parsifal (Aug 12, 2017)

Read the article. You are seeing nothing because you are not looking. If you read the article, and many others like it, it will become immediately apparent to you that US military thinking and doctrine stemming from that has favoured, and trained for (and pursued equipment policies towards), volume of fire over accuracy. This has been the case since the great battles of the ACW. There are exceptions, I'm am not trying to talk absolutes, but the general training, doctrine, equipment and logistics has always been in the direction of volume over effect. Its not been a perticualalry successful trend, and its chief aim of saving lives in favour of using lead, has not been very successful.

This is not my theory, and frankly ive given you all the necessary supporting material that you need. posting photos of a peep sight is a poor level of evidence in comparison to a 300 page military treatise by a serving US Army officer.

read the article.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Aug 13, 2017)

Fellas, before everyone gets finished hating on the M1, please bother to read "Hatcher's Book of the Garand", written by Julian Hatcher, an Ordnance General during the War, and later a higher-up in the National Rifle Association. It's enlightening, and the Garand was tested have to death during the period between the Wars, besting many of the bolt-action rifles available at that time. It's a love-fest of the M1, for sure, but Hatcher was pretty objective when comparing various rifles.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 13, 2017)

Are we talking gas trap Garand or .276?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 14, 2017)

There is nothing inherently wrong with the Garand, or M1 (ie the carbine, which is always referred to as the M1 in Oz). I have no doubt that Americans would have no difficulty entering into a fit of self adulation about it, but as an outsider who knows veterans who had no special attachment to it, and were unfortunate enough to work with people that used it, it has quite serious problems .


Its problems are less technological as operational. You take a garand pull the trigger, chances are it will fire, and fire well, unless it has run out of ammunition. And therein lies its chief problem. If you are on patrol in the jungle, or surrounded in north western Europe, or cut off in the desert, or stuck in the snow, or the mountains of Algeria (ie nearly every situation your average American GI is likely to fight, in) you are going to be limited in your ammunition supply. In the jungle you would often be restricted to just 3-5 reloads for your personal weapon. The average squaddie would carry about 50% of the ammunition he carried as ammunition for the heavy weapons in the squad. On contact, squad MG goes to ground, and the first thing everyone does is throw or pass their ammo pouches for the squad MG to that gun position. If the squad is supported by a mortar, everyone will also be carrying mortar rounds for that weapon as well. First job for the grunts on point is locate the enemy position causing the problem. No-one would be firing at this stage, except if you are a trigger happy American with a Garand. Chances are you have been taught to go to ground and start firing like an idiot. The weapon you are equipped with is perfect for that way of thinking, so off you go expending ammunition and giving away your position like you have nothing to worry about.


Logistics for the front line is always a problem, and a force that is equipped to just blaze away the minute contact is made, and is equipped with a weapon made for that purpose, and trained to react in that way, will run out of ammo fast, and will take casualties that they needn’t.. Instead of using your grunts as you should….to be targets basically (but hard targets because your enemy isn’t sure where you are) and out there to protect the main squad assets as quietly and efficiently as you can, they are all out there trying ti win the fight on their own resources. This is about the worst way to manage your small unit tactics. And the garand is built for that purpose.


Americans are taught to get as many rounds out as quickly as they can, trying to win the battle single handedly. After all, they are equipped with the most up to date side arm, fully semi automatic and well able to empty the magazine in seconds. Result of this John Wayne attitude is a squad that is loud, inaccurate and a logistic liability. The Garand and M1 are built for that purpose, and from an operational point of view should not be viewed as optimal weaponary especially in the WWII era when re-supply was even more difficult than it is now. Only by the use of overwhelming numbers were the American forces able to keep their loss rates to low levels. That is not a mark of success. It is the mark of desperation.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 14, 2017)

In 1946 in the aftermath of the WWII experiences of the US armed forces, there was a meeting of US infantry specialists that was to have long reaching effects that affected US small unit thinking to this day in one form or another. The meeting was held at fort benning ans was wide ranging, looking at tactics, doctrine, weapons leadership, kit organisation and training.


The following is a link to a paper that deals with this meeting and subsequent methgods and TOEs adopted by the US army.


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a225438.pdf


Generally the conference attendees at that meeting felt that WWII combat had proven the basic soundness of US tactical doctrine and organisation, but there were some significant misgivings. Basically four recommendations arose from that conference; the difficulties of squad command and control exacerbated by the US squads belief that the main firepower arose from their Infantry, not the support weapons, the lingering effects of attrition, the urgent need for a proper squad level LMG, and as a result of all these factors, the limits on squad tactics.


The third critical factor concerning the infantry squad was firepower. Because of the limits placed on the squad arising from the limits on the BAR, the conference members felt that too much emphasis had been placed on the reliance of the firepower generated from the rifles within the squad. They felt the garand had been poorly used as a result, downplaying its ability to deliver fire accurately in favour of delivering mass firepower. As a firepower oriented weapon the garand was too lacking in firepower to be effective (i think the committee members were thinking about the limited magazine capacity here), but as a semi automatic with the ability to put out a lot of rounds in a short space of time it promoted the temptation to go nuts in a firefight and use the limited supply of ammo quickly.


All of the committee members had been impressed with the german methods and equipment, which centred heavily on the primacy of the support gun. Perhaps unfairly, the committee compared the weight unloaded of the MG42 at 24 lbs with good quick change capability to the US LMG M1919A6 at 33 lbs, with no quick change capability for the barrel. The bolt action 98K with only 5 rounds capacity was a disadvantage, but less so when compared to the British 10 round capacity of their lee enfields


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 14, 2017)

From an official test report.

" I have seen it stated that celerity of loading and firing might be found objectionable, as _the solider would too soon expend his ammunition........_I am fully convinced that there is no force to such an objection. The soldier in battle, possessed of angun that can be instantly reloaded, keeping his eye on the foe, confident of his power and strength (that he is always ready), naturally is inspired with courage and self-possession which are valuable to a solider........I can see no reason to justify the idea that a soldier qualified with an arm possessing great celerity of fire is likely to waste his ammunition at the first sight of a distant enemy.............

I.......recommend that it's adoption to the Marine Corps, believing, as i do, that such an action on the part of the Government will increase _the efficiency of that force more than double its present power."
_
From the report of J. Green, First Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps, to Colonel John Harris, Commandant, Marine Corps, * 6 February 1860
*
Report was on the Sharps Breech-loading rifle (which at the time used a separate percussion cap from cartridge) compared to the currant muzzle loader.

The argument that soldiers would waste their ammo and quickly run out is an old one.

I am working my way through the first posted link/report and so far it seems to be a snipe hunt.

Posting a picture of the most complicated and expensive rear sight used on a general issue rifle in WW II seems at least as relevant
as 300 page treatise on artillery and airpower as used to hold down infantry casualties in insurgent warfare. I will keep reading and see if the author actually mentions small arms more than once every few dozen or few score pages

Passage from page 79
"Firepower too easily becomes an acceptable and quick solution for commanders who have neither the experience nor the time to come to grips with the militarily elusive and politically sophisticated challenges of counterinsurgency operations. It is through overemphasis and over-reliance on artillery and aerial bombardment that commanders change effective military tactics into counterproductive operations."

firepower seems to be synonymous with artillery and air strikes so far in this Treatise.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 16, 2017)

parsifal said:


> There is nothing inherently wrong with the Garand, or M1 (ie the carbine, which is always referred to as the M1 in Oz). I have no doubt that Americans would have no difficulty entering into a fit of self adulation about it, but as an outsider who knows veterans who had no special attachment to it, and were unfortunate enough to work with people that used it, it has quite serious problems .
> 
> 
> Its problems are less technological as operational. You take a garand pull the trigger, chances are it will fire, and fire well, unless it has run out of ammunition. And therein lies its chief problem. If you are on patrol in the jungle, or surrounded in north western Europe, or cut off in the desert, or stuck in the snow, or the mountains of Algeria (ie nearly every situation your average American GI is likely to fight, in) you are going to be limited in your ammunition supply. In the jungle you would often be restricted to just 3-5 reloads for your personal weapon. The average squaddie would carry about 50% of the ammunition he carried as ammunition for the heavy weapons in the squad. On contact, squad MG goes to ground, and the first thing everyone does is throw or pass their ammo pouches for the squad MG to that gun position. If the squad is supported by a mortar, everyone will also be carrying mortar rounds for that weapon as well. First job for the grunts on point is locate the enemy position causing the problem. No-one would be firing at this stage, except if you are a trigger happy American with a Garand. Chances are you have been taught to go to ground and start firing like an idiot. The weapon you are equipped with is perfect for that way of thinking, so off you go expending ammunition and giving away your position like you have nothing to worry about.
> ...




Pretty much a load of crap. 

Tell me, were British squaddies limited to just 3-5 reloads for the Enfields? 30-50 rounds of personnel ammo? 

The US soldiers in June of 1941 were supposed to carry 40 round on their person on the march with 192 rounds held in the unit ammunition train. 96 rounds were to issued prior to combat in 48 round bandoleers (total 12 reloads in addition to the first 5) with 96 held as reserve. a further 96 rounds (also in 8 round clips and bandoleers) was held on the ammunition train of a higher unit. 
US troops with either M1 Garands or 1903s did NOT carry ammo for the BAR/s _unless _they were a designated assistant gunner or ammunition carrier. In pre war literature twenty five 20 round magazines are accounted for between the gunner, the assistant gunner and one ammo carrier when kitted out for combat ( the assistant gunner and ammo carrier are also carrying bandoleers of ammo in rifle clips to reload the magazines with, not a full amount for all 25 magazines). 

Now in actual combat and with supply problems this could and did change and in later use the ammo carrier may have been done away with in the squad. 

I am still trying to figure out 
"most up to date side arm, _fully semi automatic_ and well able to empty the magazine in seconds"

_Fully semi automatic_ as opposed to _semi semi automatic_? 
The Garand was semi auto *ONLY* (just like the SLR) and the M1 Carbine only got the full auto option at the end of 1944/early 1945. Before that it too was semi-auto only and was not a common weapon in the first year or two of the war. A squad was much more likely to have a Thompson gun in it than an M1 Carbine. The carbine not being approved for production (standardized) until Oct 22 of 1941 let alone actually going into production. It's influence on 1930s US army thinking or tactics would be non-existent. The Project started in 1938 with announced purpose of replacing the .45 automatic pistol for 2nd line (support) troops like drivers, artillerymen, signalers and the like. Again, influence on combat troops or infantry tactics would have been non-existent in this time frame. 


ut please note that it is quite possible to empty an Enfield in mere seconds also. 

Now can you actually show anything in print that supports your position? 

and spare me any more wild goose chases like 
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a233505.pdf

A very interesting read about the use of artillery and airpower in support of troops but has nothing to do with the either the selection or use of rifles, submachine guns or squad automatics in the first indo-chinese war, Korea, the 2nd indo-chinese war, Afghanistan (Russian involvement) or the Falkland Islands. 
It has about as much to do with the US selection of the M1 Garand and it's initial use/doctrine (1930s)as a cook book on 100 recipes for apple pie. 

As a treatise on the use of artillery and airpower in limited wars it is very good.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 16, 2017)

One of the few mentions of small arms in the Treatise on firepower Pages 243/244

"It is essential that infantry in training be imbued with a bold, aggressive attitude. Many units do not acquire this attitude until long after their entry into combat, and some never acquire it. On the other hand units containing specially selected personnel such as Airborne and Rangers exhibited an aggressive spirit from the start. The average infantry soldier places too much reliance upon the supporting artillery to drive the enemy from positions opposing his advance. He has not been impressed sufficiently with his own potency and *the effect of well-aimed, properly distributed rifle and machine gun fire.*'

This from a study done by the US army post Normandy. bolding by me. 
This hardly sounds like the attitude/position of an army training it's men to flop on their bellies and and fire all available ammunition as fast as possible as soon as contact is made.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 16, 2017)

_Pretty much a load of crap. _

_Tell me, were British squaddies limited to just 3-5 reloads for the Enfields? 30-50 rounds of personnel ammo?_

You've never done any time in rough terrain of any description have you.

to answer the question, the 1937 Infantry training handbook states that the issue of ammunition to front line units would depend on the particular war establishments, in other words it depends. In northern Europe on those days when there were not ammunition shortages the standard issue was 5-8 reloads....about 50-80 rounds. The Infantry handbook stressed the importance of re-supply, so the logidiyic support units in theory were pushed as far forward as possible.

That's the theory. in practice it seldom panned out that way. At gona, the standard issue unless you were part of a designated assault, the standard issue was 3 rounds per man. There was no support echelon to speak of . Re-supply, such as it was was by mule , carrier or aircraft, and typically men went into battle with 3 or 4 reloads maximum

Still think its a load of crap?

At Tobruk the ammunition issue was halved most of the time. there were plenty of ammunition stockpiles in the defensive trenches, but Tobruk was mostly a war of patrols and surprises. the Italians tried hunkering down in the trenches and ended uo surrendering the fortress. To keep the enemy off guard and off balance, there was a constant battle of night patrols and battles often fought with no ammunition.

