# Use of Lee Enfield after 1945



## The Basket (Sep 9, 2016)

British and Commonwealth forces still used old SMLE in the Korean War which is quite something.

Why o why o why didn't the British get a quick semi auto even a licence built Garand to cover the obsolete SMLE.

Was a 303 Garand possible? Seems crazy to keep the Lee Enfield until the FAL in the late 50s.

Of course the EM-2 may have caused delay but in my view the Garand makes every bolt action obsolete.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 10, 2016)

Why would the Commonwealth forces want to use a Garand?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 10, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> Why would the Commonwealth forces want to use a Garand?


In watching that video several times, I have to wonder what his grouping was on the target.

He was certainly working the action quickly enough, there's no question about that.


----------



## yulzari (Sep 10, 2016)

2 more rounds in the magazine which can be topped up at any time and the largest time delay is reacquiring the target after firing. With the middle finger doing the trigger your hand never leaves the bolt and the butt never leaves the shoulder. I would actually prefer the SMLE to the Garand.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 10, 2016)

You can also "cheat" and slide one more round into the chamber for a total starting load of eleven rounds.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 10, 2016)

Not sure the point of the video.
Give the Lee Enfield to your worse soldier and see how fast he/she is.
As mentioned did he actually aim?
What about reloads as well.
Michael Phelps can swim fast but that don't prove that your average swimmer can.


----------



## herman1rg (Sep 10, 2016)

*The Mad Minute*
Marksmanship training in the British Army involved an exercise known as the ‘_Mad Minute_’ in which a soldier was expected to fire at, and hit, a Second Class figure target 300 yards out at least 15 times. A trained rifleman could hit the target 30+ times with his _Short Magazine Lee-Enfield Rifle_. At the turn of the century the British Army was the most professional in the world with each soldier trained to be an expert marksman. The Mad Minute itself is arguably a myth surrounded by myth, its proper name was Serial 22, Table B of the Musketry Regulations classification course of fire. Which instructed a soldier to fire rapidly into a distant target with 15 rounds being a target. However, this was not a requirement as the rifleman’s scores were calculated by aggregate with the other stages of the classification. The exercise of firing as many rounds as possible was probably a challenge set for fun to encourage pride in marksmanship and to see just how many rounds it was possible to fire in a minute. During the musketry classifications shoots of recruits and again shot each year by all infantrymen, engineers and cavalrymen to gauge how good of a shot they were. 

The classification shoot was shot in several stages shot out to 600 yards, the various stages or serials were laid out in Table B, Appendix II in the Musketry Regulations Pt.1, these included grouping with 5 rounds at 100 yards, snap shooting with 5 rounds out at 200 yards, two 5 round stages fired slowly with the first at 400 yards from the prone position and another at 300 yards from kneeling. Then came the so called ‘Mad Minute’ stage fired from prone at a target 300 yards out. This was to be fired with 5 rounds loaded - 1 in the chamber and 4 in the magazine, the rifleman would then reload with 5-round chargers firing until 60 seconds had elapsed. The target used for this stage was the Second Class figure target which was a 4 foot screen with a 12 inch high figure silhouette at the centre surrounded by two rings, a 23 inch inner ring and a 36 inch outer ring. This stage was then followed by three final stages fired from prone out to 500 and 600 yards. 






_The Second Class figure target as shown in the 1910 Musketry Regulations_ 

If the classification was completed with a high enough score the soldier would be classified as a Marksman and given a crossed rifles badge and a 6 pence a day increase in pay - so it paid to be a good shot. The rapid fire of the ‘Mad Minute’ was accomplished by used a ‘palming’ method where the rifleman used the palm of his hand to work the belt, and not his thumb and fore finger. Each man to shoot the classification course was allotted points for where each round hit - 4 points for a ‘bull’ figure hit, 3 for a hit in the inner ring and 2 points for an outer ring hit. Troops could be classified as follows: Marksman (with at least 130 points out of 200 across the classification), 1st Class (105-130 points), 2nd Class and 3rd Class (sub-standard). The majority of British troops, even cavalry, were excellent marksman with 50% of troops in some battalions scored as Marksman with the rest being 1st and 2nd class shots. 

As such when the First World War began the average British rifleman could out shoot his German and French counterparts. At the_ Battle of Mons_ it was well documented that German infantry believed they were facing British battalions heavily equipped with machine guns rather than riflemen. 

The first and confirmed record for the most hits on target during a ’_Mad Minute_’ was set by _Sgt-Major Jesse Wallingford_ - 36 hits at 300 yards in 1 minute in 1908. However, this was allegedly bettered in 1914, by _Sergeant-Instructor Alfred Snoxall_ with 38 hits within the 24 inch inner ring in 60 seconds. It has not been beaten since although there is little documentary evidence of the feat readily available. Hitting the target 38 times would require him to fire his first 5 rounds pre-loaded in the _SMLE_’s magazine and then reload 7 times with 5 round chargers. Add onto this that the rifle was a single shot, bolt action rifle which required the user to push up and retract the bolt and then return it forward pushing a new round into the chamber, then aiming and fire. All while maintaining his cheek weld and line of sight. This means_ Snoxall_ must have averaged around 1.5 seconds per shot to hit the target 38 times in a minute. Quite a feat.

Here is a short video of a _SMLE_ owner attempting a very fast ’_Mad Minute’, _he managed to fire 10 rounds in under 10 seconds. It certainly gives you some idea of what_ Snoxall_ and other professionals could achieve.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 10, 2016)

The Basket said:


> British and Commonwealth forces still used old SMLE in the Korean War which is quite something.
> 
> Why o why o why didn't the British get a quick semi auto even a licence built Garand to cover the obsolete SMLE.
> 
> ...



The Garand had been made obsolete by the MP 44 so adopting the Garand in the late 40s would have been a mistake. Britian and a lot of the rest of NATO got shafted by the US with the US insistence on the 7.62x51. which the US then abandoned within about 12 years. US believe that they could build a full auto rifle using the 7.62x51 was delusional.
I knew a man who had worked at Aberdeen proving ground in the period when the US was testing the British .280 round and he became convinced that the 7mm was the ideal caliber. Bullets with high ballistic coefficient being possible without excessive weight (high recoil) or excessive length (smaller calibers needing quicker rifling twists).


----------



## The Basket (Sep 10, 2016)

The SMLE was more obsolete than the Garand.
I used the Garand simply as a realistic example.
Perhaps we can use the G43 or the Johnson or the FG-42 or the Sturmgewehr or even the SVT-40.


----------



## MIflyer (Sep 10, 2016)

I have an Enfield No. 4 Mk 1. It must be one of the earlier ones, since the bands are machined and not stamped. It appears to have been rebuilt in India in 1965. It is one sweet shooting gun! Any weapon I can take to the 100 yard range and hit a pistol target with the first magazine I ever fired is a very accurate weapon. I paid $68 for it at Big 5 Sporting Goods in Santa Barbara in 1986.

I also have a 1943 M1 Garand. No doubt the Garand is the better military weapon. Try shooting an Enfield on the move, while running. By WWII the emphasis was on firepower rather than accuracy, and you fired at where you thought the enemy might be rather than hunkering down and waiting for him to show himself. The US version of WWII was a war of assault, attack and advancement.

The Enfield is slightly lighter than the Garand and more importantly seems to be much better balanced. I don't know whether this is inherent to the design or if a bolt action rifle has to be better balanced in order to be able to work that bolt and not drop the rifle.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 10, 2016)

The Basket said:


> The SMLE was more obsolete than the Garand.
> I used the Garand simply as a realistic example.
> Perhaps we can use the G43 or the Johnson or the FG-42 or the Sturmgewehr or even the SVT-40.


