# War winning weapons



## paulyb102 (Jun 28, 2004)

This relates to all services and all allied nations, what piece of kit do you think contributed to the down fall of Germany, Japan, and Italy


----------



## paulyb102 (Jun 28, 2004)

As a starter i think that the Spitfire and Lancaster have a very good claim for Britain, The T-34 and Sturmovik for Russia, and The Sherman Tank, pureley because of the numbers produced and the B-17, and B-24 in the European Theater and the B-29 in the Asian theater for the Americans any other nominations!!


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 28, 2004)

The Ladies who were in the factories who replaced all the men and rolled out all the Sherman's and B-24s! War production was the ticket!!


----------



## paulyb102 (Jun 28, 2004)

good point mp-willow, but then so did the Germans, italians and Japanese have women workers backing up the blokes, i think Hitler declaring war on America, was almost as bad as invading Russia when he did.
The Americans alone produced 250,000 Combat Aircraft of all types.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 28, 2004)

i think this is the same as another topic that's around somewhere, i think we had to split it into when we were on the defensive (the early years) and when we were on the offensive (post D-Day).............................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 28, 2004)

Hmmm...

Mustang
B-17
Lancaster
B-24
M1 Garand Rifle
Tallboy
Spitfires of all marks
T-34
Sherman

(People)
Monty
Ike
Patton
Bradley
McArthur
Hitler
Goering
Mussolini
The Few


(Weapons Again)
P-47
Hurricane
P-38
B-29
Wimpy


Will post more as I think of 'em...


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2004)

I don't get the M1 Garand, that wasn't war winning. It would have been the same had the Americans had a bolt action.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 28, 2004)

Uh-uh. The Garand not only was reliable and powerful, the clear advantage was that it could provide a follow-up shot.

"The greatest battle implement ever devised"~George C. Patton

Why this would help is that if you missed, you shoot again. Also, in an urban environment, what's better? a) missing your enemy and shooting again, this time killing him while he fumbles with his bolt, or b)shooting, missing, trying to hit the American very quickly before he shoots again, or else grabbing your pistol in a hurry to shoot him?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2004)

I well trained soldier doesn't fumble with his bolt, the fact that the Garand was semi-automatic doesn't make it a war winning weapon. Looking at it like that the Germans, British and Russians were getting shot to pieces. It's quite amazing how fast people can shoot on a bolt action.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 28, 2004)

But they can shoot even faster on a semi-auto. Patton LOVED the M-1 Garand and there isn't a person on this site qualified to argue with him!

I think the Essex-class carriers and the Hellcats are also worthy of acclaim as 'war-winning.'


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2004)

You don't have to be qualified to argue with a man who doesn't care about human life. If you believe that the Garand was war winning there's something lacking up there. If the American forces were equipped with Springfield .03 as standard rifle, the out-come would be the same. The British got on fine with the Lee Enfield Mk. IV, the Russians with the Mosin-Nagant and the Germans did damn well with the K98.


----------



## Andrew (Jun 29, 2004)

> I well trained soldier doesn't fumble with his bolt, the fact that the Garand was semi-automatic doesn't make it a war winning weapon. Looking at it like that the Germans, British and Russians were getting shot to pieces. It's quite amazing how fast people can shoot on a bolt action.



That is quite true.
During the Fisrt Battle of Ypres the German Solders were alleged to have reported that, "The British Solders have 2 Machine Guns Each*" such was the rate of fire from the British Trenches by Lee Enfield Bolt Action Rifles.

*From a book called "The Old Contempibles" I cannot remember the Authors Name


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 29, 2004)

Yep, that's quite correct - Wilfred Saint-Mande's, 'War,Wine and Women', the WWI story of his 4 years in the trenches, also states that. - Patton only loved Patton, but the M1 Garand WAS a fine rifle too...
- Also, the de Havilland DH98 Mosquito was a significant 'War Winner'.....