At Gallipoli the standard issue was again three rounds and the trench raids were often carried out with no ammunition.

Moreover the combat experience of all armies was that resupply echelons could seldom get ammunition to the men under fire in near sufficient quantities . Operating with inadequate supply of ammunition was the norm rather than the exception

Still want to claim its pretty much a load of crap. I will tell what is a load of crap. Quoting out of standard texts with NO CLUE as to what happens in the real world


_The US soldiers in June of 1941 were supposed to carry 40 round on their person on the march with 192 rounds held in the unit ammunition train. 96 rounds were to issued prior to combat in 48 round bandoleers (total 12 reloads in addition to the first 5) with 96 held as reserve. a further 96 rounds (also in 8 round clips and bandoleers) was held on the ammunition train of a higher unit. 
US troops with either M1 Garands or 1903s did NOT carry ammo for the BAR/s unless they were a designated assistant gunner or ammunition carrier. In pre war literature twenty five 20 round magazines are accounted for between the gunner, the assistant gunner and one ammo carrier when kitted out for combat ( the assistant gunner and ammo carrier are also carrying bandoleers of ammo in rifle clips to reload the magazines with, not a full amount for all 25 magazines_

That's pretty much the same as was assumed for the british, Australian and indian soldiers in Malaya. they went into the jungles overburdened and unable to manoeuvre. And over reliant on wheeled transport. they were easily outflanked and defeated by a far more agile enemy carrying no rice, just ammunition and limited amounts of that so that they were not bogged down by the weight.
Because there is no support echelon you also have to carry one or two rounds of mortar ammunition. You will probably also need to carry a couple of grenades . Because there is no support echelons you will have to carry rounds for your support gun. If you leave it up to your gunner and his number 2 to carry over 100 rounds was it, they are not going to be anywhere in sight. Now you are carrying your 100 rounds of spare ammunition. you are up to your knees in mud, haven't eaten for a week and are fighting on an incline of about 35 degrees, with a couple of thousand steps to climb. still think you are going into battle with 100 rounds? I can tell you you aren't. If you try you will end on the side of the track crying into your mess tin for your mommy to come and get you. Pretty much what did happen to the US army in the jungle at the start.


Ive shown you stuff in print, had to ask you twice to read it. You claim you've read it, but think that its just about artillery apparently. not what I read I have to say. not much point in giving you anything further to read, when your experience and comprehension is just so limited. 


Saying that US GIs don't carry ammunition for their main firepower....the BAR just confirms that they reied heavily on the firepower of their rifle squads as a subsititute for the MG. And such reliance lessened the effectiveness of the squad overall


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 16, 2017)

parsifal said:


> Ive shown you stuff in print, had to ask you twice to read it. You claim you've read it, but think that its just about artillery apparently. not what I read I have to say. not much point in giving you anything further to read, when your experience and comprehension is just so limited.



I read it.
It says nothing about rifles or ammunition loads for rifles or even for any squad weapon.

If I am wrong give me page numbers.

My comprehension doesn't seem to be much worse than yours when you seem to confuse two different rifles the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine.
and you seem to confuse full automatic rifles and semi automatic rifles.

Claiming a bolt action rifle is superior to a semi auto because it doesn't use ammo as fast is a *crap* argument.

Bringing supply issues of three rounds a man is also crap. I could fire 3 rounds from a bolt action rifle in 6-7 seconds and keep the 3 rounds in a 1 foot circle at 200 yds. Whoops, my ammo allotment is gone in* seconds. *The bolt rifle didn't save me. If if don't aim I can probably fire 3 rounds in 4-5 seconds. If I don't get 3 more rounds until the next day it doesn't matter what kind of rifle I use. I could use a Martini-Henry and use up my allotment in under 10 seconds.



You want to convince me that the US Army used mass un-aimed rapid rifle fire as a doctrine/training standard before or even during WW II come up with a training film or training manual that says so or lays out such a training course.

You want to argue that the US Army slipped into that doctrine/training mode in the late 50s or in the 60s during the Vietnam war I won't argue. I don't know one way or the other and the results ( and newsreel footage) show an appalling lack of aimed fire. but that is 15-20 years after you claim it started.

Again. give me the page numbers in the first link. Show me where my comprehension is so bad. Pages/paragraphs that talk about small arms and NOT JUST firepower (which can be anything).

I will give you start pages 143/144

"In his debriefing report, written after relinquishing command of the I Field Force in 1971, General "Ace" Collins reported a disturbing and pervasive tendency among his junior leaders to call for artillery, gunships, and air support in response to any contact, even some involving as few as two or three enemy. The result, he contended, was an immediate loss of the tactical tempo, as troops waited around for the firepower to arrive and be coordinated. When the advance resumed, the enemy was gone. Collins suggested to his superiors that the infantry begin again to stress the importance of _small unit tactics and the habitual use of rifles and grenade launchers_. "When we have a large enemy unit, or when he is well dug in," he wrote, we properly should use all the firepower available to get him out. But we routinely follow the overwhelming firepower route, regardless of enemy strength or size."
Italics mine.

Page 151

"Critical professional skills were lost by the ARVN during the days of firebases, airmobile operations, and massive fire support. After ten years of neglect, ARVN leaders forgot the art of maneuver warfare. They rarely employed any form of maneuver other than frontal assault-a deadly business if not fully supported by firepower. They gave little thought to envelopment or flanking maneuvers. The principles of fire and movement using _organic infantry weapons were also in eclipse_. Seldom did young leaders establish_ a base of fire with rifles and machineguns while a maneuver element moved against the enemy_. Battalions appeared to be completely dependent on outside fire support-a dependence that became tragic once massive outside support disappeared."

Italics mine. Now maybe you think that such passages show the US (and their trainees) adopted a John Wayne shoot all available ammo as fast as possible from rifles upon contact mindset.

I don't.

I won't argue that the US troops sent to New Guinea were not poor performers. They were for a variety of reason. But substituting M1903s for M1 rifles wouldn't have changed much of anything.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 16, 2017)

BOTH of you knock it off with the personal attacks.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 18, 2017)

I apologise for the outburst.

The US was involved in active operations for 44 months in the ETO, and 48 in the PTO. 


It was engaged in active operations in the PTO from the first day to the last nearly all of the campaigns were fought in poor terrain, or in conditions where getting supply to the front line was difficult. You could put the whole of the campaigns on the SWPac, and the soPac in those categories, so too the battles to retake the PI. You would probably place the battles on tarawa betio etc in the category of 'poorly supplied" as well. There certainly shortages experienced on saipan, By the time the 1945 campaigns rolled around the afloat supply train was completely sorted out and the front line soldier was not short of anything even on a temporary basis.

At the other end of the spectrum was the US army's experience in PNG. Even though the supply was getting to the supply heads in vast quantities, the difficulty was getting it from those dumps to the front line. The US army, like us suffered chronic shortages in that campaign in the places they needed supply. Sometimes they might be fully supplied as you say, other times, most of the time in fact, they were not. in those situations conservation of ammunition was critical, but it was difficult to get the USAC units engaged in that campaign to follow those principals. They had, as you say, been trained in the 30.s to assume a fully functioning support echelon, but for most of the crucial battles they were engaged in this just wasn't the case. More times than not they were short of ammunition. The worst was I think the slogging match in buna, but the whole PNG campaign was pretty desperate. You could throw guadacanal, New Georgia even boungainville into this group. US operations in Burma were the same. This takes you through to at least the end of 1943, where the US army operated in sub par supply conditions.

In the ETO most of 1942 the army was not engaged. They became engaged from November and rapidly their campaign broke down due to the terrain, the poor logistics and of course the stiffening opposition. Each of these factors fed off each other I think.

In Sicily and Italy, the supply trains worked better, but were still hampered by the terrain and the poor road network. in winter in particular the US forces were not adequately supplied at the front .

The following year the main invasions occurred at Normandy and smaller invasions into the south of france. There were supply difficulties from the start at Normandy, less so for Dragoon. Eventually, after a lot of fighting enough port capacity was restored to enable unfettered operations to commence from about November

What dos this thumbnail do in understanding this issue? For most of the war, certainly during the crucial tide turning ones in the middle of the war, the US front line forces were not adequately supplied. I don't know about all of those campaigns in enough detail to comment about the minutae of each campaign, but for the campaigns in PNG I can. It is not an exaggeration to say the US doctrines of war and how to conduct their forces were nothing short of a disaster. they simply did not understand the supply issues that dogged every movement, every engagement. They did not understand that every bullet dragged painstakingly to the front was worth it
s weight in gold. every shot fired had to count.

Now, there is nothing wrong with the Garand as a weapon, but in a war where supply was most of the time a major issue, its ability to fire ammunition off at profligate rates , and further, for the US military to come to the mistaken belief that they would firstly always be well supplied, and secondly that uncontrolled semi automatic rifle fire would not lessen the effectiveness of their squad firstly in the belief that rapid fire from their garands was an adequate substitute for their heavier weapons is just nuts.

Although I embarrassingly lost my temper SR did clarify that in the US army the GIs did not carry extra ammunition for the BAR. Package that however you like, but at the end of the day that's going to mean a coule of things......the BAR is not going to serve as the main focus of the squad, if it is operating in rough terrain it will always come short of ammunition.

The enfield is certainly capable of wasting ammo just as easily as the garand. that was never my main point. but from 1937, the British army began to realise that their rifles were there to support their heavy weapons, not the other way around. Squaddies were there mostly as ammunition carriers and as glorified targets , with the emphasis on aimed fire over volume of fire. Didn't always work that way. In 1940, in flanders there were shortages in automatic weapons that were made up for with massed rapid fire volleys by the rifle components of the squad. far from perfect, made worse by the fact that the average squaddie was never much more than a poor to average shot. . But the theory was there. I don't think that theory ever percolated completely in the US army, certainly not in the camapins I knw the best. 
. .


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 18, 2017)

I brought up the supply of ammo in July of 1941 to US forces as an _indication_ of _doctrine _at that time (before combat was joined by US forces) and I am more than willing to concede that _pre-war_ planning went out the window when faced with the reality of combat and the reality of supply in combat conditions/situations. 

We may also be talking about two different forms or levels of "firepower". The US Army was certainly moving to a reliance on _support weapon firepower _ in excess of many (but not all?) other armies. Like mortars, tripod mounted machineguns and divisional artillery. Other armies having these but perhaps not in the quantity the US was planning on. Again US plans vrs what was issued in 1941/42/43 was rather different. 
1939/40 British infantry battalions being rather lacking in _support _firepower. which called for different tactics. The British added support firepower to the battalion as time went on (more mortars for one thing) and the artillery support got better. 
It is also "paper" establishments which were often modified in the field, especially in difficult terrain. 

However this is different than squad/platoon/company "firepower." That is organic weapons to the Squad/platoon/ Company. 

The US used a different "mix" of weapons and different structure than the British (I don't know where the Australians fell). with, for instance the British often using a 2in (51mm) mortar at platoon level, but usually for smoke or signalling? The US often used a pair of 60mm mortars at company level, High angle fire at lower levels being rifle grenades (and I doubt they were plentiful). The US company also had (usually) a pair of M 1919 air cooled belt feed guns, the battalion guns being water cooled 1917s. The British battalion having NO organic Vickers guns although a platoon might be on more or less permanent loan. And in some cases might loan a gun or pair of guns to a company for certain duties/missions? Or a 3in mortar? 
There is a lot of difference between paper establishments and what was actually done. However paper establishments are probably our best guides to doctrine. because as doctrine changed due to combat lessons, the paper establishments changed, often not as quick but not lagging too much as printed manuals and paper establishments were all that some officers had to go on. 

The US squads/platoons were blessed/cursed with the BAR. Blessed in that it was a rugged, reliable weapon. Cursed in that it could *NOT *provide the firepower/support of the Bren or MG34/42. A Bren was good for, (depending on how you count such things) another 40 rounds per minute or 50% more rounds per minute than a BAR. Even more in desperate circumstances but even the Bren only had about 6 minutes of fire at the "book" rate and with the "book" ammo load. If supply was sketchy? 
The US depended on the Garand to provide a greater part of the squads firepower (direct fire) than most other armies. 
However to be effective it requires training, and it requires leadership. 
In the early combats, North Africa, New Guinea not only were the troops green, the entire command structure was green. 

The semi auto provides for a higher volume of *aimed *fire in a given period of time than a bolt rifle. HOWEVER that volume of fire can only be, due to supply as you say, used for a limited amount of time. Very useful for breaking contact in an ambush, Useful in the final stage of an assault or to cover a maneuvering unit getting into or out of a position. WHEN to use the extra firepower in the squad/platoon is a judgement call by the squad/platoon leader as is the decision as to when to _cease fire_. Poor troops with poor leaders will not have the fire discipline. However poor or green troops can also use up ammo at a high rate using bolt rifles. 10-15 rounds per minute for 3 minutes will cut into a 30-50 round supply pretty quick. 
Semi auto rifles should not be used as barrage weapons anymore than bolt rifles should be. 
However the US did have a command/control problem. It is relatively easy for a corporal (squad leader) to direct the fire of ONE machine rifle or LMG _and _ a small group of riflemen. It is much harder for the same corporal/SL to direct the fire of one machine rifle/LMG_ plus_ 6-8 semi auto riflemen. Yes _some _of them will imitate John Wayne and the more time the squad leader spends correcting them the less time he is directing the main gun or paying attention to the tactical situation. The M1 Garand only held 8 rounds so pauses to reload came fairly often, squad mates or squad leader should have been able to corral the cowboys, assuming that most of the squad kept their heads. 