By 1948-49 most armies wanted a standard rifle that could fire full automatic. This CANNOT be done effectively with full power rounds. They also realized that rifles were seldom used at ranges much over 400 meters. Some countries were more willing than others to bias there guns to a bit shorter range than that. The US didn't want to sacrifice anything and the 7.62x51 is almost ballistically identical to the 30-06 M2 load (new powders allowed for the shorter case). 
Copying any WW II semi-auto rifle in 1948-50 would have been a waste of money as it would have to be replaced in just few years with either a new "assault rifle" or a new large magazine full power semi-auto, read FN. 
As above the US screwed over most of NATO by insisting on the full powered round which effectively did away with any full auto guns no matter what any individual countries may have wanted. 
The British .280 round may not have been ideal but it used a bit lighter bullet at a bit lower velocity (and both had been increased to try to satisfy the American) of better shape which resulted in almost the same down range performance.


----------



## stona (Sep 10, 2016)

And no one has mentioned James Lee's bolt action, which didn't just give the rifle the first half of its name, but also enabled it to be operated in this way.
Even as young and fairly inept schoolboy cadets we were expected (by a certain Major Snell) to fire 20 rounds in one minute from this rifle. It was easily done, but where they landed doesn't bear thinking about. I suspect that standing by one of the targets at 300 yards you would have been fairly safe 
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 10, 2016)

My view is that during the Korean war you give the best rifle you can to your soldiers who are fighting for you.
I don't believe the Lee Enfield was that weapon.
Of course the Lee Enfield was plentiful and the 303 round available by the millions. But that my view on the matter.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 10, 2016)

Britain nor any other country had a crystal ball.
The Korean war caught everybody by surprise.
It was just 5 years after WW2, everybody else fought it with x-ww2 weapons, why should Britain be different ?

After all it was the atomic age, most countries was spending their defense dollars on the big ticket items. And Britain, in particular, was overly well supplied with excess defense funds.

Look at how long it took America to develope and adopt the Garand, M-14, and then the M-16.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 10, 2016)

The Basket said:


> My view is that during the Korean war you give the best rifle you can to your soldiers who are fighting for you.
> I don't believe the Lee Enfield was that weapon.
> Of course the Lee Enfield was plentiful and the 303 round available by the millions. But that my view on the matter.



And just like making airplanes, it can take months, if not year or more to tool up a factory to make the "new" gun in any numbers. It is going to take weeks/months to get a training program going and it will take weeks to send any rifles to Korea from England (rifles are probably not going airfreight in 1950-51).

See: EM-2 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The EM-2 was 1 1/2 to 2 years in progress when the Korean war broke out. The _ONLY _ viable alternative is the US M-1 rifle as the British tanks are already using .30-06 ammunition and reworking any other existing semi-auto design to use either the .303 or the .30-06 is going to take a few months at least ( or a lot of months if things don't go smooth). 
And since the M-1 *isn't *what the British want to end up with spending money to build/equip a factory for it and build tens of thousands of rifles is just going to delay the British from getting the rifle they want. 

BTW My father was a production engineer that worked briefly for Winchester on the M-14, worked for Colt on the M-16 and worked for Colt on two overseas projects setting up M-16 factories in Korea and the Philippines. The last two were bare ground and up factory builds and required different machinery to suit the experience level of the local machinists, the anticipated number of rifles per month, and the suitability to build other products than rifles when the contracts were completed. 

Since the No 4 rifle was the BEST bolt action service rifle ever built the British actually had the least need of any army using bolt actions to reequip in a hurry. And since the Bren gun was one of top 3 light machine guns ever built ( at least at that time) and was issued on a generous scale (compared to either US LMG issue or North Korean/Chinese MG scale of issue) British firepower in small units was not a real problem.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 11, 2016)

Of course the Lee Enfield was acceptable as a peacetime rifle. Martini Henry is a perfect peacetime weapon!
Of course building a new rifle takes time. The P14 is a good example as that wasn't smooth sailing getting the Americans up to speed and by the time the P14 was in numbers the initial crisis had passed.
The obvious choice is the Garand taking existing US surplus and giving it to front line British troops. I see no issues here. Obviously it will involve training mainly in disassembly and fault finding but we would be talking of a limited number of weapons and front line infantry. 
Of course this is controversial and has flaws but it is worthy of consideration and perfectly viable. If it's found the Garand offers no worthwhile advantage then of course the plan is shelved.
Remember a Garand is much faster to reload than a Lee Enfield and I would wager rate of fire over a mad minute is faster. And if you have human waves of Chinese running at you then you need to pull that trigger.
The EM-2 was rid because of the US stance on a standard NATO cartridge. I don't have much data on the EM-2 as it didn't go anywhere although it was resurrected into the SA80 many years later. The EM-2 was actually very forward thinking considering the Lee Enfield was supposed to have been replaced by the P13 years earlier.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 11, 2016)

The Lee-Enfield is lighter, it's just as fast to reload and it's more durable on the battlefield than the M-1 Garand and it's "mud scoop" ammo ejection system. The effective aimed RoF of the two rifles is probably about the same for average soldiers while the Lee-Enfield is probably superior for well trained riflemen. The Commonwealth forces gave up on the Lee-Enfield just about the same time as the US Army gave up on the Garand.

Here's an example of 10 aimed rounds, on target, in 9 secounds:



Here's a guy who admits he can't load the Enfield with stripper clips but still managed to place 26 of 30 rounds on target in about 90 seconds, during a "run and gun":


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 11, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> The Lee-Enfield is lighter, it's just as fast to reload and it's more durable on the battlefield than the M-1 Garand and it's "mud scoop" ammo ejection system. The effective aimed RoF of the two rifles is probably about the same for average soldiers while the Lee-Enfield is probably superior for well trained riflemen.



Well, it is lighter.  

To reload 40 rounds takes 5 clips for the M1 and 8 for the Lee-Enfield so I fail to see how the Lee-Enfield is faster to reload. 
Effective rate of fire is rather subjective as it depends on a rather undefined condition of effective or accuracy. 
Now if you really believe a well trained rifle man can cycle the bolt on the Lee-Enfield faster than an M-1 can cycle it's bolt I have a nice Bridge over the East river In New York for sale. 
While I haven't used a Lee-Enfield in competition I have used M-1s, a custom Springfield and and a Winchester Model 70 target rifle, I was also often using stainless steel competition stripper clips vs GI stripper clips. 
I used to joke that I used the bolt actions because I didn't want to wait for the action to cycle. The facts were the bolt guns had better triggers and better sights.
When using a semi-automatic you can maintain a better grip on the gun and until the ammo runs out you just had to recover from recoil, realign the sights and pull the trigger again. Much simpler than manipulating a bolt no matter ho easy or ergonomic the bolt is. I used to average just under 3 seconds per shot getting over 90% of the shots in a 13 in circle at 200 yds with either type rifle. A 13in circle (aiming mark and the 10 ring was 7in in diameter and good shooters/winners were putting all ten rounds in the 10 ring) is much harder than a man silhouette. We used slings (big advantage) and fired from sitting or prone positions (prone was for 300 yds and/or reduced size targets) 
In US competition back in the 60s and 70s the bolt guns were given an extra 10 seconds over the M-1 in rapid fire fire strings but then nobody was using Lee-Enfields 

I do own not only a No 4 service rifle but several No 4 target rifles and will argue with anybody that the rear locking lugs on the Enfield make NO difference to the practical accuracy of the gun. May not be the best for trying to get 1/4 in groups at 100 yds but for most other types of shooting you can't tell the difference.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 11, 2016)

That is my thought. An American boy well fed and wearing thin clothes on a nice day is going to load a rifle very quickly.
But how about this.
A Korean winter frozen hands.
And then gloves and full kit.
Combat stress. And try and load stripper clips. It seems to load the en bloc clip is far easier.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 11, 2016)

There's no law that says a Commonwealth infantryman couldn't have multiple magazines in his kit but reloading with the stripper is pretty fast. Starting with a loaded rifle; firing 30 rounds the Lee-Enfield would require 4 stripper clips while Garand would require 4 as well. To fire 40 rounds the Lee-Enfield would require 6 clips and the Garand 5. 