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 29, 2004)

WE can all say what we want and mot likely to make point and counter point for each one. So on that why not say the lack of a unified frount between the three main Axis countreys? Germay was the most ready for war in 1939, but Italy waited and Japan did not really talk much. They had no clear plan of how the war would go long turm. So that is my other thought. Or why not the free tinking fighting sargent!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 29, 2004)

Have you ever seen the footage of a Garand being fired along side a bolt action rifle? The Garand was getting off more than twice as many aimed shots. That extra rate of fire was extremely useful in close combat situations such as the jungles of the South Pacific and the cities of Europe. Granted that a Thompson, Sten, or Grease Gun was even better, but a semi-auto rifle is much better that a bolt action for close in fighting.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2004)

i've fired both a bolt action and a semi-auto, i cud get more control with the bolt action........................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2004)

The Garand could get off more but that doesn't mean it's war winning. A well trained soldier gets enough off a bolt-action rifle, he doesn't fumble with the bolt he does it naturally. 
The Germans up until 1944 were using bolt-action rifles, and up until 1942 they were winning. Would the STG.44 in 1940 made any difference? No.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 29, 2004)

Bolt-action works fine for distance shooting and is more accurate than a semi-auto (which is why most sniper rifles are bolt-action). The Garand was clearly the better weapon for close-in work and was more flexible (bolt actions can be difficult to work in anything other than a prone position). Other advantages include the larger magazine and that (when emptied) a fresh magazine was simply inserted rather than hand loading the individual rounds. However, the Garand should be considered war-winning for no other reason that the numbers produced. When it's production was ceased in 1950 more than 5.5 million had been made.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 30, 2004)

The only reason the Springfield .03 was loaded individually was the scope didn't allow for the quick-mag. The Lee Enfield and K98 had quick-loaders which were 5 rounds on a clip which was inserted just like a Garands clip. 
And Bolt Actions can be used in any position.


----------



## cls12vg30 (Jun 30, 2004)

All other arguments aside, I'm not saying the Garand was a war-winner, but given the choice I'd choose to go into battle with a semi-auto rifle over a bolt-action any day. The main thing the bolt-action has going for it, besides slightly better accuracy, is its inherent simplicity and the resultant reliablility.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 30, 2004)

5 rounds vs. 8 rounds. Advantage Garand. A bolt action can be used in a postion but its performance is hurt by trying to fire while standing or in firing from the hip. The Garand could be easily fired from any postion without having to move either hand. And again, 5.5 million rifles.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 30, 2004)

but that was up until 1950, just talk about the ones used in the war, and you don't fumble with a bolt action, whatever posistion you're in, a good soldier can empty a 5 round magazine in seconds, and he will cock it without loosing his aim, i found when firering a semi-auto, the kick was so much i had to wait to retake my aim, not so with the bolt action as i could retake my aim whilst reloading, and it didn't have a clip, the round went straight into the chamber.........................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 30, 2004)

Ok on this I wil point out that the Grand had that nasty habbit of slamming the breach on your thumb if you are not carful. Also it is an atempt to get the fire power of the machine gun and the range of the rigle. I know that is the argumnt for the asult rifle, but when you think abot it the semi-auto rifle is the next step. You get the rate of fire but the Grand poped that clip and made that ping noise to let every one know you are out. As for wanting the Tompson, have you fred one? That 45 caliber round packs a lot and after a while your hands hurt like firing the colt 45 pistol. But the Tompson was good for the city fighting in Europe and the jungles. 

But if I had my pick I would go for a BAR


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 30, 2004)

i would go for a bolt ation any day, and before you say "but the garand was better for street and jungle fighting", i would pick a stan for that.......................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 30, 2004)

I go with Stg.43/44. Best small arm of WWII.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 30, 2004)

So discount Garand production from 1945 until 1950 and you are still left with somewhere around 4 million rifles. 

MP-Willow, the BAR was great for firepower but was a beast to lug around.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2004)

A bolt-action rifle was also much easier to clear when it jammed. The fact that a Garand couldn't be reloaded mid-clip would make it difficult to clear. 
You don't fire any rifle from the hip, unless you're stupid and want to completely miss everything. 

GrG is right, the Stg. 44 was the best small arm of the war. The worlds first assault rifle. And it looks surprisingly like an AK-47 one, if not, the greatest assualt rifle of all time. 

The fact is, if the American army were equipped with bolt-actions instead of semi-automatic rifles, the war would turn out the same.