Unfortunately some officers (green) did rely on the rifles to much. I believe, but could be wrong (correction welcome) that some of the troops on New Guinea left the battalion heavy weapons (81mm mortars?water cooled machine guns?) behind in order to gain speed. This was an order from the top, not from the squads/platoons. and then wound up out of 105mm howitzer range? 

Now the real question is would the US forces, changing *nothing else*, have done better or worse using 5 shot bolt action M1903s instead of the M1 Garand in the first few years of the war? 
Same training, same leaders, same issue of BARs, same belt feed guns, same mortars.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 5, 2017)

This is in regard to US doctrine and training during the early part of WW II (early for America being 1942 early 1943)

see videos :

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrkp025iKr0&t=4634s_



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


At one point the captain doing the instructing makes the comment that they are not interested in rounds per minute but hits per minute.

How practical these techniques were in the field or how well the troops followed them I have no idea.

Also see : GI Intelligence Dept.

dated March 1943

For US training material about squad/platoon tactics in the offence.
please note that they are still talking about a 3 man BAR team.

I would like to point out the section on scouts near the end.






"When scouts are fired on, they take cover and try to determine the enemy's position. One scout of each pair crawls to the best nearby firing position and opens fire with tracer ammunition to indicate the target, while the other scout observes and orders necessary changes in range. Having adjusted the fire of the first scout, the second scout also opens fire. If the platoon leader is nearby, one scout may open fire while the other points out the target to the platoon leader."

I have no idea who thought this would actually work in combat, what is the scout on the left saying? up 400yds or up 4 clicks (4 minutes of angle) on the sight? 400yds is a major change and "up 4 clicks" is a total of 12 inches at 300 yds, 16 inches at 400yds. Just being able to see , even with tracers that the firing scout is hitting 16 inches low at 400yds without binoculars is a major achievement.

Point is that the US was NOT teaching spray the area with mass small arms fire before or in the early stages of WW II and so the idea that the M1 rifle was adopted with that doctrine in mind is in error.

Us training doctrine was being formulated in 1942/early 43 with very little practical experience and what experience there was, was also 3-6000 miles away from the officers writing the manuals and making the training films.

I don't know when the US shifted over to the mass infantry fire power doctrine (as opposed to using mass artillery support/firepower)
but I believe it was later than 1942/43.

This does not mean that some officers might not have been advocating it or writing papers/articles about it. Just that it doesn't seem to show up in period training materials.

With the distance from the front lines and the time lag the training materials may not reflect what the troops were actually doing or improvising but that isn't "doctrine" either.


----------



## *SkyChimp* (Jan 7, 2018)

Among the choices, the M1 seems to be in a league of its own. If I had to choose among that lot - no brainer - M1. 

Among the others, I'd go with one not on the list. An "other." I'd choose the M96/M38 or M38 Swedish Mauser. I've owned or shot all of the guns on that list and the one I would take with me anywhere (besides the M1) is the Swedish Mauser. The quality of manufacture is superb, whether it came out of a Gustav or Husqvarna factory. The quality of the steel is second to none. The 6.5 x 55 catridge is about as pleasant a round as you can shoot. The long bullets, with high sectional density and ballistic coefficient, had incredible penetration and good trajectory Its small ring (but still very robust) action, slim proportions, light recoil, effective round, hard and corrosion resistant steel, reliability and accuracy make it one of the best, if not the best, bolt action service rifle ever fielded by any nation.


----------



## javlin (Jan 7, 2018)

The M-1 Carbine was pretty much a piece of rubbish as a "battle" rifle but then it's original intention was to replace the .45 automatic pistol. One old team mate of mine once described not being able to keep all his shots on a 4ft by 5ft target at 200yds with one. How old it was and in what condition I don't know. He had set an NCAA record in his collage years and was a member of the Army MTU in the 1960s for several years so his personal ability wasn't the problem.

I hear this alot and I have not shot one that I did not like/enjoy!The rifle in a full stock not the para is more accurate and I Would never intend to use that rifle out beyond 150yds myself.I reload my rounds to 1900-2000fps FMJ and use to be able to make a can dance from 25-75+yds as fast as it came back down off it went again using just the front site.I agree outside of a 100yds it is no tack driver but it's not pushing 2600-3000fps either but if 110g can do damage out of a handgun @1200fps what do you think 2000fps ?

38super,357mag among some HG's pushing 1300-1500+fps with 110-158g


----------



## The Basket (Jan 7, 2018)

Swedish Mauser ww2?
That's a pickle. One could argue that Swedish Mauser did see combat in ww2 so are eligible. But I would have to get a stewards enquiry on that one. But I respect your choice.

The M1 carbine has no place in any discussion about good rifles! It wasn't a front line gun but a secondary weapon for rear troops which got used wrongly. As a replacement for the 1911 then ok then. But it wasn't a M1 Garand replacement. It was lighter and handier so I can see the attractions if you had to lug a rifle across a field but not a combat rifle.


----------



## javlin (Jan 7, 2018)

The Basket said:


> The M1 carbine has no place in any discussion about good rifles! It wasn't a front line gun but a secondary weapon for rear troops which got used wrongly. As a replacement for the 1911 then ok then. But it wasn't a M1 Garand replacement. It was lighter and handier so I can see the attractions if you had to lug a rifle across a field but not a combat rifle.



I guess you mean behind enemy lines?secondary troops like the Airborne?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 8, 2018)

Hello Gentlemen.

Guns. I guess we all know something about them or we would not bother with this thread.

I will state up front that I have not read any of the links posted.
My vote is for the M1 Garand from the choices listed here.

My Son did some research on Assault Rifles a couple years back for a school project and presentation. (Really!)
What he found in an interview with an expert from the National Firearms Museum was that the Sturmgewehr was actually issued in pretty large numbers on the Eastern Front. They were actually entire units (I forget whether this was platoon or company strength) armed with the Sturmgewehr as their primary gun and they formed the high firepower assault force leading attacks.
Perhaps this qualifies the gun as standard issue?

The FG 42 was also pretty common issue though in smaller numbers for Luftwaffe troops.
The Gewehr 43 / Karabiner 43 was also not a bad gun though not nearly as common as some others.

I also have a fair amount of experience with the other rifles mentioned here with the exception of the Arisaka.
I noticed that the SMLE is mentioned specifically but does this mean ALL Lee Enfields or just the SMLE and Rifle No.1 Mk.III or Mk.III*?
Someone had mentioned that the No.4 rifle had a free floated barrel. It actually does not. 
There is typically a pressure point near the muzzle.
Although the SMLE / No.1 Mk.III* is a lighter rifle, if properly set up with springs and pressure points, its accuracy is pretty comparable to the No.4.
Most of these British guns that I have gauged tend to have very generous chambers and headspace closer to the NoGo than the Go measurement. Even Long Branch and Savage guns tend to be the same.

The SVT-40 looks cool, but has some inherent accuracy and durability problems and is a poor choice for standard issue.
The pinned muzzle brake can't really be tightened and the receiver is so light that I believe with prolonged use, it will bend.
Although I have not bent one, I have disassembled a couple and found that what should be an easy disassembly of the trigger group from receiver is not because either the parts all need to be individually fitted or they have simply bent with use. I only had a small sample size to examine but they were all bent in the same direction which otherwise seems odd.

The MAS 36 bolt action is pretty darn clumsy as a rifle, very crudely manufactured as were other French guns of this period and doesn't even have a safety. It might make a decent club.

The FN FAL is pretty ergonomic but tends to have really crappy sights and lousy triggers from the ones I have fired.
The front sling swivel also is in a petty goofy location and doesn't help accuracy.

Regarding the disregard of accuracy in procurement of US rifles, this is not supported by history, especially of the M14 Rifle.
There was great concern when the new M14 exhibited extremely poor accuracy and a lot of time was spent to determine whether it was the new ammunition or the rifle or a combination.
Also when Harrington & Richardson began manufacturing the gun, it often would not pass accuracy testing.
This was addressed in time.

Regarding the unreliability and inaccuracy of the M1 Garand:
As with any gun, parts wear out and break.
Some times pieces wear to the point where the gun malfunctions but an eyeball examination reveals nothing.
One common example of this is a kinked recoil spring or a bent operating rod.
The M1 also requires proper lubrication and will misbehave and wear out more quickly without it.
One of the issues discovered in the Pacific campaigns was that a prolonged rain would wash the grease from between the bolt and op rod and cause stoppages after a few rounds.
Better grease helped. The issue was addressed further with adding a roller to the bolt where it was cammed open and closed by the op rod but this feature was only put in production with the M14.

One of the most common reasons for inaccuracy of the M1 Garand is that it must be cleaned from the muzzle.
Aggressive and careless use of the sectioned Parkerized cleaning rod wears away the rifling at the muzzle where it is most important.
Accuracy also depends on a good fit between the action and stock and when parts are exchanged or stocks shrink with age or swell with moisture, the fit changes.
One more less obvious cause of inaccuracy is inaccurate setting of sights by operators who really have no clue. I have personally come across this at least a half dozen times. It is a bit funny to watch a man trying to figure out why he can't get a round on paper at 200 yards when he has never fired the gun before. (Yes, people do not try shots closer in first! 

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## *SkyChimp* (Jan 8, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Swedish Mauser ww2?
> That's a pickle. One could argue that Swedish Mauser did see combat in ww2 so are eligible. But I would have to get a stewards enquiry on that one. But I respect your choice.



Used by the Finns against the Soviets.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 8, 2018)

The Swedish Mauser was not standard issue for the Finns. And Sweden were not combatants
The MAS-36 is good. 
FG-42 was built in small numbers.
Garand is not good with mud so not end of the world but has to be taken into account.


----------



## *SkyChimp* (Jan 8, 2018)

The question asked was what the best standard issue rifle was. It didn't say among combants. The Swedes stood ready to defend their neutrality with their Mausers. And the Swedes gave a large quantity of Mausers to the Finns prior to the Winter War and Continuation War which were issued to troops and used against the Soviets.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 8, 2018)

The Basket said:


> The Swedish Mauser was not standard issue for the Finns. And Sweden were not combatants
> The MAS-36 is good.
> FG-42 was built in small numbers.
> Garand is not good with mud so not end of the world but has to be taken into account.



All of your points are good but there is more to each one that isn't stated.

First of all, as for the Finns, Can ANY rifle be considered standard issue for them?
The mot common rifles were captured and rebuilt Mosin-Nagant M27 and M28 which are quite superb examples and possibly the best M-N rifles ever issued, but they were originally manufactured by the Russians.
Just about everything the Finns used was manufactured elsewhere.
Swedish Mausers do tend to be amazingly accurate even if the marking disc indicates a bit of wear.
The Finnish M27 tends to be extremely accurate as well.

Regarding MAS 36: I suppose we can all have our opinions, but what do you mean by "Good"?
At one point I did a fair amount of shooting with one and other than it not malfunctioning during the time I shot it, there was nothing impressive about it other than the feeling that it was heavy and solid.
Everything about it was crude: Finish, sights, balance. Operation was not terribly smooth.
It kind of impressed me as the kind of rifle that would serve well in the "Planet of the Apes" movies.

Agreed that the FG 42 was pretty rare, but so were Luftwaffe troops.

Regarding guns and mud:
None of these guns Is particularly good in mud. As with any cartridge rifle, a little mud or sand in the right place will stop things up pretty well. The Garand does have a very exposed mechanism, but even if the semi auto operation stops working, it can still function as a straight pull rifle.
There is of course the danger of an out of battery explosion if the op rod is not fully forward though. In theory this should be very unlikely with the interaction of the receiver bridge on the firing pin tang, but the correct amount of garbage in the chamber can increase chances.
One of the good things about an exposed mechanism is that it is pretty easy to clean out and the gun only takes a few seconds to field strip down to its three major assemblies.
While target shooters are pretty religious (as am I) about properly lubricating the gun, my belief is that there is only one critical area on the gun that absolutely requires lubricant and almost anything will do if one is concerned only about functioning.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## javlin (Jan 8, 2018)

While target shooters are pretty religious (as am I) about properly lubricating the gun, my belief is that there is only one critical area on the gun that absolutely requires lubricant and almost anything will do if one is concerned only about functioning.

- Ivan.

I still am some what but once I started thinking about it on my semi which is 70% of the rifles I started with my M1a going 200-400rds once or twice just going in a real fire fight an M14 would or 16 might go that easy before cleaning.The M1a still shoots for me 1 1/4 - 1 3/4" groups after 2-3k rounds and yes the MOA after not cleaning did change but it still function well.