I see that no one wants to discuss the Garand's propensity for jamming due to it's mud and sand scoop. The British Army acceptance tests required their rifles to function in adverse conditions.
Take a hundred infantrymen each with a Lee-Enfield and another hundred with a Garand on a typical winter Korean battlefield and a much higher percentage of Lee-Enfields will actually function. Sad but true:

In March 1941, _Time_ magazine published extracts from the official Marine Corps tests. The conclusion the Marines reached was:

_After boiling down results of all the tests for accuracy, ruggedness, general fitness for combat, the board rated the rifles: 1) Springfield; 2) Garand; 3) Johnson; 4) Winchester. Best that the board could say for the Garand was that it was "superior to the other semi-automatic rifles . . ."; "superior in the number of well-aimed shots that can be fired per minute"; could be quickly cleaned in the field. Sum & substance of the findings was that *the Garand was a fair-weather rifle, excellent on the practice range but far from good enough for the Marines when the going got tough*.
[…]
In those tests which simulated adverse field conditions, such as exposure to dust, rain, mud, salt water, sand, etc., the [Springfield] could always be operated with some degree of proficiency. Whereas the semi-automatic weapons generally failed to function mechanically and, in most cases, the gas-operated rifles [Garand, Winchester] could not even be manually operated after a few shots had been fired._​


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 11, 2016)

It took the US Army more than 5 years to transition from the M1 to M14, and even more from the M-14 to M-16. And that's from automatic operating systems that weren't too different.
The M-14 more or less just a improved M-1, but some may disagree. Then the M-16 gas operated too.

Yet you expect the British forces to do it in less time from a fairly trouble free bolt action to a gas operated semi-auto..


----------



## stona (Sep 11, 2016)

It actually gets a lot worse for the Garrand.

'The board assumed "that troops have landed through light surf [as Marines must often do] and that rifles were dropped or dragged over wet sand in reaching cover on the beach." The rifles were exposed to saltwater spray (but not actually soaked in water), dropped in wet sand. Results: the Springfields fired "in the normal manner." But "the bolts on the two [Garands] could not be opened by hand after the first and second shots respectively. The firer had to stand up and use his foot against the operating handle in order to open the actions. Both [Garand] rifles . . . failed this test."

The board assumed "that troops have landed through heavy surf sufficient to break completely over men and equipment, and immediately engage in combat on a sandy beach." Results: both Garands failed to operate as semi-automatic rifles (i.e., reload automatically after each round). One failed completely and the firer had to hammer the bolt with a mallet; "the other operated by hand with extreme difficulty. ..." The Springfields continued to work, with slight difficulty. On these salt water tests, the Garand was rated last, the Springfield first.

All the rifles got a thorough dousing in fresh water (assumption: heavy rain). Results: the Garands failed again.'

If I'm coming through surf, up a defended beach, I'll take the Enfield. Standing up to operate the action doesn't seem to me to be a brilliant plan. It might be worth packing a mallet! 
There's not much point in having a weapon with a better rate of fire (marginally by all accounts) if it won't operate when you really need it to.

What really worries me is why, if the Garrand was really as unreliable as the Marine Corp's own tests imply, was it adopted at all?

Cheers

Steve


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 11, 2016)

I suspect that if the Marines and Army had standardized on the Lee-Enfield in/before WW1 rather than the Springfield that the Garand would not have been adopted. However, once the Army decided on the Garand, the Marines probably decided that standardization with the Army was necessary. There's no doubt that the Lee-Enfield was superior to the Springfield; just look at what Sgt York accomplished with his Lee-Enfield.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 11, 2016)

Sgt Yorks rifle was not a Lee Enfield.
The Marines chose the Garand due to expediency.
Since the Garand was used in Korea then it's easy to rate it's performance.
British acceptance tests in adverse conditions must have been out taken a whizz when the SA80 knocked.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 11, 2016)

Sgt. York used a Enfield M1917, not a Lee Enfield.

The Marines early in WW2 still had the Springfield, my dad carried a Springfield at Guadalcanal.
He said when the Army troops there were equipped with the Garand, all the Marines kept a eye out for anyone straying just a little too far away from his Garand. They disappeared in a flash.

Right or wrong those Marines wanted a Garand.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 11, 2016)

Hows about a Johnson?
Marines used them.
Garand were used in all conditions and if they were jamomatics then I'm sure they would have been given a far worse reputation. Not saying they don't jam.
M1917 was a Mauser action so not a Lee Enfield as it was a modified P13. It was an Enfield design though.

P13 was supposed to replace the SMLE but that's a different thread!


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 11, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> To fire 40 rounds the Lee-Enfield would require 6 clips and the Garand 5


Only if the Lee-Enfield starts with a full magazine and the Garand starts empty. If the Garand starts loaded (8 rounds) it only needs 4 reloads to get to 40 rounds. 

Both stripper clips and enbloc clips tend to vary in Spring tension and actual size. Most Competition shooters had favorites or selected stripper clips, enboc clips and detachable magazines depending on rifle and had them marked as to ownership and in some cases, order in which they were to be used. 

Hammering bolts closed or open when the bolt guns get dirty only works so long and certainly slows the rate of fire. Better than using the rifle as a club though. 
Trying to clean the locking lug recesses on a Springfield or Mauser isn't much (if any) easier than cleaning them on an M-1. 





Locking lug recesses are well inside the forward receiver ring.
I have no idea how objective the Marine corp test was. US rifle tests in the 1950s for the M-14 vs FN FAL and M-14 vs AR-15 were not only biased they were sometimes rigged. ( guns dismantled and reassembled using improper tools and using improper tolerances).

The SMLE had no hidden locking lug recesses and could be cleared much easier. The British guns also had over sized chambers which would hold a fair amount of crud without the need for hammering on the bolt. 
Hammering bolts closed on dirty/gritty ammunition or chambers could very well result in a stuck case once the the gun was fired and while the bolt guns _might _tolerate bolt handles being beat on with rocks or boot heels better than the semi-autos there was a fair chance on either type of gun of pulling the extractor through the rim leaving the case stuck in the chamber. At which point unless you have several minutes to work on the gun uninterrupted with the proper tools it is pretty much a club no matter what type of action it has. 
Hint, it is even possible to bend cleaning rods without removing stuck case.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 11, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> Sgt. York used a Enfield M1917, not a Lee Enfield.
> 
> The Marines early in WW2 still had the Springfield, my dad carried a Springfield at Guadalcanal.
> He said when the Army troops there were equipped with the Garand, all the Marines kept a eye out for anyone straying just a little too far away from his Garand. They disappeared in a flash.
> ...


Correct ( imagine what York could have done with a Lee-Enfield... ), but many Doughboys did use the .303 Lee-enfield.

My point still stands, that the US Army would have been less likely to have converted to the Garand if they had been using the Lee-enfield. I can understand wanting the Garand if the choice is between it and the Springfield.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 11, 2016)

The Basket said:


> P13 was supposed to replace the SMLE but that's a different thread!