----------



## Crazy (Jul 1, 2004)

I tend to agree with you on all these points, plan_D. The war would have turned out virtually the same, with differences too minor to count. Besides, the American's weren't the only ones fighting the war. We had Moisin-Nagants and Lee-Enfields on our side as well.

The American's were still a large, potent force no matter which type of rifle they carried. Bolt-action or semi-auto, the actions of the troops wouldn't have changed much. Perhaps a few more losses because of the loss of semi-automatic fire, but perhaps a few more kills from a fewer amount of jams, and the ability to fix them when they occured


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 1, 2004)

Well find a spirit medium and take it up with Patton.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 1, 2004)

> the Stg. 44 was the best small arm of the war



very heavy however..................


----------



## Dan (Jul 1, 2004)

a good weapon that the Russians had during the war was the Mp 18 and was also a sub-machine gun like the thompson


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 1, 2004)

although aparaently the thompson was hard on the hands.....................


----------



## Dan (Jul 1, 2004)

yea i agree (probably the semi-automatic trigger or the recoil, either one)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 1, 2004)

it was alround a good gun though.....................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2004)

If I could, I'd take it up with Patton. 

The Stg. 44 was heavy, not as heavy as the BAR or Bren but it had the range and accuracy of a rifle and automatic capability. It was the worlds first assault rifle.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 1, 2004)

The Thompson may have been hard on the hands, but it was even harder on the enemy.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 2, 2004)

The PPsH 43 was better, and easier to produce.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2004)

now if you're looking for ease of manufacture, you'll be wanting a sten.....................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 2, 2004)

Yes the BAR was a beast but what fire power and it had range.

The AK-47 was not in any way related to the German rigle. They were developed seperatly. That from the designer himself. Also the Stg.44 was in very small numbers for the SS and other specail units.

A tompson whold be hard on you, think of all that .45 rounds firing off, the recoil was prity good. 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 2, 2004)

Actually, it was based on the Stg. 43/44 as they were available in large numbers since most of the 500,000 made were deployed to the Eastern front (later to the BotB).

Regular Infantry got it too, but mostly NCO's, not Unteroffizers (privates).


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2004)

GrG, again, is correct. It is quite simple to see that the Ak-47 was based off the Stg.44 by simply looking at the two. And the fact that the Stg.44 was 3 years previous to the Ak-47 and some 500,000 STG.44s were still being used by East German forces after the war makes it a simple task of recognising the who copied who. 

The BAR wasn't a great gun, it was an infantry support weapon, greatly inferior to the Bren.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 3, 2004)

but if you're looking for a copy of the AK-47, has anyone seen the Chinese type 56??


----------



## cls12vg30 (Jul 3, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> now if you're looking for ease of manufacture, you'll be wanting a sten.....................



Or an M3 "Grease Gun"


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 3, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but if you're looking for a copy of the AK-47, has anyone seen the Chinese type 56??



But thats a direct copy, it's different than the Russians basing their gun on the Stg.43/44.

It's kinda like the Tu-4 Bull, a direct (and better) Russian copy of two B-29's that landed in Russia.

It was better because each of the turrets had twin Ns-23 23mm cannon.
Only real difference.

Oh yeah, China might still operate their licence (yes, a licence built aircraft based on an unlicenced copy aircraft) built turboprop powered copies as AWACS aircraft.

They used to, at least...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 3, 2004)

cls12vg30 said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > now if you're looking for ease of manufacture, you'll be wanting a sten.....................
> ...



i doubt they could be produced faster than the sten......................


----------



## cls12vg30 (Jul 3, 2004)

Well I'm not sure about the actual production time per gun, but like the Sten the M3 was made mostly of stamped steel. It was extremely easy and cheap to manufacture, and yet extraordinarily reliable and controllable for an SMG due to its relatively low cyclic rate of fire. The M3 quickly replaced the Thompson as the primary U.S SMG, and remained in service through Vietnam. Even by that time, the cost to produce an M3 was approximately $28 USD.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 4, 2004)