To be known I voted the M1 Garand one thing about semi's the tolerances are looser unlike the bolt but then all ammo is factory in war.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 8, 2018)

The MAS-36 is what it is and is certainly better than a Lebel. The issue is not what's good but good enough.
The Finns had the procurement choice of Beggers v Choosers and the fact they used Mosins was closer to the begger camp. I doubt a Mosin would be first choice in anyone's army. 
Swedish neutrality is an interesting one. 
Personally I find the Pederson or the Johnson far more interesting engineer rifles over the Garand.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## javlin (Jan 8, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Personally I find the Pederson or the Johnson far more interesting engineer rifles over the Garand.



Yes I agree either one as an interest had a chance to move on a Johnson old man Ralph had 4-6 in his inventory $4600 was the cheapest he was eager to sell it was marked more than that just no funds like that going on that day.I got my G-43 from Ralph and a basically matching also K-98 which looked to of had the stock replaced while in service not numbered/stamped to the rifle like the G-43.


----------



## billrunnels (Jan 8, 2018)

javlin said:


> The M-1 Carbine was pretty much a piece of rubbish as a "battle" rifle but then it's original intention was to replace the .45 automatic pistol. One old team mate of mine once described not being able to keep all his shots on a 4ft by 5ft target at 200yds with one. How old it was and in what condition I don't know. He had set an NCAA record in his collage years and was a member of the Army MTU in the 1960s for several years so his personal ability wasn't the problem.
> 
> I hear this alot and I have not shot one that I did not like/enjoy!The rifle in a full stock not the para is more accurate and I Would never intend to use that rifle out beyond 150yds myself.I reload my rounds to 1900-2000fps FMJ and use to be able to make a can dance from 25-75+yds as fast as it came back down off it went again using just the front site.I agree outside of a 100yds it is no tack driver but it's not pushing 2600-3000fps either but if 110g can do damage out of a handgun @1200fps what do you think 2000fps ?
> 
> 38super,357mag among some HG's pushing 1300-1500+fps with 110-158g


At one time B-17 crew members were offered a choice, carbine or .45. I couldn't hit the green side of a red barn with the .45 but the carbine was a different story. Neat little rifle. Shot like a .22

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jan 8, 2018)

billrunnels said:


> At one time B-17 crew members were offered a choice, carbine or .45. I couldn't hit the green side of a red barn with the .45 but the carbine was a different story. Neat little rifle. Shot like a .22




Absolutely bill. though my experience is more with the 9mm browning, and I finished up being an okay shot with it, I could hit targets far more accurately with the m1 on the few occasions we were allowed to fire it.

I like the M1 and dislike the garand because I think the garand was designed as a main battle rifle but inherently was not a rifle suited to the conditions it was placed in in the jungle and hard access areas. ive managed to upset most of the American contributors by saying that.......


----------



## billrunnels (Jan 8, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Absolutely bill. though my experience is more with the 9mm browning, and I finished up being an okay shot with it, I could hit targets far more accurately with the m1 on the few occasions we were allowed to fire it.
> 
> I like the M1 and dislike the garand because I think the garand was designed as a main battle rifle but inherently was not a rifle suited to the conditions it was placed in in the jungle and hard access areas. ive managed to upset most of the American contributors by saying that.......


I never fired the M1. Was shipped out of Basic Training the day before being scheduled for the firing range.


----------



## javlin (Jan 8, 2018)

Agree Bill.I shot off hand(slightly open) one day at the range with the .45(5" barrel) and did better than the Weaver Stance but it was about 8yds and in the 2" orange circle pulled it off a few times just the first shot.I keep the Inland carbine by the bed I cannot miss with that one half asleep point shoot.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 8, 2018)

javlin said:


> While target shooters are pretty religious (as am I) about properly lubricating the gun, my belief is that there is only one critical area on the gun that absolutely requires lubricant and almost anything will do if one is concerned only about functioning.
> 
> - Ivan.
> 
> ...



Hello Javlin,
I spent a VERY long time working on M14 types. 
I also found that without a telescope, these guns were shooting a LOT better than I could see or hold.
On one of my target guns, I decided to collect all the targets that I shot off the bench for accuracy testing over a several month period with one particular gun. The results were quite surprising to me.
The average extreme spread for 5 shot groups was about 5/8 inch center to center. (100 yards)
Superimposed, consecutive 5 shot groups would give a 10 shot group that was about 3/4 inch.
With another gun, at 200 Meters, I was getting 5 shot groups a bit under 1.5 inch.
This wasn't quite as good as I was getting with similar loads out of a heavy barrel Remington 700, but it was VERY close.
I also found the M1A/M14 was very sensitive to a tight hold and accuracy would go all to heck under free recoil.
Sling tension was such that I could see the reticle move with my heartbeat.

If you do a side by side comparison, you may find that the tolerances are not that different between a semi auto and a bolt gun.
There are a whole lot more parts set in motion when a semi auto fires, but the tolerances and clearances on the critical parts are quite tight. 

Hello The Basket,
With the procurement ability of beggars, the Finns still managed to do pretty well with their Mosin Nagants.
Note that Finnish M-N rifles only really share the receiver and trigger group with Russian guns. Everything else has been modified or replaced.
The guns feel a lot more solid than the typical Russian M1891/30 and have a very good reputation for accuracy which I can confirm is quite deserved.
As for the Mosin Nagant being the first choice in anyone's army, please note that the Russians and then their Soviet successors DID choose this gun and kept it in service until it was replaced by the SKS. Even after that, it served as a Sniper weapon.

Regarding the MAS 36, I would prefer the Russian M1891/30 if given a choice.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 8, 2018)

Hello Parsifal,

Not offended at ll by your dislike for the M1 Garand. It has its issues, especially as a target gun and had some problems depending on the ammunition (slam fires with sensitive primers). The reputation over here (!) is very good as one might expect and I myself have never taken a Garand into a harsh environment.
A couple decades ago, many M1 Garands were re-imported into the US from Korea. I looked over probably a couple hundred over the years and I can see how one might have a poor opinion of these guns if one just grabbed one from the lot without any other examination.

Hello The Basket,

I almost forgot to mention:
At one point, I was interested in acquiring a Johnson rifle and had a pretty good conversation with a fellow who worked on them.
His comment was that the Johnson may start off as a fairly accurate gun, but because of its recoil operation, the parts start to loosen up pretty quickly and accuracy degrades. The poor accuracy would not be noticed in a LMG but certainly would in a rifle.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## javlin (Jan 8, 2018)

If you do a side by side comparison, you may find that the tolerances are not that different between a semi auto and a bolt gun.
There are a whole lot more parts set in motion when a semi auto fires, but the tolerances and clearances on the critical parts are quite tight.

But when I do reloads in my .308s they will not work in the bolts meaning FLdies I guess and for me that tells abit about the chamber.The Germans snipers would use a designated G-43 from Walter as a package out of the factory everything matched from Scope,Scope mount to rifle all # from 600yds in for the quicker fire and being able to back out.The K-98 was the weapon relied up on out from there to 1000yds a more stable platform and less moving parts.I agree though the M1a is one of the finest platforms I shoot ATTM I hit an 18"X18" plate off a bi-pod 4 out 5 shots @350yds open sights that's all I shoot.

Not offended at ll by your dislike for the M1 Garand. It has its issues, especially as a target gun and had some problems depending on the ammunition (slam fires with sensitive primers).

I am no were near as good with my M1 as the M1a but I have seen others shoot my Garand alot better than I.I do not recall his name anymore and it was years ago I was at the range right after I got my M1 a 1956.The fella out at the range that day wrote for a gun mag ammo was his specialty(went to Aberdeen later) I saw him lay 8 shots down range off the bench 100yds each shot in line touching each other I was like Frick!!He gave me the best piece of advice about ammo that day I would utilize today if not for reloading "if you would not drink the water in that country do not buy the ammo".The simplest thing to make consistent the cases they would not weigh the same as the reason.The Navy used our range after Katrina and I got about 3K case of .308 all LC a beotch to deprime the first go round but solid brass.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 8, 2018)

I should clarify something about naming. here in Australia, most people refer to the carbine as the M1, whilst the garand is just the garand. I realize that is technically wrong but it is the naming convention I'm used to.

sorry if ive caused any confusion over this.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 8, 2018)

Hello everyone.
The Finns used Mosins because they had access to them. Far easier to use liberated rifles than bought ones. Finns would do a good job with Black Besses.
The fact you would put the Mosin in front of the MAS-36 is the worst criticism you could ever give to a rifle. Poor old Frenchie!
I forget if the Johnson went through any formal testing. Is the accuracy issue with new guns or old guns? If given the choice of a Johnson v 1903 Springfield then that's a decision to make.
The M1 carbine was a personal defence weapon and as an alternative to a 1911 it was fine as far easier to train and get a man accurate with a M1. But it should never have seen infantry use.
G43 is important to note if we're talking semis so glad it's out there.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 9, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Hello everyone.
> The Finns used Mosins because they had access to them. Far easier to use liberated rifles than bought ones. Finns would do a good job with Black Besses.
> The fact you would put the Mosin in front of the MAS-36 is the worst criticism you could ever give to a rifle. Poor old Frenchie!
> I forget if the Johnson went through any formal testing. Is the accuracy issue with new guns or old guns? If given the choice of a Johnson v 1903 Springfield then that's a decision to make.
> ...



I don't think you are giving the Finns enough credit here. (!)
They didn't just re issue captured Russian M-N rifles; They rebuilt them to a different standard.
The Finnish M27 and M28 are quite fine rifles. The bolt is a bit clumsy but no more so than any other bolt action with a straight bolt handle.
The action isn't pretty, but these guns have a very good reputation for accuracy and are well made.
The comparison between MAS 36 and M-N from me is honest even if your opinion may differ. My test of the MAS 36 was unimpressive enough that I did not keep the rifle while I do have a couple M-Ns.

The problem with the Johnson rifle is that it is recoil operated. That means that the barrel moves back and forth with each shot and apparently this causes the accuracy to degrade as parts begin to wear. That is what I was told by a man who could easily have sold me such a rifle. With Machine Guns, mediocre accuracy is pretty normal, but this is unacceptable in a rifle.
Regarding the M1903 Springfields, my own personal preference is for the M1903 or M1903A1 of the double heat treat type over the later nickel steel guns like the M1903A3. The actions are much more "slick". The only problem is that there is no way to "zero" the sights so that the markings are guaranteed to line up in the center when the gun is zeroed. (There are different height front sight blades, but no easy way to adjust laterally.)

The M1 Carbine in my opinion is basically a semi auto version of a submachine gun.
Its reputation for stopping power is poor as a semi but its ballistics may surprise you.
A fellow at our range brought in a 1/2 inch (IIRC) thick piece of laminated Kevlar with various handgun calibers fired at it.
The only penetration was by the .30 Carbine round which I believe was fired from a pistol.
If you take apart and examine the M1 Carbine, you will find that there is really no way to improve the accuracy though at 100 yards, the accuracy is usually pretty comparable to that of an unaccurized M1 Garand Rifle.

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 9, 2018)

Hello All,

I realise that with this discussion I am going way off topic and this post isn't even about WW2 Service Rifles any more.
Apologies to anyone offended and let us know if this should be a new thread.



javlin said:


> But when I do reloads in my .308s they will not work in the bolts meaning FLdies I guess and for me that tells abit about the chamber.The Germans snipers would use a designated G-43 from Walter as a package out of the factory everything matched from Scope,Scope mount to rifle all # from 600yds in for the quicker fire and being able to back out.The K-98 was the weapon relied up on out from there to 1000yds a more stable platform and less moving parts.I agree though the M1a is one of the finest platforms I shoot ATTM I hit an 18"X18" plate off a bi-pod 4 out 5 shots @350yds open sights that's all I shoot.




Regarding German G43 / K98 sniper guns, I find it hard to accept that either would be effective out to 1000 yards with the low power and poor optical quality telescopes that were mounted.

Regarding the M1A/M14 types (Use what I tell you at your own risk. This is only my own experience.)
Try chambering your spent cases back into the chamber they were fired from. The result may surprise you.
There are several issues (that I know of) that may combine to cause this:
The chambers of the M14 types are typically cut to a different radial dimension than SAAMI specification for clearance for dirt.
Typical setup is to cut the chamber for a headspace of 1.632 inch instead of the minimum 1.630 inch used for most .308 Winchester.
If this is a military barrel / gun, it may be even longer because NATO spec is a bit different.
The bolt face is usually not square with the chamber. Typically the top is a bit further forward.
This means that when the cartridge is fired, the top of the bolt face sets the correct headspace, but the bottom of the case head will expand to meet the bolt face and unless you get the alignment exactly the same, it won't fit back in after it has been fired.
If you reload, you probably have tools to spin the cases to confirm what I am telling you.
The last issue is that typically as they come from the factory, the op rod will begin to cam open the bolt while there is still residual pressure in the chamber. The case stretches as a result.