Yep, right up until about 1915 at which point the P13 became sort of a substitute standard and was never seriously considered again. 
The No4 Mk 1 has quite a few differences from the SMLE including a heavier barrel and needed less care in bedding. The fitting of the new rear sight eliminated one of the major advantages of the P13. The No 4 rifle also used a slightly heavier receiver. There may have been little or no practical difference in accuracy between a N0 4 rifle and a P-13 when using the same ammunition. If your ammunition is only good for 2 1/2-3 minutes of angle then jumping though hoops to build a super rifle is a waste of time.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 12, 2016)

The M1917 was called Enfield but isn't a Lee Enfield. Their was a mixing of nationality in the trenches but can you be clear where American forces used a SMLE? It certainly wasn't an issued rifle that i am aware of.
When the P14 was evaluated in the trenches they were not kind. The British troops didn't like the 5 round capacity and felt the Mauser action more prone to mud. The SMLE was the right rifle at the right time so good show for keeping it in service. The P13 took so long to get going that the Boer war Enfields had been markedly improved so the P13 did become unnecessary. 
I watched a video on the EM-2 and the rate of fire was far superior to the SMLE or the Garand. As I predicted the Garand got off over 40 rounds in a minute while the SMLE was 27. Aimed shots not simply how fast you can pull a trigger. The Garand loading system is simply better.
Good data on the EM-2 is tricky as it never went anywhere and the test results could be biased but it does seem to me to have been years ahead of the curve and even better than the FAL. So I would take the EM-2 over the Garand.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 12, 2016)

All this theory makes my head spin.

I trained using the lee enfield and the SLR. Fired the American Garand once or twice, as well as the m1 carbine and the m-16.

For accuracy I think the SLR is the best. the Enfield was heavy but dependable. Garand was a gun only its mother could love and wasn't helped that it jammed incessantly in the conditions we put it through. The M-16 was the nearest gun to the AR-44 ive ever shot. Matter of personal taste, but on full auto I didn't like it. empty the mag in a second, very inaccurate. Lightweight and the ammo was small calibre but the amount of ammo wasted spraying that thing around in the sky made it a waste of time in my book.

in Vietnam the Australian army far preferred the SLR to any of these fully automatic assault rifles. I guess in times when you need them I would change my tune, but in circumstances where every round counts and you need sustained and accurate fire suppression you cant beat either the enfield or the SLR


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 12, 2016)

The Basket said:


> The M1917 was called Enfield but isn't a Lee Enfield. Their was a mixing of nationality in the trenches but can you be clear where American forces used a SMLE? It certainly wasn't an issued rifle that i am aware of.
> When the P14 was evaluated in the trenches they were not kind. The British troops didn't like the 5 round capacity and felt the Mauser action more prone to mud. The SMLE was the right rifle at the right time so good show for keeping it in service. The P13 took so long to get going that the Boer war Enfields had been markedly improved so the P13 did become unnecessary.
> I watched a video on the EM-2 and the rate of fire was far superior to the SMLE or the Garand. As I predicted the Garand got off over 40 rounds in a minute while the SMLE was 27. Aimed shots not simply how fast you can pull a trigger. The Garand loading system is simply better.
> Good data on the EM-2 is tricky as it never went anywhere and the test results could be biased but it does seem to me to have been years ahead of the curve and even better than the FAL. So I would take the EM-2 over the Garand.



In both World wars the US Army entered the war short on equipment. In the first war _"...One entire division (the 27th, which fought under British and Australian command throughout the war) was equipped with British .303 Lee-Enfield rifles (the SMLE), as were other independent and detached artillery, engineer and infantry units serving with British and Commonwealth forces..."
Doughboy's Rifle_


----------



## yulzari (Sep 12, 2016)

An anecdotal piece. When Brazilian infantry were deployed to Italy in WW2 they arrived with their 7.92 Mauser bolt action rifles. The US army gave them Garands to use standard US army ammunition. Whenever captured 7.92 ammunition was found in enough quantities the Brazilians returned their Garands to store and picked up their beloved Mausers. Of course Brazilians love Brazilian rifles but the moral is really that the Garand was good, but not remarkable.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 12, 2016)

yulzari said:


> An anecdotal piece. When Brazilian infantry were deployed to Italy in WW2 they arrived with their 7.92 Mauser bolt action rifles. The US army gave them Garands to use standard US army ammunition. Whenever captured 7.92 ammunition was found in enough quantities the Brazilians returned their Garands to store and picked up their beloved Mausers. Of course Brazilians love Brazilian rifles but the moral is really that the Garand was good, but not remarkable.



Anybody see a not so minor detail in this story that might render it bogus (busted myth)??

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 12, 2016)

sorry meant to give the like to the original statement.


----------



## Glider (Sep 12, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> Why would the Commonwealth forces want to use a Garand?



I have to say I don't rate the guy using the Lee Enfield. Each shot he is dropping the weapon from the shoulder losing the sight mark and slowing his rate of fire.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 12, 2016)

Its still pretty quick. I doubt there are many real life situations that you would need a rof that high with any personal side arm.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 12, 2016)

I would note for all the talk about how many rounds could be fired per minute from each of these rifles it is pretty much a "burst" situation as few armies actually supplied enough ammunition or means of carrying it to keep up this kind of fire for more than a couple of minutes.
US pre-war (July 1941) standard of issue was a mere 40 rounds for their riflemen while on the march with a further 96 rounds issued in two 48 round bandoleers (six 8 round clips) for M-1 equipped troops and 120 rounds issued to to troops with bolt action rifles in two bandoleers (two 5 round stripper clips per pouch in the 6 pouch bandoleer).
Total ammunition for the M-1 in the Regiment was 328 rounds per rifle counting ammo at all levels of supply in the Regiment (Division might very well have more). This compares to a total of 220 rounds for each bolt action rifle.
As a comparison as to where the squad and platoon/company firepower was coming from each BAR was allotted 1748 rounds in M-1 equipped units and 1720 rounds in 1903/1917 equipped units, There were only a certain number of magazines supplied with the BAR and the majority of the ammo was carried/supplied in the same bandoleers as the rifle ammo for the unit/s.
The Browning 1919A4 air cooled guns were allotted 6000 rounds per gun and the 1917 water cooled guns were allotted 8000 rounds.

What the US _actually _issued or used in 1942 and later could be very different.

Many other nations arranged for the troops to carry 60-150 per rifleman (may depend on transport) with extra ammo on ammunition trains.

The US needed the extra firepower of the M-1 (and it is much easier to train a raw recruit to fire 15-120rpm from an M-1 than any bolt rifle) because most other countries LMG (in the squad) could deliver roughly twice the firepower of a BAR. Late war 13 man Marine squads were often equipped with 3 BARs to get the total fire power up.

BTW try googling "Bump fire M1 Garand" for some _real _rapid fire videos 
A very similar technique was occasionally used by factory testers ( some tests were simply firing thousands of rounds and seeing what broke).


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 12, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Anybody see a not so minor detail in this story that might render it bogus (busted myth)??


According to Wiki, the first 5000 troops arrived it Italy without weapons, and also that the entire Brazilian Expeditionary Forces had a American TOE ( Table of organization and equipment).


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 12, 2016)

Thank you that information but that was not what I was referring to although it reinforces the point. 
I will post what I am referring to tomorrow if no one gets it by then.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 12, 2016)

Oh yeah.
The Brazil Mauser was 7mm.
Soooo.....Don't believe a word you read on the internet.
What I win?
The video on YouTube says aimed shots for the Garand 43 per minute
Aimed shots for Lee Enfield 27 shots.
And....drumroll please....aimed shots for the em-2 84 per minute!
That 3 times the firepower of the Enfield.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 12, 2016)

*Beretta BM 59 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*

_During the 1950s, Beretta produced Garands in Italy at the behest of NATO, by having the tooling used by Winchester during World War II shipped to them by the U.S. government. These rifles were designated Model 1952 in Italy. Using this tooling, Beretta developed the BM59 series of rifles. The BM59, which was essentially a rechambered 7.62x51mm NATO caliber M1 fitted with a removable 20-round magazine, folding bipod and a combined flash suppressor/rifle grenade launcher. The BM59 is capable of selective fire. These rifles would also be produced under license in Indonesia as the "SP-1" series._


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 12, 2016)

I gave you a bacon for the 7mm. ALL the captured 7.92 ammo in Europe wouldn't have a made a difference to a unit with 7mm rifles. 