Accuracy is always determined by those firing the weapon, whether bolt-action, semi-auto or auto...Having handled some WWII weapons during my term in the Armed Forces, they all had their uses and specialities...My preference as a general combat weapon is a semi-auto, with a reasonably 'beefy' calibre, which can give a fast rate of fire in the case of 'covering-fire' for your advancing comrades, and also slow-shot accuracy for more distant targets. Automatic weapons prime use is in close-combat situations, such as jungle or urban warfare, other than the like of Brens, GPMG's etc. which can give concentrated-fire and support. The ability to handle any weapon is directly dependant on how well you've been trained in their use. The M1 Garand was a fine weapon which I would have preferred to an Enfield, partly because they were lighter, and obviously a faster rate of fire...Thompsons were nicknamed 'choppers' because their firepower was devastating close-range, but on rapid-fire they were a handful to keep aimed. The Sten was the same, but the idea was to fire only in short bursts. As for the AK47, I have used both the Russian Chinese variant, and disliked both, they were heavy and I personally didn't like their balance, range and their 'ease of use'..., at least in comparison to their NATO counterpart, the Belgian FN SLR. There is better range hitting-power in their 7.62x51, than the AK's 7.62x39.- There is confidence in using a firearm that has been well manufactured than one that's 'stamped-out' in volume...the Sten for example, while adequate, was very basic, but stoppages and malfunctions could be dangerous to the users....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 4, 2004)

> the cost to produce an M3 was approximately $28 USD.



a sten cost £1.50, i don't know my conversion rates very well but i know that £1.50 is cheaper then $28, but they weren't a huge quality, the weilding was pretty poor, some would just fal apart if you dropped them, a very good urban warfare weapon however....................


----------



## cls12vg30 (Jul 4, 2004)

Yeah, that is cheaper, even if we're talking about 1940's pounds vs. 1960's U.S. Dollars (the $28 number came from the Vietnam era) the Sten still would come out cheaper.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 4, 2004)

it probery cost more to put ammo in it than the gun cost it's self .....................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 5, 2004)

You could use Luger ammo in it...


Empty a clip, pick it up after all the Germans are dead, get their lugers, manually remove the bullets, put them in the Sten clip...


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 5, 2004)

Are you talking about the AK-47? I truely believe in all the interviews I have seen and resurch I have read that it was not based on any other weapon as it was developed on its own!

Why was the German rifle deployed so much to the East and not but a little to the west?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 5, 2004)

> Empty a clip, pick it up after all the Germans are dead, get their lugers, manually remove the bullets, put them in the Sten clip...



or you could just use your own ammo......................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 6, 2004)

that was to say if you had any of your own left.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 6, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> Are you talking about the AK-47? I truely believe in all the interviews I have seen and resurch I have read that it was not based on any other weapon as it was developed on its own!
> 
> Why was the German rifle deployed so much to the East and not but a little to the west?



The SS-Panzer Abeitlung were equipped with them before, after, and during D-Day, as well as during the BotB.


----------



## Erich (Jul 6, 2004)

if you are talking of the Stg 44 it was not issued to W-SS Pz Abt. and it was not seen at D-day or during the Normandie invasion but in the fall especially during the Ardenne. The Ak 47 was developed after capturing the German weapon I described............the AK was nothing unique.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 6, 2004)

I'd rather be carrying the M3 as the .45cal packed a ton more whallop that the British 9mm.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 7, 2004)

Or German 9mm if you wanna take it further...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 7, 2004)

Either way, the .45cal hit alot harder.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 8, 2004)

The M1 Garand's trigger mechanism was much copied and one very similar is found in every one of more than 50 million Kalashnikov AK-47's...The Garand's sighting was superior, they did have problems with the en bloc clip magazine system, but the ping when the feed-clip ejected would've been hard-pressed to start an 'enemy-charge', if you could hear it first-off in all the battle-din, and secondly, the time to reload an M1 would be less than it would take the fastest sprinter to cover 25 yds...The .30-06 round was grunty, gave good range and hitting-power...sure, I'd love .45 power, but they don't have quite the reach...gotta give the boys a great all-rounder, like they did... They went on to convert to .308 [7.62x51] NATO cartridge, and they were gradually superceded by the M-16 [5.56 - .223] during Vietnam, still using Garand's and Remington .30-06 for mainly Sniping-role....


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 8, 2004)

Thanks. But are we a little away from aircraft?
What about field care for the rifle?