A Bipod on the M14 may not be the best idea. The typical AMTU match tuning process results in downward tension of the stock against the front band and gas cylinder assembly to dampen vibrations. Sling tension adds additional downward force. A Bipod may reduce the stock tension. Try a heavy sling and sandbags.




javlin said:


> I am no were near as good with my M1 as the M1a but I have seen others shoot my Garand alot better than I.I do not recall his name anymore and it was years ago I was at the range right after I got my M1 a 1956.The fella out at the range that day wrote for a gun mag ammo was his specialty(went to Aberdeen later) I saw him lay 8 shots down range off the bench 100yds each shot in line touching each other I was like Frick!!He gave me the best piece of advice about ammo that day I would utilize today if not for reloading "if you would not drink the water in that country do not buy the ammo".The simplest thing to make consistent the cases they would not weigh the same as the reason.The Navy used our range after Katrina and I got about 3K case of .308 all LC a beotch to deprime the first go round but solid brass.



Maybe the issue between M1 and M1A is one of ammunition.
There is a lot more air space inside the loaded .30-06 case than inside a .308W. This allows for the powder to move around a bit.
A manually loaded round leaves the powder typically at the back near the primer. Semi auto loaded leaves the powder forward.
This results in a velocity difference between the first and following rounds.

My procedure for processing cases before first reload is also quite tedious, but basically I am essentially trying to reload for a semi-auto Benchrest gun. I actually do not use brass that was not first fired from my target rifles because the original chamber they were fired in might have caused some differences. The same ammunition fired from a MG is going to be stretched a bit more than if it was first fired from a bolt gun for example.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## javlin (Jan 9, 2018)

Regarding German G43 / K98 sniper guns, I find it hard to accept that either would be effective out to 1000 yards with the low power and poor optical quality telescopes that were mounted.

I would not say that every sniper could pull that shot but they have special ammo made for them to make that happen;some of the later scopes went out to 8X.The figures I mentioned were from memory from an old G43 forum that ran tell about 2009 I guess mine is definitely does not fit that category for accuracy.

There are several issues (that I know of) that may combine to cause this:
The chambers of the M14 types are typically cut to a different radial dimension than SAAMI specification for clearance for dirt.
Typical setup is to cut the chamber for a headspace of 1.632 inch instead of the minimum 1.630 inch used for most .308 Winchester.
If this is a military barrel / gun, it may be even longer because NATO spec is a bit different.

Those rounds I got from the Navy did come out of M14 FA and an M60 that day last time they were allowed on the range.I know what you are saying Ivan and I am no big time reloader just about 15 yrs simple simple.I have a gauge for the case length for they do stretch more so if I crimp but I have used to different manufacture dies but they do not always fit in a bolt action receiver now the 30-06 I can go 1903 or M1 does not matter 

Yeah this thread has drifted quite a bit but it's like 8 yrs old so ....Cheers  Kevin


----------



## The Basket (Jan 10, 2018)

Mosin is still a Mosin. There is no consequence if I underestimated the Finns. The Soviets, however, did and paid a heavy price. But as I read somewhere, for the western support they got, most Finnish weapons were liberated from the Soviets.
Johnson inaccurate because of its short recoil action? Dunno. Is that over what range and how is inaccuracies measured?
But the short range firepower of a semi auto is certainly better than a bolt action. The main concern over the Johnson was the little bayonet and whether the short recoil action was robust enough for bayonet sticking.
The lack of votes for the Arisakas is a poor show as they were as good as another bolt action.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 10, 2018)

A new, tight, recoil operated gun may show good accuracy (good in military context can 2-4 minutes of angle, or more), as the they wear the accuracy can get worse. 





If you get an extra few thousands of inch of 'slop' at the front barrel bushing on a gun with barrel bushing half way out the barrel it could be twice as bad as the same amount of wear on gun with a barrel bushing at the muzzle. Balanced against that is the much longer barrel shroud is more likely to get damaged (bent)over time. The two piece stock doesn't help and wood shrinkage/swelling also doesn't help, wood shrinkage also covering the areas where the recoil from the gun gets absorbed/transmitted to the wood. Some guns are known to split the wood over time. 

However a lot of these guns will still outshoot 80-90% of soldiers who have never fired a gun before basic training. 

I doubt very highly if you could damage a Johnson by the simple act of using the bayonet. A common technique taught in basic training to loosen a bayonet caught in an opponent's body was to fire the rifle and use the recoil to help break it free. I have no idea if this was really effective but apparently some DIs thought firing the rifle was more violent than trying to tug the bayonet out using arm muscles.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 11, 2018)

Constant bayoneting
Although if you had rounds then why not shoot?
Armies did love a good bayonet. Why not say I but if you're spending a fortune on rifles then train them on the trigger and not the bayonet. 
The Johnson was a day late and a dollar short. So the army saying the bayonet was an issue was certainly eye catching. Why not just say we got the Garand so go away?
Although the Johnson bayonet was certainly less manly than the 1903. Top of my head I can't think of other short recoil combat rifles. So maybe the issues mentioned put the kibosh on that.

Semi auto rifles were common since the turn of the 1900s so the Garand was not this magical unicorn that is often portrayed. And it probably wasn't best of breed either. Plenty of other semi autos I can mention from other countries but of far less historical import so only for the what ifs and not what is.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 11, 2018)

Hello Shortround6,

Since we are discussing the use of Bayonets:
The M14 rifle had a serious issue when slashing with the bayonet. Sometimes the front band would unhook from the stock ferrule.
Although I have a suitable bayonet, I have never actually tried to use it on anything. One just does not do that with a target gun.
I also do not know what the effect would be with the front band on the wrong side of the stock ferrule. I imagine disassembly to correct the problem might be difficult but maybe it is easier on a gun that has a sloppy enough fit for this to happen.
It is a good rifle design but allows for a lot of poor assembly and tolerance stacking which match conditioning procedures try to take out.
The Stock on wooden stocked rifles is also pretty thin through the magazine well area and very weak.
There is also very little recoil shoulder area in the stock to resist the impact of firing.

Hello The Basket,

I personally am under no illusion that the M1 Garand was the best design out there. There were contemporary designs that were better in my opinion but I do not believe they were mass produced. The German G43/K43 is a handier package but also has a goofy locking system which apparently is prone to breakage. As I see it, the Garand was a durable and potentially accurate gun that unfortunately was pretty high tech (The M14 was even more so) and very difficult to manufacture.
What other designs were you thinking of that were closer to "best of the breed"?

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 11, 2018)

ZH-29
SVT-40
MAS-40
wz.38M
Pederson
Johnson
G41/43
FG-42. I have always believed the Pederson was interesting.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 11, 2018)

Hello The Basket,

I am very curious as to how you selected the guns on your list.
What factors do they have that make them "better" than the M1 Garand?

There are a few I don't know about, but there are also a few that I do know something about, so here is why I believe that some of these guns are NOT better than the M1 Garand. (Not in the order you listed.)

1. The Pedersen Rifle: As a delayed blowback mechanism that required lubricated cartridges, it has the potential advantage of better accuracy because there does not need to be any mechanism such as a gas cylinder attached to the barrel.
The disadvantage is that it requires lubricated cartridges and that the action begins to open as soon as the round is fired which means that there is a LOT of chamber pressure as the extraction cycle begins. Some modern guns get around it by fluting the chamber.
The reduced recoil and weight was due to the .276 cartridge which was not adopted.

2. The SVT-38 / SVT-40 series of rifles, as mentioned before, are generally not accurate because of their design and somewhat fragile and not very durable because of their excessive weight savings. If you disagree with this conclusion, please let me know why.
This design wasn't all bad. Its very thin operating rod (probably meant to isolate the vibration from the gas cylinder) was inherited in part by the Dragunov and the front end of that system looks much better thought out. The Dragunov is also fairly light weight but uses a different locking mechanism and is stronger in critical places.

3. The Johnson Rifle as mentioned earlier has a tendency to loosen up with use and exhibit rather poor accuracy for a rifle.
Why do you view this as a superior design? If recoil operated rifles were a good idea, we probably would have seen a lot more of them, but recoil operation seems to be used mostly in guns that do not need extreme accuracy: Machine Guns and Pistols.

4. The G41 and G43 / K43 were tactically equivalent and had detachable box magazines. In that respect one could argue that they were superior. I do not know if ammunition was issued in magazines or stripper clips but I believe that it was stripper clips which would have made them effectively no better than the clip loaded Garand.
The Germans themselves determined that the G41 gas trap was not such a great idea and dropped it with the G43 / K43.
The Flap locking mechanism seemed a bit odd to me in examination and I have been told that they do break in use.

The ZH-29 with its side locking is a bit odd but its offset sights suggest that the firing cycle has some kind of dynamic that causes a lateral dispersion.
It and the WZ-38M appear from the few existing examples to be quite functional but also very complex designs to manufacture. I am not sure what advantages they would actually offer over the M1 Garand other than the protection of more of the operating parts from the elements.
The offset magazine on the FG42 seems a bit goofy to me and there are a few features of the gun that do not seem optimal for accuracy, but I really don't know much about how the gun performed. It certainly was an ingenious design.
Regarding MAS 40: I have handled the MAS 49/56 but can't remember ever having fired one so have no opinion on it. 

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 12, 2018)

Better is a subjective term and like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I have no issue with the Garand as a rifle or as a weapon but it has to been seen as subjective against its peers and in an historical context. Not as a unicorn for fanboys. I.have no idea how many of the rifles mentioned would have have operated in the real world. Because they didn't. Remember accuracy is only a fraction of what makes a rifle. Reliability and cost can be just as important.

The short recoil system for the Johnson is a good case in point. How inaccurate is inaccurate? How many rounds? What ranges? Over how long? The Pederson cost more so it's Toggle lock is engineering interesting but economic non starter. Good example is the Thompson machine gun which is too heavy and too expensive so any good points are negated. The Johnson use in American service is purely accidental. But regardless it was considered a better bet than a bolt action.
Is the short recoil system better? Worse? That's subjective The Browning model 8 has long recoil and that was John Browning himself! So if Browning thought long recoil was a good idea I am not in a position to argue!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 12, 2018)

You also have to look at timing. 
And ammo,
and timing, 
and ammo, 
and timing
and ammo...........

Remington model 8 was patented in 1900 and first sold in Europe as the model 1900, it was first sold in the US in 1906. 
It did not use full power cartridges. 3 out of 4 of it's rounds were simply rimless versions of the ammo used in the WInchester 94 lever action rifle (also designed by Browning). 
It was also developed at the same time as the Browning Auto 5 shotgun and used the same basic principles. 

While Browning was genius he also took a while to fully grasp the idea of royalties and in his early years would often develop several slightly different designs (each with a separate patent) and offer the group of designs to a manufacturer (usually WInchester) in a lump sum package deal. Manufacturer bought them all to prevent Browning from selling the similar designs to competitors. 
Trying to design automatic weapons for civilians in the late 1800 and very early 1900s presented a host of problems compared to designing military weapons as the designer never knew what kind of ammo the customer was going to stick in the gun, especially shot guns. 
Winchester was still cataloging black powder ammo in some calibers (and shotgun ammo) in the 1930s. 

A gas operated shotgun trying to use blackpowder paper shells before WW I doesn't sound like a great idea and neither does a gas operated blackpowder hunting rifle.
John Browning designed guns over a period of in excess of 40 years that saw a huge change in powder and metallurgy. What he decided to do at different points in this spectrum may have been guided by the conditions he thought the guns would be used under. 

As a further note on ammunition in WW II the US had 3 basic grades of .30 cal ammo. AIrcraft machine gun, ground machine gun and rifle. 
These grades had nothing to do with accuracy or velocity but had to do with the quality of the Brass. The higher grades were better quality brass and were less likely to have an extractor pull through a rim leaving a cartridge case stuck in the chamber or to have a cartridge head pull off the body leaving the cartridge body stuck in the chamber. This was common enough that a broken shell extractor was issued in the basic tool kit that came with just about everybody's machineguns. 

_WHEN _a gun was designed (and by who/nation) has some bearing on the design of the extractor and the type of action (or the need for oilers/lubricated cartridges ) to keep the gun firing. Most early gas operated guns tapped the gas well out on the barrel for several reasons. One of which it meant the pressure in chamber was very low and going to be a lot lower in just a few more inches of travel of the bullet, which makes for easier extraction. 
This is taken care of in _most_ short recoil guns by the fact that the bullet has left the barrel by the time the large recoiling mass of barrel and bolt has recoiled the short distance to the unlocking point. 

Between metallurgy of the guns, metallurgy of the cartridge cases, and advances in smokeless powder it gets a bit tricky trying to compare guns designed even 20 years apart in the first part of the last century.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 12, 2018)

I was saying that semi auto rifles were relatively common and that they were around with various methods of rechambering. So using Model 8 as example.

Further to the discussion on short recoil we have the Barrett M82 so certainly short recoil has its uses.

If I was designing a rifle I would go long stroke piston.


----------



## Elmas (Jan 12, 2018)

parsifal said:


> I should clarify something about naming. here in Australia, most people refer to the carbine as the M1, whilst the garand is just the garand. I realize that is technically wrong but it is the naming convention I'm used to.
> 
> sorry if ive caused any confusion over this.



Same in Italy.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 13, 2018)

Hello The Basket,

I guess a lot of this is the order of priorities that we place on a service rifle and the expectations that we have.
Durability, Accuracy and Reliability are essential in my opinion.