The trouble with most of these "aimed shots" per minute numbers is they are seldom (if ever) qualified by the number of hits on a given size target at a certain range. The details of the British "Mad Minute" being an exception but that still took digging. It also needs a bit of interpretation as what Sgt Major Wondershot, (instructor at school of musketry) did is hardly an example of what the _average _soldier could do. Please note the expected performance of even troops considered "expert" was roughly 1/2 what the peak records were.
No disrespect intended towards the men who set those records but long term soldiers whose JOB is firing and/or instructing troops in marksmanship are usually very far from _average. _
I would personally cut those aimed shots per minute in roughly half for even good troops. 
I have done a lot of target shooting but only a little _combat style_ shooting (army qualification type) so my familiarity with extreme speed shooting is limited although I tend to take too much time to aim. My idea of aimed fire involves 7 and 13 in circles at 200 and 300 yds, 
Not man sized silhouettes at 100yds or less.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 12, 2016)

I suppose the Carcano couldnt fit the NATO round!
Just a video on YouTube. One of those very British pathe news style taking about Empire and the voice is so English received pronunciation that he was born in a suit and tie.
Tally Ho! Pip pip my good man. What what?

_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wtjVf724G7w_


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 12, 2016)

Brazilian Mausers were 7x57 not 7.92, they couldn't use the round the German Army used in both wars.


----------



## yulzari (Sep 13, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> Brazilian Mausers were 7x57 not 7.92, they couldn't use the round the German Army used in both wars.


Quite so. I must go and have a free and frank exchange of views with my source......................


----------



## Elmas (Sep 13, 2016)

from:

5,6x57mm


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 13, 2016)

There is no question that some of these old guns can shoot very well indeed.

However the target and the note bring up two rather important points.

1. That group was done with a hand load using commercial Sierra 168 grain bullets of far higher quality than any 7mm military ammunition used. Some military ammunition might be able to fairly well, other military ammunition might be lucky to stay within the 8 ring on that target.

2. Mausers in general have lousy sights. I would be willing to bet money that at _least _the high and low shot on that target are the result of sighting errors, that or inconsistent shoulder to stock contact.





Different Mauser but gets the idea. Getting the top of the pointy front sight dead even with the top of the rear sight 10 times in row is hard, almost impossible. Left and right can be a little iffy too. Please note this is against a white background. Now try aiming at a man in brown or khaki color clothes in a wooded area (in shadow). Now do it in a hurry.

The barrel and action of many of these old rifles are capable of very fine accuracy, but the less than quality ammunition (compared to what is available after WW II) and the difficulty in getting a consistent sight picture (especially with less than 20/20 vision) have a significant impact on the performance of the rifles as a _weapon system. _

BTW, more view through sights.


Please note on the guns with Aperture rear sights it is not necessary to align the front the sight in the back sight for anyting but target work, Just align the front sight and target. Eye doesn't have to try to focus on the rear sight. 
_View: http://imgur.com/gallery/ZM7IX_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 17, 2016)

Let's look at what happened next.
During WW1 era the emphasis was on the individual soldier being a first class shot and so giving the rifleman a tool for making one shot long range kills.
This is the Enfield P13 mentality in a nutshell.
But today is all about assault rifles and weight and rate of fire so the Sgt York mentality is gone.
Bolt action rifles firing full power cartridge are no longer issued to infantry as they are no longer matching the current tactics of fire and manoeuvre.
If the Lee Enfield was so quick to fire then why replace it? With a FAL? Because semi autos are simply faster to reload and faster to shoot. Even the Garand is faster to shoot and reload.
Of course the Garand has its strength and weakness and certainly not perfect as it's very susceptible to mud and dust and the SMLE is far more robust. But the SMLE attributes still doesn't stop it being replaced. So the continued use of the Lee Enfield into the 50s is not for love of the weapon. But lack of alternative.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 17, 2016)

And lack of money.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 17, 2016)

I suspect Alvin York would have excelled with a M1 Garand.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 17, 2016)

The Russians did a lot of work with the PPSh-41 and seemed to have replaced the Mosin with it. So the Soviets moved to mass fire early doors.
The Germans also saw mass fire as the move forward although all German gun development abruptly stopped in 1945.


----------



## Elmas (Sep 17, 2016)

Euroarms - ENFIELD RIFLES FROM ITALIAN NAVY

After 1943 the Italian Navy was armed with Lee Enfield
Now these rifles are for sale.....


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 18, 2016)

The Basket said:


> Let's look at what happened next.
> During WW1 era the emphasis was on the individual soldier being a first class shot and so giving the rifleman a tool for making one shot long range kills.
> This is the Enfield P13 mentality in a nutshell.
> But today is all about assault rifles and weight and rate of fire so the Sgt York mentality is gone.
> ...



I think you have a misconception about WW1 trench warfare.
Riflemen were usually firing at extremely small targets, but not at what today would be called long range.
Opposing forward trenches weren't separated by a lot of ground, but it varied from one battlefield to the next. Generally ranges got shorter between opponents as the war went on. When they were firing at long range, they were firing at areas, not individuals.
More or less trying to saturate the area of the opposing trench with bullets.

Take the Sgt. York incidents, 7 of his kills was with his Colt M 1911 .45, and his rifle kills weren't long range shots either, but they were shots at very small parts that's his opponents exposed. Just as difficult, but in a different way.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 18, 2016)

I have no misconception about trench warfare.
Although there was semi auto rifles in WW1 the bolt action was fair enough. The shorter ranges meant that the P14 offered no advantage over the SMLE. Or the muddy condition. The P14 might have gained far more traction on the Veldt but that's a historical maybe.
The details you speak of bullet saturation is certainly proof of new tactics and new doctrine which is simply impossible with a bolt action rifle. An example is the 98 Mauser which is considered God like in the gun community. When the Germans used Sturmgewehrs in the field it was revolutionary and we certainly haven't gone back to bolt actions using 5 round clips.


----------



## Wildcat (Sep 18, 2016)

Elmas said:


> Euroarms - ENFIELD RIFLES FROM ITALIAN NAVY
> 
> After 1943 the Italian Navy was armed with Lee Enfield
> Now these rifles are for sale.....


Interesting to see Australian built examples in that lot.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 18, 2016)

The only date I can see on the article is 2006.
Interesting as it says some of the fucili are still in the boxes with the original packing grease.
A shame it says the Carcanos were destroyed. Although even a Carcano is still a killing weapon in the wrong hands.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 18, 2016)

The emphasis on marksmanship varied considerably from army to to army. The British emphasis was *pre *WWI, the British army was small and many of the troops were long term ( served more than few years) and were considered professional soldiers. The British interest was as a result of the treasury NOT providing enough machine guns in the early 1900s. Many continental armies placed no such emphasis on marksmanship. Their armies were mostly conscript and of short active service and providing large reserves to be call-up upon the out break of war. The US placed great importance on marksmanship but at times it has been more lip service. 
It takes time and money to make large units have a high degree of marksmanship (as opposed to individuals) and standards drop considerably in war time. Not enough time spent on rifle ranges.
The importance of the rifle has varied considerably depending on other weapons in the squad/company/battalion and also with the nature of warfare. Nobody was worried about collateral damage (civilian causalities) from infantry weapons in WW I or WW II.


----------



## Elmas (Sep 18, 2016)

A Fucile '91 is present in each "Tiro a Segno Nazionale" Club in Italy as an historical reminder of the 15-18 War, so I had it in my hands, but I wasn't able to shoot with it, first as I wasn't able to get ammo, second, as it wasn't tested from long years, and probably to shoot was unsafe, so told me the armourer in charge.
Autorities are always very suspicious to leave war materiel in Italian hands, and that in particular in the '70s, when the political situation of Italy was particularly unstable.


When, after 1861, the “Marina Sarda”, the “Marina Toscana” and “Reale Marina Borbonica” were melted together to create “Regia Marina Italiana”, al lot of different firearms were in the arsenals, so a new rifle was to be adopted. Admirals choosed also a British rifle, the Enfield naval Rifle Pattern 58, of wich 12.000 were ordered from Birmingham factories.