----------



## Andrew (Jul 8, 2004)

> Quote:
> 
> Empty a clip, pick it up after all the Germans are dead, get their lugers, manually remove the bullets, put them in the Sten clip...



I understood that the Sten Gun was designed to use up all the ammo that the Italians left behind in North Africa, after the failed atempt to Invade Egypt.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 8, 2004)

but a bolt action .303 will have even more stopping power, greater range and a good soldier will still get off allot of rounds ..........................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 8, 2004)

Good stopping power, but the Garand could match it and put out more rounds.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 9, 2004)

From the point of view of "war-winning", no infantry light arm is going to be a candidate I don't think, because the differences between rifles just aren't that great. Maybe the Stg44 was a major step, but as with all German innovations, it was too little to late.

Would the Mustang be a good possible choice? It was the largest factor in establishing air supremacy over western Europe, thus making the invasion landings possible (or at least, a lot less costly).


----------



## plan_D (Jul 9, 2004)

The Garand was a better overall rifle but this does not make it war winning, that's my point. Had the American troops had the Springfield .03 as standard the war would have been the same ending. 
The major advantages being semi-auto, and wait, that's about it except three extra rounds. The Lee Enfield was more reliable, easier to clear and more accurate. It depends what you want. 

You cannot knock the Ak-47, it wasn't copied off the Stg-44 but created from studying the design. Soviet propaganda was always going to say they created it. It's a simple look on both. There were and are many 'AK' copies the Ak-47 CZ being the Czech copy. The Ak-47 SU was the folding stock version, being much lighter. 
The major thing with the Ak-47 was the reliability which far surpasses anything NATO had except the SLR (which is a beautiful gun). The Ak-47 could be dug into sand, shoved under-water or covered in mud and you could shake the gun off, clear the barrel, load and it'd fire. No such luck for the M-16 it'd have to be stripped. The effective range of the AK-47 is something like 1500m (obviously rough estimate) matched by many bolt-action rifles and the SLR. 

My Dad is the best opinion I have on these guns, having handled the SA-80, M-16, SLR and AK-47. Sa-80, too light, unreliable, under-powered, basically crap. M-16 good weight not too light and easy to carry. 5.56mm isn't really powerful enough but could make do. Reliability leaves something to be desired. SLR, brilliant, perfect weight, gives some feel to the rifle. Easy to maintain, reliable, 7.62mm gives good hitting power and very easy to handle. Pistol grip makes for easy holding while guard. 
Ak-47 basically the same as the SLR but he doesn't like the handling as much but prefers the reliability. 

The firing mechanism in the AK-47 is the same as in the SVD Dragnov.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 9, 2004)

which is amazingly simple..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 9, 2004)

Most things Russian are. The major advantage of the 5.56mm was it's lighter weight and works fine for most infantry roles. You really only need a 7.62mm in machine guns to serve as support weapons.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 9, 2004)

The whole point of infantry weapons is to kill...- We used to call the M-16 the 'boy, oh boy, the Lincoln Toy...' after a Toy manufacturer. It was very light compared to it's predessors, with a 750 rpm firing-rate, but in heavy bush, couldn't stand-up to abuse as readily as an SLR. If a 5.56mm round passed thru your leg muscle, for example, it would leave a nasty little hole and give you quite a limp....if a .308 went thru the same place, it would leave a nasty little hole going in, shatter your femur and blow a hole the size of a small fist out the back...alot more incapacitating. For memory, the 5.56mm travels around 3400 fps, the 7.62mm /.308 at around 2800 fps, but almost twice the 'hitting-power'....the range for both is about the same....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 9, 2004)

The 5.56mm is still powerful enough to kill and to punch through most body armor. It has more punch than the Russian 5.45mm and also their 7.62mm I think. But it's light weight allows a soldier to carry ALOT more ammo than was possible with the 7.62mm NATO round.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 10, 2004)

and the AK's amazingly easy to maintain, it will keep going after anything really as it's so simple...................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 10, 2004)

The NATO 5.56mm hasn't got the hitting power of any 7.62mm. Nowadays the idea isn't to kill, but to injure. That is why the 5.56mm is used more in NATO. 
The 5.56 could kill if hit in the right areas. One step further from Gemhorses' example, if a 5.56 goes into your gut it will go straight through and leave a clean hole (if missing your spine). A 7.62 will go in and basically rip your gut out. 