Civilian / Commercial guns generally do not have the same level of durability as military guns.
A co-worker of mine from a few years back who was an avid hunter once told me about his latest hunting trip out west with a "super magnum" rifle. When he was done, I explained to him why I would probably never own such a thing.
For his trip, he fired a few sighters to make sure his gun was zeroed. He then fired about 4 rounds on game.
At the end of the trip, he probably had half of the 20 round box of ammunition left and the gun was done for the year.
The M1A Target rifle I have been describing probably had shot about 300 or so rounds so far that year and was not nearly done.
I am a civilian hobbyist. Remember the 3000 rounds of brass that Javlin collected from 1 day's visit by some military folks?
If a military rifle can't last AT LEAST 10,000 to 20,000 rounds then it isn't worth much and I would actually expect several times that life span from the major parts (minus the barrel).

As for accuracy, I would expect 3-4 MOA average or better from a decent military rifle. A little worse than that and you are in the range of the typical assault rifle. Hopefully a good design with just a bit of reworking can shoot group sizes no worse than half that size and become the basis of a sniper or designated marksman gun. The problem is that if you design in enough goofy features, then it becomes nearly impossible to improve or maintain accuracy.

Regarding the idea of a long stroke piston, you realise that the MAS 40 is actually a gas impingement gun right?
There are also good versus better gas piston guns. Compare the SVT-40, SVD, and Zastava M76.
All use the same basic operating principle. The SVD is an accurate gun. The other two are not for various reasons.

Since we mentioned gas impingement guns, I am somewhat surprised the Ljungman AG42 has not come up.
Interesting design with god awful handling. I have never actually fired a Ljungman but have fired a Hakim quite a bit and even fired a Rashid a few times and both are essentially copies of the Ljungman design.

There are a couple interesting designs I remember seeing in Bolotin's book about Soviet Small Arms, but I can't seem to find my copy right now.

- Ivan.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 13, 2018)

The overwhelming consideration for a military rifle are cost.

Production of the weapon is just one part of that issue. Durability or longevity is another. The supply of ammunition already in stock will often dictate the calibre that will be used

logistics is another big consideration. those nations that fielded a plethora of calibres and types suffered as a result of that diversity. Nations that remained standardised did better

The arguments about a self loader versus a reliable bolt axtion are very secondary to these more mundane considerations. If the cost of a weapon is prohibitive such as the otherwise excellent FG42 it is a waste of time, because you do not want to spend large amounts of limited money or factory space churning out over expensive or over complicated side arms and personal weapons. Personal weapons are responsible for no more than 10% of total casualties. by far the most important weapons are heavy weapons, Artillery in particular.

so for me, simplicity, cost, availability, standardisation are the main considerations.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 13, 2018)

The difference mainly between civilian and military is in the military you get what you given. Don't like Bullpups so here is a SA-80. A civilian or collector can pick and choose.

Indeed DI for French Semi autos. And AR-15s. Everything has its advantages


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 14, 2018)

parsifal said:


> The overwhelming consideration for a military rifle are cost.
> 
> Production of the weapon is just one part of that issue. Durability or longevity is another. The supply of ammunition already in stock will often dictate the calibre that will be used
> 
> ...



If we should take this idea to the extreme, then just issue rifle-muskets because we have them and they cost very little to operate? Or perhaps issue pistols or nothing at all?
Small arms may not cause a lot of casualties to the enemy, but what other weapon works better to defend the lives of your soldiers in a hazardous and unfriendly environment?
Even an expensive rifle does not cost much money in the military budget.
A good rifle may be expensive but a well trained soldier is a lot more expensive.

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 14, 2018)

The Basket said:


> M1 Garand is pretty much perfect as a main combat rifle.
> 
> Would take that over anything much else.
> 
> Of course, an assault rifle would have been nice but I is thinking to early for the WW2 in terms of mass use.



Hello The Basket,

I came across this post of yours in a thread about determining the characteristics of the ideal battle rifle for WW2.
I find it very interesting that you are now the most outspoken AGAINST the M1 Garand.

Thoughts?

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 14, 2018)

Ha. I tell you what I tell them. I have no recollection of that. I have been hacked.
I am not against the Garand. Far from it. And in a historical context the Garand was there and the MAS-40 was not. In WW2, I would have liked a phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range. But they didn't have them either.
So my hacker probably thought that since the Garand was there and available then that was the best rifle of the moment. Which it is certainly from a Allied view.
What is v What if. Any issue I have is due to its rough field ability to withstand harsh conditions and Fanboys who go overboard when it weren't all that.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 14, 2018)

Military rifles were supposed to be durable (at least up into the 1950s) which means long lasting even if certain parts were replaceable.
And barrels were an expendable item. After a certain number of shots the authorities expected to replace barrels. At least in peacetime. 
Cost of labor and parts changes over time. The idea back in the early part of the last century was that it was cheaper to rebarrel/rebuild and existing gun than but a whole new one. 
Reliable can have two meanings or conditions and is different than Durable. 
One meaning is how well it works in difficult conditions. Sand/mud, etc. Another meaning is how well it works (how often it breaks parts) in "ordinary" conditions. How often do firing pins, extractors, ejectors and springs break or need to be replaced? 
Please note that most old machine guns came with a tool/parts kit so the gunner could replace the most commonly broken parts in the field. Exact parts might vary from gun to gun given experience. 
Machine gunners often had extra days/weeks devoted to such training that riflemen did not get. 

Since in WW II there were only about 3 semi autos that saw anything approaching wide spread service (numbers even getting close to a million guns) getting reliable numbers of parts breakage/malfunctions per 1000 rounds fired is a bit tough.

There are reasons that the early auto loading rifles were not adopted in large numbers and why it took another 10-20 years after the end of WW I for it to start happening. Part of it was money and part of it was that until the late 30s the same desperation/urgency that existed in 1917/18 didn't exist and more time/effort was spent trying to fulfill ALL the requirements the general staffs wanted. (some of which were almost impossible to reconcile).

As a "battle" rifle the Garand, what ever else it had for faults, did have the best sighting system of any of the semi-autos and better than most of the bolt actions which also has some bearing on things.






For most combat shooting you could ignore trying to line up the front sight exactly in the center of the rear circle. Simply look through the circle, put the front sight on the target and shoot. Distance between the sights was just under 28in which beat the heck out of rifles with sights out on the barrel.
Being a fraction of an inch off center was not going to affect things much. 
And in poor light you weren't trying to see exactly where the front the sight was in the rear notch. In poor light at lot of troops (and hunters) tend to shoot high as by the time they can "see" the front sight it is higher than the top of the rear sight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 14, 2018)

The three rifles one assumes is the FAL, AK and M16. 
Or SKS. 
SKS was always second fiddle to the AK apart from Kalashnikovs funeral!!!


----------



## parsifal (Jan 14, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> If we should take this idea to the extreme, then just issue rifle-muskets because we have them and they cost very little to operate? Or perhaps issue pistols or nothing at all?
> Small arms may not cause a lot of casualties to the enemy, but what other weapon works better to defend the lives of your soldiers in a hazardous and unfriendly environment?
> Even an expensive rifle does not cost much money in the military budget.
> A good rifle may be expensive but a well trained soldier is a lot more expensive.
> ...


Yes, you can take the concept to the extreme and it will break eventually. bend a piece of wire back and forth and eventually it will snap. Doesn't diminish the concept, just proves that we are not thinking about the issue.......

Spending a lot of money on a semi automatic rifle for a small gain in lethality, perhaps at the expense of the numbers of forces in the field, or reliability or standardization is dumb. More seriously if you upgrade your rifles at the expense of more vital or lethal elements of your army , like your levels of mechanisation, and/or your army’s artillery park, is far less effective than spending your defence dollars than upgrading other elements that probably also need upgrading. It is wasting resources if you spend money on the latest rifle toy to serve some suppressed element of the male egos rather than fix the more vital elements of the army.

Half measures are even worse, as the Italians in the lead up to WWII found to their cost. Fielding an army in which half the rifles have been modernised and half not, will invariably lead to logistic issues. It is almost inevitable that the replacement program will do more harm than good. This is precisely what the Italians found when they tried to increase the calibres of their mannlicher carcanos from 6.5mm to 7.35mm. notwithstanding the shortcomings of the Carcano rifle, they would have been far better in the 1920-40 period, sticking with the original calibre, and puring the saved funds into their equally bad artillery situation. 

Clearly, the individual soldier needs a personal sidearm able to provide him with protection . but he also needs to have artillery supporting capable him effective enough to kill the enemy before he can get to ones own trenches in an organised fashion and in sufficient numbers. Saving lives, incidentally, is not the primary objective of war incidentally, its winning. You don’t win wars with having a few super hot, unreliable side arms to parade up and down the battlefield showing off. You need a reliable, easily produced, single calibre weapon capable of engaging the enemy so as to keep him busy whilst your artillery deals the killer counterpunches, or in an offensive situation, blows a hole in front of your own advancing Infantry.

The role of Infantry is either to hold ground already taken, or occupy enmy ground after it has been cleared of threats. Seldom does that mean relying on personal side arms, even in places like the Jungle. The Infantry is vulnerable once it breaks cover, but dug in it can stand a lot of punishment. The weapons they carry for self protection are mostly to keep the enemy infantry pinned whilst the ground is taken, or that enemy is neutralised by other means like artillery, mortars or HMGs. Sometimes, if the troops are lucky they can be assisted from the air. Most often the aim is to firstly probe for weak spots, then encircle, and then apply enough pressure to force the encircled enemy to expend ammunition and either get itself killed, or surrender. Their choice really.

If you have large amounts of funds then maybe it pays to modernise your small arms inventory. If that comes at the expense of other elements of your army then it is probably not a good idea. There are the previously mentioned Italians, but even the US army suffered to an extent from this. Having decided to adopt a top shelf (for the time) self loader, the US army entered WWII with inadequate manpower, terrible artillery and only partially motorised. This goes a long way to explaining why it was 2 years before the US army was risked in significant combat in the ETO, largely failed except on the defence in the Jungle and was not up to the task of opening a potentially vital second front in either 1942 or 1943, and really needed to use peripheral avoidance strategies in the PTO rather than tackle the enemy head on. Due to the brilliance of Mac and Nimitz, this paid off in the finish, but it was a road made harder because of the inherent failings in the US land forces, which can to an extent be blamed on adoption of a swanky personal side arm at a time when other issues were bedevilling the USGF,


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 14, 2018)

Hello Shortround6,
It is hard to argue against the features of the sights on the M1 Garand and the M14 series.
There is still a bit more to the story though.
First of all, in preparation for the execution of Private Eddie Slovik, the weapons of the selected shooters were examined.
It was found that at least one of them was off by several feet in Windage at 100 yards. When asked about that, the soldier explained that the enemy soldiers would run that way about half the time anyway.... <sigh>
Some people will use the new feature correctly. Some will not.
Another aspect of the M1 Rifle sights of the time is that they had a tendency to shift laterally under recoil because the springs would be unloaded by the recoil. That was "solved" but putting a locking bar on the rear sight. The locking bar would need to be loosened in order to adjust the sight. This issue was solved after the war and most Garands today have the newer replacement sights which do not have this problem. The original locking bar sight was staked in place and disassembly would require replacement so not many are seen today. It is something that takes a little getting used to when shooting.

Hello The Basket,
It seems to me that the CETME / G3, M14 and the SAFN / FN-49 should be pretty well represented among post-war rifles.
It is interesting that you should mention the SKS. I was looking for my Soviet Small Arms book to find out more about Simonov's earlier design, the AVS-36.
The SKS Is actually quite a good design. Other than a small magazine capacity and lack of automatic fire, it is a pretty good carbine and has superior accuracy and handling to the AK-47 series.

Hello Parsifal,
While I am not in disagreement with you about priorities, I do not believe that the selection of the M1 Garand as the standard service rifle was at the expense of anything else. It was a relatively expensive rifle to produce, but that did not result in just token numbers in service. I believe there were about 4 million produced during the war.
From a tactical standpoint, the extra firepower of the Garand made up for the lack of a really good Light Machine Gun in US Army service.
The US Army had its issues, but every army had its issues at the time.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 14, 2018)

Comparing or using the Italians as an example in a military context is a very sticky wicket but at least they had the sense to drop the 7.35mm when the obvious occured. Problem for the Italians is the 6.5mm Carcano needed replacement. 
I doubt adaption of the Garand had much to do with American preparedness in the wider context.
SKS is a good example of why any weapon must be seen in the broader context rather than service life or use by the home nation.
A rifle is a sign of prestige of one's own industry and military virtue so giving out a pile of junk is not going to give the troops the extra vigour needed to charge headlong into a machine gun. Facing a firing squad using SA-80s is probably the simplest way of not getting shot.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 14, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Shortround6,
> Hello Parsifal,
> While I am not in disagreement with you about priorities, I do not believe that the selection of the M1 Garand as the standard service rifle was at the expense of anything else. It was a relatively expensive rifle to produce, but that did not result in just token numbers in service. I believe there were about 4 million produced during the war.
> From a tactical standpoint, the extra firepower of the Garand made up for the lack of a really good Light Machine Gun in US Army service.
> ...