So, nothing new under the sun.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 18, 2016)

there are three main tactical concepts that I'm familiar with in the use of squad based weapons, but all are basically about the relationship of rifles and MGs. I do know of others.

The german model emphasised the MG as the strength of its squad . Everything else was subordinate to it. They also tended to favour mobility and attack relative to some of the others. The germans also realised well ahead of everyone that the arbitary split or distinction between a squad MG and a support MG was uneccessary and reduced firepower in an attack. they developed what we now refer to as a general Purpose MG, or GPMG. The concept is basically the same today

The US also favoured firepower, but they were not as well served as the germans in the squad based MG and saw the rifle component of the squad as a means of boosting their squad firepower. Hence the thinking that led to the garand.  in practice the US squads always missed the benefits of a proper squad MG, and the US whilst advocating a firepower solution to their squad battle solutions, then prompltly nobbled it by failing to make the Mg the main focus of their squad tactics.

In the british model MGs and rifle components were seen as equal elements in the squad battle tactics. the squad mg, centred on the BREN was the main firepower generator, but this was also met by rifle fire, which was seen as providing accurate, controlled fpf solutions. aimed fire was considered better for infantry, because it reduced ammunition wastage, kept the troops safer ( a man firing is also a man advertising his position and exposing his position). a man delivering an accurate round of rifle fire was a much better protected target. in an outfit such as any of the empire troops, manpower losses were a criticl factor and remained so after the war.

After the war the new German methods took favour, but in recent times there has been a return somewhat to the ideas of controlled, aimed fire once again. The differences between a semi auto rifle and a fully auto are more theoretical than real, and the semi auto tends to bring out the best in your riflemen as they try to mke each round count. I imagine a bolt action rifle has a similar effect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 18, 2016)

parsifal said:


> The US also favoured firepower, but they were not as well served as the germans in the squad based MG and saw the rifle component of the squad as a means of boosting their squad firepower. Hence the thinking that led to the garand. in practice the US squads always missed the benefits of a proper squad MG, and the US whilst advocating a firepower solution to their squad battle solutions, then prompltly nobbled it by failing to make the Mg the main focus of their squad tactics.



I'm assuming that recognition of this led to the fielding of the M1919A6
From M1919 Browning machine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_The M1919A6 was an attempt to provide US forces with a more portable light machine gun, similar to the German MG 34 and MG 42 machine guns that they were facing. The M1919A6 had a metal buttstock assembly that clamped to the backplate of the gun, and a front barrel bearing that incorporated both a muzzle booster and a bipod similar to that used on the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR). A lighter barrel than that of the M1919A4 was fitted. The M1919A6 was a heavy (32 pounds (15 kg)) and awkward weapon in comparison with the MG34 and MG42 and was eventually replaced in US service by the M60 machine gun in the 1960s.





_


----------



## Elmas (Sep 18, 2016)

A friend of mine, much older than me, in 1943, when aged 17, went with Repubblica Sociale Italiana and was involved in several combats.

He told me that, while before September the 8th 1943, submachine guns in the _Regio Esercito _were as scarce as hens theet, probably for the sparing mentality of the Italian Generals, afterwards a tremendous amount of Beretta Mod.38 and other kind of submachine guns appeared, so all the soldiers wanted to have one. But, as he told me _“ a rifle, under certain circumstances was by far more efficient than a dozen of machine guns...”_ the _Tenente_ commanding the platoon had to order who had to carry a rifle and who had to carry a Beretta.

That was probably due to the fact that were mostly counterinsurgency operations.

Most of all the pics of R.S.I. show soldiers carring a submachine gun

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 18, 2016)

Pre WW I most armies had 2-4 Heavy tripod mounted (or equivalent) machine guns per _battalion._ There were no mortars or light infantry guns in most armies. If a Battalion was tasked with influencing a battlefield (keeping enemy troops pinned in position or preventing reinforcements/supplies from reaching certain positions it could only be done with long range rifle fire. Volley firing was a common tactic. Entire companies firing single shots on command. 
A long ranges one heavy water cooled machine gun was worth 80-100 riflemen so giving a battalion a MG platoon of 4 guns was a considerable increase in firepower for a small increase in man power. 
In defense a few well sited machine-guns could stop an entire infantry battalion and cause horrendous casualties in a matter of minutes. The answer was lighter more portable machine guns that could be carried during the attack for immediate fire support. by 1915/16 these guns were showing up but often only on a scale of one gun per platoon. 
German version 
http://




Much better than a standard Maxim gun but not what was really wanted.
By 1918 more armies had "portable" machine guns and the scale of issue was improving.

However the importance of individual rifle men was declining and in the 1920s and 30s when most armies adopted 80-82mm mortars as battalion support weapons the rifles lost any real need (or even imagined need) for firing at ranges over 1000yds. 
British had collected the Vickers guns and kept them in separate units to be attached to battalions or regiments as needed. 

Squads rarely operated alone and comparing squad weapons gives a rather distorted picture of tactical thinking. There is of course basic squad tactics but squads were expected to co-operate and work to an overall plan of a higher unit. A single squad might clear a building or small section of a street but other squad/platoons are clearing other buildings and parallel streets at the same time. 
A Platoon commander of a 3 squad platoon could very well use his 3rd platoon as a base of fire (primarily the MG ) to support the advance of his other 2 squads which would further break down in advances of the rifle and mg sections of each squad. 
In some armies the Platoon commander might have a small mortar available for further support or smoke throwing/target marking (no radios) 

It is this proliferation and escalation of "support" weapons" that helped change the expectations of the rifle. Volley fire at 1200-1800 yds was no longer required and even fire at 600yds or beyond could better be handled by LMGs or MMGs/mortars. 
In 2012-16 in is no longer acceptable to call down mortar fire on suspected sniper positions in inhabited areas so marksmanship is making something of a comeback.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 18, 2016)

I respectfully disagree that squads rarely were called upon to fight alone. Squads were the basic fighting unit in most armies and there were many situations where fighting centred around the squad. so-called battalion guns were useful if the fight got bigger than that, but frequently that was far too late and excessively restricted the ability to flexibly and quickly respond. the squad fought its battle with the resources at its disposal immediately. mortars too were basically a battalion or platoon based weapon though some armies did apply mortars somewhat more lavishly than others.

in battles that were fought at squad level, and that was, and is, often the norm, a lack of a proper squad based weapon or GPMG was a major shortcoming. The US 30 and 50 cals were excellent support MGs, but never really a squad based weapon. not in the same way as a Bren or an MG42. The US squads were uneccessarily burdened with a weapon that was more akin to a rifle than an MG, I speak of course about the BAR. not a bad gun....until compared to its contemporaries. Whats more tragic is that its problems could quite easily have been addressed .

If the battle descended to a more intense level of fighting, then the heavier firepower of the platoon company or battalion might become significant. The squads job in those situation whilst the extra firepower was moved forward was usually to delay or pin an opponent. Inevitably in these situations, supply was an issue, and here, measured use of ammunition, long range suppression fire aimed fire were of greater importance, and effectiveness than the traditional, essentially French and American models of using firepower to try and replace proper infantry training. The ability of the squad riflemen to maintain a steady, but accurate amount of aimed fire, whether on the advance, or covering a withdrawal should not be under-estimated. it has tended to be so under-estimated in the US army since at least 1917. The Australian ar,y in contrast, demonstrated in the big offensives of 1918 what could be achieved with better trained infantry relying heavily on aimed rifle fire. These advances did introduce a large amount of integration with other arms, using Monash's new tactical concepts, but the anchor on what all these new ideas rested was still firmly the well trained Infantry that he demanded 

I think what we are hitting up against here are the difference between the philosophies of Commonwealth on one side and the continental (French/US) on the other. I have no direct experience with WWII, but I know a number of ex-Vietnam vets, all of whom were critical of US disregard for squad training in favour of this massed firepower concept. In Vietnam, the US army did not emerge with a great reputation. its reaction times were too slow, it did not seem able to undertake much in the way of counterinsurgency other than blow the f*** out of anything that moved. that's definitely not the way to fight when your enemy is using stealth, infiltration, ambush and similar such as the viet opponents were using. 