The range on the M-16 is 400m (estimate) and on the SLR it is 1500m. 

I'm sorry LG, your idea of being able to carry "ALOT" more because it is lighter (refering to 5.56) is bull. In the Gulf the British standard forces carried four clips of SLR, 20 rounds in each clip. That is enough for any combat situation. If you are going to over load yourself with rounds you probably could carry an extra two clips of 5.56 but to get that far you aren't suitable for combat anyway, too heavy. 

The Delta Force in the Battle of Black Sea (Mogadishu ~ Black Hawk Down) complained that their titanium tipped 5.56 from the CAR-15s they were using was not killing who they fired upon but going straight through. While the SAW carriers were obliterating their enemies with the 7.62. 
Yes I know the SAW is an infantry support weapon but the Delta Force had to hit who they were shooting at about 6 times before they were dead, with a SLR you could do it once or twice in the body and they'd be dead.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 10, 2004)

If by SAW you mean the M249 in is also chambered in the 5.56mm. The range on the M16A2 is considerably higher, 800-900m. And many troops, like the airborne and the Marines are required to carrying everything they need for three days on their backs. Carrying around 3 days worth of 7.62mm doesn't help anything.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 10, 2004)

Three days worth of ammo means nothing, it depends what they expect. You could carry plenty of 7.62 ammo, just as much as 5.56. The carrying weight is a dead argument for the 5.56. 
The 400m range isn't the complete range, on any M-16 you could probably get it to 1000m. But with that you probably could get the SLR to 2000-3000m. 

The SAWs were using 7.62 in the Battle of the Black Sea. Which is a deadlier calibre of round.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 10, 2004)

We carried 4 x 20 round magazines plus a full one on the rifle, with the SLR. Plus the rest of our gear. Furthermore, we didn't throw away the mags when finished, as supply-drops were cases of ammo, which we then reloaded our mags from. US troops biffed their M-16 clips when empty. In fact, the way we were trained is nothing like you see in 'movies', jungle-training was most intense, as your life preservation skills were honed to being a 'ghost' in the jungle, where all six senses were working...you could literally 'smell' your enemy, by what he ate, smoked excreted...- Probably why Kiwi SAS had the highest prices on their heads by the Vietcong...Try pig-hunting in NZ with some of our Maori guys, and you'll get the picture...or Deerhunting with a .22, by rolling in some cattle crap and stalking the deer from downwind for the head-shot...I prefer 7.62 x 51 for the reach and hitting-power, but a silenced .22 is my favourite around here for all game except Pig....ballistically speaking, a .22 is just as deadly as a .45, they just riccochet around the insides tearing vitals...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 10, 2004)

I did mean the four plus one clip in the rifle. Obviously you're better at the ideas because yours is first hand, mine being second hand experience. 
Another thing with the SLR clips was every 3 days they must be emptied to release the mag spring. This is the same for most guns though. The SLR is one, if not the, best rifles ever and its 7.62mm contributed largely to this. 

I don't doubt that the Kiwi SAS had the greatest price on their heads, the odds of killing one is highly unlikely. The SAS are very highly trained, and were secondly tested in the Jungles of Indonesia in the 1950s. 

You'll have probably picked this up, Gemhorse from your service with the SLR. The pistol grip made for very good handling while on guard, set the butt into your hip and lean back, holding the pistol grip. That's what my dad says he did. 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 10, 2004)

I don't know where in the world you are getting a figure of 2,000-3,000m. 7.62mm sniper rifles are hard-pressed to maintain a range of 1,200m. SAW is an acronym standing for Squad Automatic Weapon. The only weapon I am familiar with that actually carries that designation is the M249 which is chambered for the 5.56mm NATO round. It does have a big brother, the M240 chambered for the 7.62mm round but this has never been called a SAW. Could you be more specific with the weapon you are refering to?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2004)

I don't where you get the sniper rifle figures stretching for 1,200m. That's bull, my friend. The published figures are for estimates, for a start. Longer range achieved through drop shots, and general higher range shots. The SLR and AK-47 both achieve 1,500m with ease. 