It is debateable as to what impact (if any) the Garand had on overall defence capability. But this cuts both ways when you think about it.

Certainly the garand had a superior rate of fire to any of the older traditional rifles that it should be compared to, and no real vices in terms of accuracy or range. It had a couple of minor issues that are hardly even worth mentioning. Like all rifles of its era one could say it was a tad heavy and perhaps a little susceptible to dirt. Maybe. But it was a well designed and built piece of kit.

However it undoubtedly acted as a brake on the expansion of the USGFs in the lead up to war. I don’t have production numbers up to December 1941, but from April there is a report that production of the weapon had reached just under 3000 per month. By the end of the war about 4million garands had been built….not nearly enough to allow for the type of expansion the General board had been looking for. The US army expanded from a front line force of 10 divs 9very poorly equipped and at sub-cadre strengths), in December 1941, to about 90 Infantry divs by the end of the war, of which about 70 were able to be in front line battle at any time. Moreover whilst the training schools had capacity to spare, the numbers of recruits able to be churned out could not exceed 20000 per month by wars end. This was found to be far from adequate, and in part the constraint was generated by the shortage of small arms for front line forces. The average losses per div in the ETO June 1944 to April 1945 was in the order of 4000 per div, with the median commitment rate at 60 divs. That means that American losses were unsustainable as a function of the training school output, and that does not include losses in the PTO or Italian front. how much of that is due to rifle outputs we will never know, but even if it is just a legacy of the prewar situation, it shows the negative impacts of a restricted output, at least potentially. 

By comparison, the germans alone produced 7 million 98Ks (but I confess I don’t know if that was from commencement, in 1935, or just during the war0, refurbished several million captured weapons, fielded nearly 500 divs and could sustain a replacement rate of around 40000 per month. Not enough for the eastern front, but if you take out that TO, how much Doo-Doos are the americans in with their 70 divs (for the ETO) and replacement rates half that of the germans. How much of this retarded mobilisation was due to the garand. I don’t know. But with small arms manufacture at the very best slightly over half that of the germans there is at least argument to support the notion that the garand held back the expansion of the USGFs. Certainly in the lead up to war, there were so many shortages, both material and in terms of training, and the expansion after the DoW so slow as to strongly suggest the garand was a factor. At 3000 per month, the US was producing enough small arms to equip a mere 3 divs per year in 1941 

Pre-War/WWII Era USMC M1 Garands

Photos of army and marine platoons in mid 1941 through mid 1942 show the mix of rifles amongst recruits, allowing a glimpse into the somewhat complicated weapons armament situation during the early years of WWII and pointing to an inadequate supply of weapons for the army. After dunkirk the British army suffered from this problem as well, but was smart enough to stick to the script and churn out proven designs. About 1.5 million rifles were built domestically after 1940, and a further 3 million from the dominions, and the US, easily equalling garand output.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 14, 2018)

The Basket said:


> The three rifles one assumes is the FAL, AK and M16.
> Or SKS.
> SKS was always second fiddle to the AK apart from Kalashnikovs funeral!!!



I believe I used the words "since *IN* WWII" and to me that means the M1 rifle, the Soviet SVT 40 and the German Ger 43 although the last was under a 1/2 million. So any comparisons should be to those rifles or any of earlier odd balls.


----------



## flypaper2222 (Jan 14, 2018)

Soren said:


> Well the Stg.44 is infact a "Rifle", but I can follow what you say. Maybe he should have written "Full powered rifle", then there would be no mistaken.
> 
> Also I agree that the K98k is a sweet thing to shoot, amazingly accurate and safe. I bet you could weld the barrell shut and the action still wouldn't blow up.(Wouldn't recommend trying it though)
> 
> Of the rifles above though, the M1 Garand is clearly the best, its semi-auto, easy to use, safe to use(Except there's a risk you might lose a finger when reloading  ), and its atleast as accurate as any of the rifles above out to 400m, which is more than enough in most situations.


I trained to fire and hit "dog" targets with the M1 out to 500 yards as part of USMC rifle training at boot camp


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 14, 2018)

parsifal said:


> It is debateable as to what impact (if any) the Garand had on overall defence capability. But this cuts both ways when you think about it.
> 
> Certainly the garand had a superior rate of fire to any of the older traditional rifles that it should be compared to, and no real vices in terms of accuracy or range. It had a couple of minor issues that are hardly even worth mentioning. Like all rifles of its era one could say it was a tad heavy and perhaps a little susceptible to dirt. Maybe. But it was a well designed and built piece of kit.
> 
> ...




The US was short of a lot of things during the first few years, blaming the slow build up of US forces on the Garand seems a bit much. How much of the slow build up was due to supplying the British with small arms after Dunkirk ( or making plans to)? 
How much was due to a general shortage of machine tools and manufacturing capacity?
The US built just over 1 million No 4 MK Is for the British with first guns coming off the Savage (actually Stevens) production lines in July 1941 (1st Contract signed in March 1941).
Remington was getting ready to build M1903 Springfields in 1940/41 using old machinery from the Rock Island Arsenal, this was partially worn out and was replaced over time with new machinery. There was a short diversion in which some design work was done to covert the M1903 to .303 caliber to supply the British but it was not needed and few, if any guns were produced in .303. Remington would build almost 1.2 million 03s while Smith Corona (of typewriter fame) would build almost another 234,000.
Savage and some other contractors would build almost 1.75 million Thompson submachine guns. How many for the British? 
And then you have the M1 Carbine, for good or evil, the US built about 6 million of them in WW II, in 6 different factories. One would think that just perhaps, if they projected a shortage of M1 Garands, one or more of these factories could have tooled to make the Garand (since only about 1 screw was shared between the two weapons changing in mid stream was out of the question) to begin with? 
As it was only Winchester made Garands in WW II in addition to the Springfield Arsenal. And that contract was late in the game.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 14, 2018)

Ive no doubt that once the production wheels got greased, there was no stopping the juggernaut. however in the absence of any better data, we have this one off comment that Garand production in the critical year of 1941 was running at 4000 per month, or 3 divs per year. That had to be a huge bottleneck to the training regime in 1942 and 1943. given that the US was taking, on average, 18 months to train and ready its divisional sized formations, it was this massive bottleneck in 1941 that mattered, not the massive flood that followed in 1944. the 1944 production is basically meaningless to the army fielded for the war. And in 1941 the Garand was in short supply.

so too was just about every other item in the US army, but it was the shortage of skilled riflemen that dogged the US army effort in 1943 (and after). they were forced to used half trained fillers like cooks and drivers to fill the gaps that developed as the critical 1944 campaigns dragged on. Moreover, US formations always lacked both staying power and hitting power. the hitting power arose from the US army's refusal to distribute the best artillery to divisional level, but the lack of staying power can be attributed to the lack of reserves and inability to fill experience with experience. The British army was also running short by this time, but its shortages arose because of the manpower shortages outright, not the trained manpower shortages that bedeviled the US army.

how much of these shortages arose because of the shortages of small arms is unknown, but the fact that the most acute weaknesses in the US army relate to the shortages of trained infantry, and the trained Infantry were basically waiting to receive their modern personal sidearms in the critical time slots of 1941-2, speaks volumes about the effect of the garand on the overall army effectiveness. ive heard zip so far to refute or disprove that hypothesis. 

it gets worse.

In both 1942 and 1943 there was a real need to open a second front in the ETO. the Russians were screaming for it. The allies were unable to deliver. The British were the main culprits in this, they simply were scared of the manpower losses should the operation fail. But the there were also very serious doubts about the trainng, experience and most importantly replacement rates for the US army in both these years. you guessed it, the main concern was in the ability and recuperative powers of the line infantry once it went into action. again, how much of this is the fault of the Garand. but if the garand is exonerated, what or who was responsible for this serious failing?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 14, 2018)

If you look at photographs of the early Pacific island invasions, often the guns being carried were not M1 Garand and yet the landings occurred. In some of these photographs, the troops are carrying M1917 Enfields and I believe those had not been manufactured since the end of the Great War. There were plenty of suitable substitute weapons such as the Springfield, Johnson, or Reising that were available.

- Ivan.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 14, 2018)

no, there were not. Having decided that the garand was the primary weapon of choice, with the springfield as an emergency fill in, the USGF was never going to approve the shipping out of formations with anything other than the standard issue. as far as training is concerned, I am less certain about that, but I have not seen formations training with large quantities of anything other than the springfield or the Garand.

The Marines are somewhat different and my knowledge of them is quite limited. did they not adopt a third rifle, the Johnson, at some point?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 15, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Ive no doubt that once the production wheels got greased, there was no stopping the juggernaut. however in the absence of any better data, we have this one off comment that Garand production in the critical year of 1941 was running at *4000 per month*, or 3 divs per year. That had to be a huge bottleneck to the training regime in 1942 and 1943. given that the US was taking, on average, 18 months to train and ready its divisional sized formations, it was this massive bottleneck in 1941 that mattered, not the massive flood that followed in 1944. the 1944 production is basically meaningless to the army fielded for the war. And in 1941 the Garand was in short supply.


We seem to have discrepancy in figures, this website Scott A. Duff Publications and Historic Martial Arms: Who Made M1 Garands? How Many Were Made? When Were They Made?

says that Springfield Arsenal was making 100 per day in Jan of 1940 (but not working 7 days a week?) and by Jan of 1942 was making 1103 per day. It is quite possible that during 1941 (the early part) they were making 4000 per month but it seems that figure was not constant for the entire year?

It also seems Wiki was not accurate about the Winchester contribution (not a surprise) with Winchester getting a 500 rifle contract in April 1939 (first 100 shipped in Dec 1940) but Sept 1939 saw the first of many follow up contracts. Winchester building over 1/2 million total. 

I am also puzzled by your statement about American artillery. In the North African campaign there were shortages but by the invasion of France most US divisions had 3 battalions of 105 howitzers with 12 guns per battalion and a single battalion of 155mm howitzers, also 12 guns, which may not compare well in number of tubes with a British division of up to 72 25pdrs but between the larger weight shells and the crappy british shells have low HE content things may even out somewhat. 
I am not sure what "better" artillery should have been provided to individual divisions? More 155mm howitzers? a battery of 155mm guns? or a battery of 8in howitzers? These big guns need a lot of logistical support. 
I don't believe the Germans had any more guns per division and by 1943 the Americans probably had more ammo per gun the majority of the time (local temporary shortages aside).


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 15, 2018)

parsifal said:


> no, there were not. Having decided that the garand was the primary weapon of choice, with the springfield as an emergency fill in, the USGF was never going to approve the shipping out of formations with anything other than the standard issue. as far as training is concerned, I am less certain about that, but I have not seen formations training with large quantities of anything other than the springfield or the Garand.
> 
> The Marines are somewhat different and my knowledge of them is quite limited. did they not adopt a third rifle, the Johnson, at some point?



To be honest, I have no idea whether the soldiers in the photograph were Army or Marines. I didn't think we were getting more specific than for each nation up to this point, but as usual the discussions tend to expand.
The photograph I saw was in a book but I don't know which book or even if it is one that I own or one from a library or even from a local library.
It is easy to find photographs of Garand, Springfield and to a lesser extent the Johnson rifle in the hands of troops. The M1917 will take more time.

- Ivan.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 15, 2018)

Using two sources with respect to make observations about the US standard infantry divs and their artillery capabilities. the first is

David Myers, Unit Organisations WWII (TOEs) Z & M Publishing 1977.

Relevantly at page 51 it says

"this type of division performed well throughout the war when adequately led. Due to a chronic shortage of combat riflemen and the lack of shipping space, the US army insisted that it maintain its heavier artillery and supply echelons under the control of the higher corps and army level commands, often stripping out the heavier artillery allocations from the divisions. Consequently the US infantry was limited in firepower, unless adequately supplied and supported from higher up. This limited its ability to operate ubdependantly in most situations unless significant higher echelon s armoured artillery and logistic support was provided to the unit". 

in theory, the divisional TOE called for 36 x 105mm, 12x155mm, 6 x 105 SP. it had 36 ATGs, admittedly by 1944 this was usually in the form of the M-10 TD. This however was an attached unit, not necessarily operating with the Div, the same with the nominal armoured battalion that was listed as attached. 
By comparison the British infantry division was roughly twice the size of its US cousin. With its support echelons included, a British infantry division consisted of over 55000 personnel, to the US infantry divs 35000. British infantry divs of 1944 had 72 25 pdrs, 48 x 17 pdr (as part of the divisional slice, not a special attachment as was the case for the 1944 US type div), it was also supported by a full AA regt, including a large number of the hard hitting 3.7 inch guns. all part of the divisional firepower, in stark contrast to the US infantry which were supported by a single bn of AA, which was a bit more variable.

Second source is Shelby Stanton; Order of Battle US army WWII, Presidio Press 1984. Stanton gives an excellent overview of the flux and allocation of specific battalions to and from divisional organisations and it becomes immediately apparent that the lions share of heavier artillery formations were usually placed under the control of higher echelon commands. At page 9 of the book, he states that the divisions capabilities to operate as a fully independent formation were somewhat limited stating " it relied on higher echelon corps and army units ..." and "during the war the formation was reduced in power due to shipping considerations, in which the support echelons (including artillery) was concentrated at higher echelons". . In 1943 there was a 13% cut in personnel, a 23% cut in vehicles and vehicles themselves reduced in size . Artillery allocations were reduced by a whopping 25% . and nearly all of these reductions came out of the heavier calibres. 