I accept that support weaponary diminished the need or importance for high quality aimed rifle fire, but I know that it never was entirely eliminated from the inventory, or even so reduced as to be considered not essential in armies like the Australian and british armies.


----------



## yulzari (Sep 19, 2016)

There may be some confusion between the organisational and tactical role of the squad or section. 

The section is the largest size controlled by a junior NCO. It includes an LMG and rifles. Its role is to allow the junior officer/platoon commander to employ his platoon by instructing the junior NCOs and not the entire platoon. It also devolves the administration of the platoon to junior NCOs via the platoon sergeant and gives the officer time to do his job which is to do the thinking for them. 

So the section size is a function of the command and control that can be expected of an inexperienced junior NCO and to contain a miniature all arms mix e.g. LMG for suppression, rifles for accurate fire and grenades for indirect fire and pointy sticks all round when in touching distance. 

How the section acts is a function of the kit it possesses which itself is a function of the doctrine and resources of the high command/government. If you have a Maxim and bolt action rifles it will function differently to having a modern LMG and L85A2s. In the case of the Wermacht the section machine gun was introduced to fit a given doctrine so was belt fed and high volume fire. The BREN was introduced to multiply rifle fire so was low volume fire from magazines. The US army seems to have made it's starting point the kit it had rather than the kit is needed to fit it's doctrine. The old Soviet army went from an armed peasant mob to a professional all arms model varying with the kit available (yes I know that this is a gross simplification) as it grew a stock of experienced junior and senior NCOs freeing the junior officers from direct soldier management.

Having wandered OT I return with the point that the Short Magazine Lee Enfield was a holding pattern design until the P13 and both were to provide very long range accurate individual fire. The SMLE proved to be a better choice for 20th century wars so was retained and the P13/14 proved unnecessary (except to the US who would have had to give some of their troops in WW1 pikes without P17 production). In the 21st century it returned to it's roots when the Taliban began to use it again to out range allied troops with NATO standard short range 5.56mm guns and remains viable for the task and inspired allied forces to reintroduce long range rifles. One might misquote that the battles of the Hindu Kush were won on the Veldt of South Africa.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 19, 2016)

When trying to compress what could be a book long subject (and a lengthy book at that) of infantry weapons and tactics covering a period of well over 100 years into a few paragraphs things get pushed in generalities. 
There were many times when squads fought alone or without support but many may not mean the majority of times. Most of WW I was not fought on a squad level. On occasions squads fought in somewhat isolated pockets during a general battle but the total number of troops in even a small area (a few hundred yards by a few hundred yards) was large. During WW I on the western front troop strength per yard of front varied considerably, from well over 1 man per yard to 5-10 yds per man depending on attack or defense, year (or month) later war had many power shortages and how active a sector was. Many large units (British/commonwealth brigades) had two battalions in the line, one in support and one in reserve/resting. 
Terrain can make a huge difference, jungles cut lines of sight and lines of fire so even a company battle devolves into a series of somewhat connected squad/platoon fire fights. However any squad swanning about the North African desert on it's own (night reconnaissance excepted) could very well be in full sight of an entire enemy battalion or larger. 

Terms are also confusing, while accurate rifle fire is always a good thing you have accurate (or not so accurate) fire at 800-1600 yds, a range no squad should be firing at on it's own and accurate fire at 400 yds and under which more directly affects a squad's own survival. and yes you have the in-between.
From the 1880s to 1914 most battalions had few, if any machine guns and their ONLY long range weapon was the rifle. By the 1920s some sort of squad/platoon MG was accepted as being necessary, type and number being subject to argument but a bipod mounted weapon firing short bursts had better target effect at that middle distance (400-800yds) than a 1/2 dozen or so rifles. It also helped considerably at much shorter distances. 
Not all armies changed at the same time and not all armies followed the same doctrines but the _need _for long range (over 400-600yds) rifle fire certainly diminished considerably from the 1880s-1910 period.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 19, 2016)

Harsh on the P14/M1917 which by any standard were excellent weapons.
I remember reading in some poor journalistic garbage that the Taliban used a 303 rifle and killed a British soldier and how can such an old cartridge and such an old weapon kill in the 21st century?
The Indian subcontinent must be awash with old Lee Enfield so it's not surprising and maybe it's the Taliban who will have the last word on an iconic rifle.

The emergence of semi auto allows new tactics because of greater firepower. Fire and manoeuvre is a no go with a Martini Henry. So tactics evolve.

But my secret British rifle desire....is that the British in 1932 accept in mass production the Vickers Pedersen rifle! Yes! Toggle action for the UK! Sigh. If only....


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 19, 2016)

There was nothing really special about the P14/M1917 _except _for it's rear sight. And that was only special for it's time. During the 30s the French MAS, the No 4 Enfield, the Springfield 1903*A3 *and the Garand for mass produced rifles (or rifles preparing for mass production) all had rear sights of somewhat comparable capabilities, and in some cases superior. The P14/M1917 showed the way but that doesn't mean it was the best of all time. 
While the British tried for improved long range performance with the .276 cartridge other countries improved long range ballistics by changing the bullet in the already in use cartridge. 
WIthout good training (and the proper landscape and weather) long range rifle shooting is something of an illusion. At least in the idea that one soldier actually aims at an opposing soldier at ranges over 800-1200 yds. Just seeing an enemy soldier at that range calls for a high contrast back ground and/or the 'target' in question moving or drawing attention. Group fire is something else. Squad/platoon/company all aim at a common aiming mark (or area) and fire at once in volleys or fire as individuals at an area target. Dozens or hundreds of bullets arriving in a 'small' area (like a football field ) per minute and law of averages says something is going to get hit at some point. 
The number of men who can actually hit man sized targets at 800yds and beyond using open sights and no sling in even a light wind are a very small percentage indeed of an army. 
A rifle that is easy to hit with (better battle sights) at under 400yds and will still provide effective fire at 600yds and beyond is probably a better all round bet. And higher rates of fire at close ranges (say 300 yds) and under is a real plus. The longer the range the more time you need between shots to take the more careful aim needed. remember that twice the range means the bullets fall in 4 times the area. Slight sighting errors that would still produce a hit at 200yds means a miss of several feet at 600yds so the fast rates of fire are not really practical at long range with manually operated rifles and even semi autos need 2-3 seconds between shots for the shooter to recover from recoil and realign the sights for good shooting.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 21, 2016)

I thought u didn't like the MAS 36?
I do declare without fear that the P14 compared nicely to the MAS!during war time infantry is less marksman and more cannon fodder so the concept of accuracy goes out the window. In the Soviet army the SVT-40 was replaced by the Mosin which is kinds like binning the Garand for the M1917. That logic has nothing to do with any tactic other than giving a soldier a rifle. 

One must remember going back in time...the Lee Enfield was replaced by the SLR but not the sub machine gun.
The Sterling wasn't replaced until the SA80. So the EM-2 would have carried out both roles. 

The more I read about the EM-2 the more I like. It would have been fantastic


----------



## The Basket (Sep 21, 2016)

The French and the Spanish did take German design and engineers to make rifles. Plus of course the Russians which is why the AK is considered a German copy.
The most famous is the CETME rifle which was a German Sturmgewehr 45 which then became the G3. The French also designed a rifle but that didn't go anywhere.