Mistake on my part involving the the Battle of the Black Sea, it was the M-60. Anywho, that wasn't the point trying to be made. The point was the CAR-15 was unable to kill the enemy due to the 5.56.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 11, 2004)

My personal experience of the SLR's range was basically out to a km. The easiest way to judge this was to hold a match out at arms length, and the lighting-tip was about the height of a man at a kilometre...and you could certainly hit one at that range, using the open adjustable sights [just keep you face about 6 inches back from the rear-sight, or you dent it on the recoil !] - I would say it's effective range woul be way beyond that if you had scopes fitted, without a doubt. - Also, the AK-47's range is far less, due to the cut-down round of 7.62 x 39 , as opposed to the SLR's 7.62 x 51. I believe there's an M-14 that's a 7.62 x 39... - I found that on guard at attention, you could slip the pistol-grip into your right pocket and the top would stay rested between your shoulder tit, to rest your arm abit ! - Shifting guns here, I believe the .50 was really the best heavy MG of the War [ and beyond...] There was a NZ-born chap who in Australia during the War, invented a shoulder-carried version of the .50. - Called the 'Constant Reaction Gun' [CRG] SR Model 5, it's total weight 31 lbs, including a 10 lb barrel, could be fed from the left or right and had a cyclic rate of 650 rpm....it was half the weight of the Browning .50... -They worked on improvements, and developed an aircraft version, but it wasn't ready by War's end...this could have been a WAR-WINNING WEAPON ...I've got a photo somewhere here, I'll try and dig it out...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 11, 2004)

http://www.snipercentral.com/

This site has some excellent info on sniping weapons. However, few 7.62mm weapons are capable of beyond 1200m. A purpose designed sniping round like the .338 Lapua is capable of extending that to 1600m. And in case you doubt the site, the guy who runs it is a US Army sniper and has fired most of the rifles he describes.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2004)

I don't doubt his numbers on range but again, his numbers will be from either the company numbers or from general firing range practice. The fact is none are the true range of a rifle. 
With a SLR the effective range is 1500m as said by the company, and by most forces using it. You can always achieve higher by drop shots, so you can never get the precise range of a rifle. And if someone was very good or, most likely, very lucky they could kill someone at 2000m - 3000m with drop shooting. 

http://world.guns.ru/main-e.htm

That's a great site, you name the gun, it's got it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 12, 2004)

It would be possible to hit something at that range, but extremely improbable.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2004)

I know but it's still an effective range of the rifle. Those ranges you get on paper are not the ultimate range of a rifle, that's my point. 

Another point on the 5.56mm, if a person is stood behind a thick tree. The M-16 or any other 5.56mm rifle for that matter won't be able to get him. However the SLR and most other 7.62mm rifles will put a hole straight through it, and at least, injure the person behind.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 12, 2004)

i doubt that.........................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 12, 2004)

It would depend on the size of the tree. I may be wrong on this, but I thought EFFECTIVE range was the range at which a certain hit probability could be maintained. The maximum range the bullet would carry would be further, but the hit probability would be so low as to be next to impossible.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2004)

You do, have you ever seen a SLR? Have you seen the power of it? Get me a SLR, go stand behind a tree and I'll shoot it at you. Then you won't doubt it, you'll either be dead or at least injured.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2004)

The effective range is the range of the rifle which has a high chance of killing the enemy with a hit. This is obviously restricted by the person firing it. A rifles full range would be hard to measure, but the point is a M-16 could achieve about 1500m going full but the SLR will be going on for 2000-3000m, chances of hitting minimal but it could still do it. 

The average kill distance in combat is 400 - 500m. That's why the M-16s range is so low because it doesn't need to be any higher. But if they get caught in open ground with a kilometer distance, just hope the opponent doesn't have Ak-47s or SLRs


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2004)

Lets put it this way, with a SLR if you can see it you can kill it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 12, 2004)

the human eye can see a candle in the dark from 14 miles, could it hit the candle??


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2004)

No one can see an unlit candle at 14 miles. With you being so picky, I thought I would. So are you going to get me a SLR so I can shoot at you, or what? You can even hide behind a brick wall if you want.


----------