Stanton is very critical about the lack of numbers in divisions. with only 66 divs available for the ETO, he states " there is a serious question whether this provided enough divs in the light of the sustained and costly campaigns in northern Europe. This resulted in infrequent unit rotation which tended to chew up and exhaust veteran units. stateside divs and those in England were often stripped out for replacements and then shipped out with very poor preparation. ....battlefield opportunities were missed and long sections of front not secured sometimes in areas that proved critical (eg the Ardennes). The fact that successive soviet offensives negated the germans ability to really profit from these shortcomings does not erase the fact that resources were not properly distributed 9to the divisions).".

The US army achieved its mission and functioned well enough, but it did not function outstandingly and suffered from a lack of firepower at divisional level, at the frontline. It outperformed the german army finally in 1944, for a number of reasons, but would not have been able to defeat the germans except for the losses the heer was sustaining on the EF. by 1944, the heer had been bled white, with the ToE of its formations below authorised strengths.Costello estimates the combat strengths of formations on the EF was chronically about 40% and on the west front about 60% (units from the east were rotated to the west to be rebuilt). after the Ardennes these rough comparisons do not hold true. This is not just a criticsm of the US army, the british were even more ham fisted in dealing with the heer, but the US army did not derive any discernible benefits from its Garand equipped infantry that I can see. in the early days the introduction of the garand seems to have acted as part of the constraints that affected army sizes and capabilities later in the war. Even as late as 1944, the authorised ToE of Garands to the division was about 6000 Garands and 4000 carbines. a british Infantry div had about three times that number of enfield rifles, whilst the germans had about the same (though this varied a lot).


----------



## The Basket (Jan 16, 2018)

Johnson rifle was never formally adopted by USA and it came far too late. The Garand was already chosen and the Johnson was at best a possibility if the Garand was a dog.
The barrel could be removed which gave it paradrop ability.
The Dutch ordered them and after the Dutch Asian possessions were overwhelmed they were stuck in warehouses where they were liberated.
If the Johnson appeared in the timeframe of the Garand then it may have won the order. Who knows.
The bayonet was a factor not only in the durability of the barrel but also in its balance. Sticking a big heavy bayonet on the end could have had issues with the short recoil action, making unable to recycle the bolt. The bayonet would be the spike variety
The lack of orders has given to the usual conspiracy theories online but the Johnson was a day late and a dollar short. And that's pretty much that. However the original Garand had a gas trap design which worked as well as gas traps work so Johnson is not without his logic.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 16, 2018)

As far as artillery goes, the " lions share of heavier artillery formations were usually placed under the control of higher echelon commands." in just about all armies. This may depend on what one calls heavy artillery. Most Armies using predominantly medium or field artillery in their infantry divisions. Again definitions differ but in 1939/40 there were very few armies using motor traction at even close to 100% and the old horse artillery definitions could pretty much apply. Field artillery being the heaviest guns/howitzers a team of horses could move at a walking pace with the gunners walking alongside. 
Some armies motorised but few armies changed over the guns/howitzers to larger sizes very quickly. Although in some cases a battalion of heavy guns might replace one battalion of lighter guns or the heavy battalion was added. 
Adding extra units for certain operations was often done and was an economy measure. While the infantry regiments took the most casualties, it makes sense to rotate the line infantry out for rest/refit (done much less often in WWII than WW I) while the supporting heavy artillery which had very few casualties could remain in place to support the new line infantry. Or Artillery concentrations could be formed to support planned assaults/offences. 
I would note that the manpower figures given above are 2 to 3 times higher than the nominal manpower figures for either US or British divisions which do not include "support" units. Which makes one wonder what the author/s were including as "support". 

I would also note that dragging in large AA guns to bolster artillery was pretty much a late war tactic. Or one of desperation. The 3.7in AA gun was an excellent weapon and did do good work in both the AA role and ground role. Late war the Allies suffered very little from German air attack and they could afford to use the AA guns (and AT guns) as general artillery. Both types having rather short barrel lives compared to normal field artillery. Worn barrels have both less velocity and less accuracy so wearing out your AA guns using them as ground artillery when you can expect a number of air attacks is not really smart use of assets. I will note that the 3.7 did have a reduced charge (about 37%) available for both training and for use in ground support firing, assuming that the reduced charge ammunition was available where the ground firing was going on. Ammunition was fixed and charges were not adjustable in the field. 

Getting back to the Garand and it's effect or lack of effect on US mobilization. 
One would have to show that the US could build a much larger number of bolt action rifles in the first few years leading up to the war (for the US 1939-40-41) and 1942 than they built Garands. As already noted, Remington got the tooling from one US arsenal out of the TWO that made Springfields in WW I. ANd that tooling was partially worn out. They also found that some of the jigs/fixtures wouldn't fit on the machines (lathes, milling machines, etc) that Remeinton had. 
What condition the Springfield Arsenal tooling was in I have no idea. Please note that Smith Corona didn't start delivering 1903s until late 1942. Perhaps that could have been speeded up if there was no Garand.
AS far as the Garand giving the US troops a big advantage, perhaps it didn't or perhaps the Garand helped cover up the fact that the BAR wasn't really a very good light machine gun. When comparing US vs other armies you have to look at the weapons mix. How well would the US troops have done with 1903s and BARs? Not quite the same as Enfields and Brens or Mausers and MG 34/42s.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 19, 2018)

For the infantry having a semi auto means getting them shots downrange so you can lead a target and get them follow up shots quick.
I still not sure when you say Johnson is inaccurate coz at close ranges I would take an inaccurate semi auto over a pin sharp bolt action any day of the week.
A banzai charge is not about minute of angles


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 19, 2018)

The Basket said:


> For the infantry having a semi auto means getting them shots downrange so you can lead a target and get them follow up shots quick.
> I still not sure when you say Johnson is inaccurate coz at close ranges I would take an inaccurate semi auto over a pin sharp bolt action any day of the week.
> A banzai charge is not about minute of angles



Each weapon has its own advantages and disadvantages. 
At close range against a Banzai charge, MANY weapons would perform better than a Battle Rifle.
A Submachine Gun would be much more comforting.

I believe the purpose of a Battle Rifle is to have sufficient power AND long range accuracy in a portable package.
Are you stating that your preference is for semi auto rate of fire at the cost of long range accuracy?

We really should resurrect the "Design the perfect WW2 Battle Rifle" thread or create a new one because I believe that is where this discussion has been for quite some time.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 19, 2018)

I would note that countries around the world are *still *trying to design the * Perfect *Battle Rifle.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 19, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I would note that countries around the world are *still *trying to design the * Perfect *Battle Rifle.



Is anyone really still trying to design "Battle Rifles"?
My Wife and I stopped at a Gun Shop on the way back from dropping off my Daughter at school a few days ago and I had a pretty long (by her standards) discussion with one of the gentlemen running the store. All I can say is that I have NOT kept up with current events and new developments in firearms. Another conclusion from that discussion is that sometimes you DO NOT want to design what the Government is asking for because the work may not pay off and there may not be another market.

I figure we have a pretty good collection of expert armchair gun designers here, so who says we can't design the "perfect" battle rifle?
It isn't as if we actually had to build such a thing! There are endless supplies of Unobtanium we can use in our designs unlike in the real world.

I remember trying to do this kind of thing back when I was about 10 or 12 years old and it was fun back then.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 19, 2018)

the 30-06 v 45? 
Always go big.
Perfect battle rifle is already here. AK of course. Perfection is a bang when you pull the trigger. And anything else is gravy.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 19, 2018)

Unless, of course, your enemy is on a ridge in arid country 7-800 meters away and armed with old bolt action full power rifle, in which case you might as well throw rocks as fire the AK. 
Conversely if in close cover (jungle, heavy woods, town/city) the men with the old bolt actions will be at a considerable disadvantage. 

And that is the problem with most "ideal" rifles. They are "ideal" right up until they are in a circumstance where they aren't. 

An "ideal" rifle is actually a compromise which covers the greatest number of possible situations since it can't cover 100% of them. 

Since some rifles were designed to be "cheap" which includes making them (or their ammunition) on legacy tooling they were less than ideal right out of the gate.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 19, 2018)

The Basket said:


> the 30-06 v 45?
> Always go big.
> Perfect battle rifle is already here. AK of course. Perfection is a bang when you pull the trigger. And anything else is gravy.



Only problem is that the AK-47 doesn't fit into the category of "Battle Rifle" any more than it does the category of a pistol.

In the context of a design for WW2, the battle rifle made sense. These days I don't think anyone fields a battle rifle as standard anymore.
....Though as Shortround6 pointed out (paraphrasing a bit): The standard weapon is great up until it is not and then the old battle rifle again.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 21, 2018)

I find this all the time 
A rifle has to be a compromise
So it's not the perfect rifle
It's the perfect compromise.
There once was a rifle with an inbuilt coffee grinder. The only problem is that I don't know if it should be judged against coffee grinders or other rifles.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 21, 2018)

The Basket said:


> There once was a rifle with an inbuilt coffee grinder. The only problem is that I don't know if it should be judged against coffee grinders or other rifles.



My example of that rifle does not have a coffee grinder installed.
I would not use it much anyway; I don't drink much coffee.
(450 grain boolits at 1450 fps and 535 grain boolits at around 1400 fps.)

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 21, 2018)

Let me tell ya.
Mock about coffee grinding but if you're out in the boondocks for extended periods all wet and cold then a warm cup of something is worth a million dollars. So the guy who put a coffee grinder in the stock knew his business. Army marches on its stomach.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 21, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Let me tell ya.
> Mock about coffee grinding but if you're out in the boondocks for extended periods all wet and cold then a warm cup of something is worth a million dollars. So the guy who put a coffee grinder in the stock knew his business. Army marches on its stomach.



Not mocking. Just stating the facts. I don't drink much coffee and my Sharps guns don't have a coffee grinder in their stocks.
I am sure there are better places to put a coffee grinder than in a rifle stock.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 21, 2018)

Model of 1859.
By WW II rations were often somewhat better and Field kitchens were much more common than "camp followers" cooking for the troops on open fires,
Not saying it wasn't done but 80 years had seen some major changes in the day to day life of most armies.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 21, 2018)

I suppose the real solution would have been to hire Chinese troops.
Chinese don't mind just drinking hot water with nothing else in it.
I understand Indians (not the North American natives) also have that habit.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 22, 2018)

Don't need coffee grinder due to instant coffee nowadays. Although I don't know the quality of coffee grinders in 1860s USA. Another thread perhaps. But if they installed it I would have to summarize that there was a need for it.
But my view is that if an enemy is shooting at you from extremely long range maybe mortars or heavy machine guns is the answer.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 22, 2018)

The Basket said:


> But my view is that if an enemy is shooting at you from extremely long range maybe mortars or heavy machine guns is the answer.



That is the _normal _answer now. It was much less clear in the 1920s and 30s. A British infantry Battalion in the late 30s and first year of the war only had two 3 in mortars and those had the pathetic range of 1600yds and so could not always answer long range fire. Likewise the British also held the Heavy machine guns (Vickers) at divisional level and only parceled them out to battalions _as needed_. Other armies thought differently and equipped their armies differently. 
Time devoted to training plays a part as does the tolerance for casualties. 
Tactical doctrine in the 1950s was often quite different than tactical doctrine in 1939-41. A much higher emphasis being placed on accompanying armor (even if APC/AFV and artillery support (including medium/heavy mortars), A much more widespread use of radios also entered into it. Most WW II armies having very little ability for an individual platoon (let alone squad) to call in support fire. 
The US army was probably the best equipped with radios and by 1944 the little walkie-talkie was supposed to issued 6 to a company (one in each rifle platoon, two in the heavy weapons platoon and one with the company commander) but even if working and with good batteries they only had a range of a few hundred feet to one mile depending on terrain. The back pack radio had a range of around three miles but depending on battery set up weighed 32.23lbs or 38.23lbs. 
Result was often a squad or platoon had to relay a fire request through several layers of command/radios to get support fire. By which time????? had happened. 

In the fighting this century in the mid-east things are not normal and troops were/are being sent on foot patrols that take them to limits and beyond of the support weapons and the support weapons are too heavy to carry very far or fast with the rest of the load the modern soldier carries. The insurgent opposition, being much less encumbered, can withdraw faster once the situation turns against them.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 22, 2018)

The Basket said:


> But my view is that if an enemy is shooting at you from extremely long range maybe mortars or heavy machine guns is the answer.



I suppose calling in an air strike would be even better, but keep in mind that during the times we were discussing (WW2) communications were not what they are today and basically it was a match up of equal forces. Today, WE typically have a massive superiority in technology, numbers, weaponry, reconnaissance capability and intelligence. It isn't the same game.

Sometimes you gotta use what you brung.

- Ivan.


----------



## Elmas (Jan 26, 2018)

_View: https://youtu.be/hxjPope4cgY_


----------