Why would making a British copy of either a StG 44 or StG45 such a bad thing?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 21, 2016)

The Basket said:


> I thought u didn't like the MAS 36?
> I do declare without fear that the P14 compared nicely to the MAS!



The main problem I have have with the MAS is that it came 23 years after the P-13. If the best the French could do was to try to equal a 23 year old rifle then something is wrong. It is one thing to continue to build old rifles using existing tooling. It is another to spend large sums of money on tooling for a rifle showing little advancement. 




> In the Soviet army the SVT-40 was replaced by the Mosin which is kinds like binning the Garand for the M1917. That logic has nothing to do with any tactic other than giving a soldier a rifle.



Not quite, The Russians faced some unique situations. One of which was that it wasn't really "Russia" but the United Soviet Socialist Republic which is more than semantics. The Soviet Army had over 20 different languages spoken in it not including dialects. Counting the troops from the asian areas and southern borders the Soviet army had about the lowest literacy rate so training was a huge problem, 12-20 manuals for the same rifle just in different languages? and since a good number of troops couldn't read anyway using the simplest possible weapons for the majority of the troops made sense. 

The SVT-40 had more problems with maintenance and durability than the Garand and was commonly issued to NCOs as they were generally better trained (or at least trainable). The SVT-40 continued in use for quite some time, just in small numbers.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 21, 2016)

_Why would making a British copy of either a StG 44 or StG45 such a bad thing?_


because it didn't, and doesn't, fit in with British army tactical concepts. The british army is an incredibly conservative outfit, and still holds valuable accuracy of fire as opposed to volume of fire. This is especially true of its rifles component. The effects of mons still have an effect on the way the british army thinks intensive battles should be fought. the mk4 fits those concepts perfectly. Some concessions arise with the self loading rifle, still not a fully automatic piece of kit, and of cause modern rifles like the Austrian steyr which we now use. I think we have opted for a fully automatic weapon, finally, just to make a fashion statement more than anything. training in the Australian army is still emphasising accuracy of the fire over the volume of the fire in 90% of combat situations


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 21, 2016)

The Basket said:


> Why would making a British copy of either a StG 44 or StG45 such a bad thing?



It complicates the ammo supply. The 7.9X33 round being a lousy machine gun cartridge. the Russian 7.62x39 was a bit better but the Russians dropped the belt-fed RPD machine gun in favor of heavy barreled AKs (RPK) with 40 round mags instead of 30s. In part due to training. The Russians used belt fed RP-46 machine guns at company level to reinforce the RPDs. Later they used the PKM. The company level guns using the 7.62X54R cartridge. 

BTW some of the first Spanish CETME rifles, while nominally chambered for 7.62X51 NATO used a lower power loading. Production of rifles using full power 7.62X51 NATO didn't start until the late 50s. 

British had also wisely given up on those lousy sights mounted on the barrel.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 22, 2016)

French guns kinda leave me thinking they is always a dollar short and a day late.
They just dont....do the biz. Don't wanna come across as anti French but they just do. Not saying I'm expert on French guns but there we go.
Conservative yes but the EM-2 is a very left field choice which is pretty much an assault rifle which has nothing to do with old school accuracy. One problem is eggs in one basket and then basket thrown away so by time Korea comes it's SMLE or bust. Whether uk could have any semi auto in numbers by Korea is probably zero as Korea was a surprise and couldn't be used in planning.

The SLR was numbered soon after the Americans went 5.56 so there was always a new rifle needed. The SA80 wasn't it though!

Good point about USSR. Although the problem having a huge conscript army still holds after the war. So the SKS and AK are also going to be problematic if there are language barriers.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 22, 2016)

There is a reason why the original CETME had a soft cartridge and not sure why.
My old brain is getting.....er....what was I talking about?
If I think I recall it was simply an error a misunderstanding the Spanish had. They had the dimensions of the round and built there own but then advised there is a standard NATO round so you have to use that instead. I am probably wrong on that as I am using a memory which may not have occured


----------



## yulzari (Sep 22, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> The Russians faced some unique situations. One of which was that it wasn't really "Russia" but the United Soviet Socialist Republic which is more than semantics. The Soviet Army had over 20 different languages spoken in it not including dialects. Counting the troops from the asian areas and southern borders the Soviet army had about the lowest literacy rate so training was a huge problem, 12-20 manuals for the same rifle just in different languages? and since a good number of troops couldn't read anyway using the simplest possible weapons for the majority of the troops made sense.


In another life I had problems getting people to get their heads around the 1970/80s Soviet kit and organisation. It was becoming out of date as the Soviet population became more educated and urban but was built around the model of a peasant mass army and that the Soviet Union was too big to defend territory and needed to deal with threats by being an offensive army which could manoeuvre across large open spaces. Hence it chose simple kit in large numbers and command and control by a limited number of professional officers who needed to remove tactical initiative to ensure that they did what they were told. You could slot in a peasant with only enough training to know what to do with the simple weapon they were given and to totally rely on officers to tell them what to do. 

By the 1970's the typical Soviet conscript was literate and urban and the old ways did not make best use of them as they found in Afghanistan. Hence the modern Russian army is a smaller more professional army that looks to it's troops to be able to use increasingly complex kit and devolving more command and control to the most junior levels and making use of their initiative. 

It was not for nothing that the famous aphorism _'the most dangerous thing in any army is a Second Lieutenant with a map'_ is most popularly attributed to Marshal Zhukov.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2016)

The Basket said:


> There is a reason why the original CETME had a soft cartridge and not sure why.
> My old brain is getting.....er....what was I talking about?
> If I think I recall it was simply an error a misunderstanding the Spanish had. They had the dimensions of the round and built there own but then advised there is a standard NATO round so you have to use that instead. I am probably wrong on that as I am using a memory which may not have occured



It was an attempt to hold down the recoil forces so the gun could fire full automatic without spraying the sky with the majority of the rounds fired. The guns would chamber and fire standard NATO ammo without blowing up but may not have been at their most reliable, recoil operated guns tend to need a balance between recoil force and springs/delay mechanism. It also means there was a good chance the bullets would not hit where the sights were pointed. In the early to mid 50s there was a bit of confusion as to what the NATO standards really were.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 23, 2016)

Yeah.
I would say that the new SLR and G3 and M14 are late 50s weapons.
So not available for Korea.
But...the Germans were certainly ahead of the curve with the Sturmgewehr and FG-42. They would have been ready.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 23, 2016)

ive read the FG-42 was an expensive piece of kit but a phenomenal weapon just the same

I found this article about the british L1A1 rifle which sheds new light on why there were delays in the new weapon . It was first designed, at least in concept , in 1946, but arguments about standardised calibre delayed its introduction. I never knew that...


FN FAL: The World's Most Successful Battle Rifle | The Spec Ops Channel


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 23, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> It was an attempt to hold down the recoil forces so the gun could fire full automatic without spraying the sky with the majority of the rounds fired. The guns would chamber and fire standard NATO ammo without blowing up but may not have been at their most reliable, recoil operated guns tend to need a balance between recoil force and springs/delay mechanism. It also means there was a good chance the bullets would not hit where the sights were pointed. In the early to mid 50s there was a bit of confusion as to what the NATO standards really were.


I've shot the M-14 on full auto, it had a full auto selector on the side that the squad leader was supposed to carry the key to turn it. I was trained on the M-60, IMO the M-14 on full auto would waste a lot of ammo. The NATO 7.62x51 was too powerful when on full auto for the weight of the
M-14.

From what I've read about the Korean war human wave charges was that when they did succeed it was usually because the UN troops ran low on ammo, not that whatever weapons they had couldn't put out enough firepower.
Would faster firing weapons have changed that ?

Maybe weapons firing reduced power rounds , that weighted less would mean each man could carry more ammo, and the supply system deliver more ammo for the same effort, and that's IF those reduced power rounds could have been as effective.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 23, 2016)

Aha!
The M1/M2 Carbine was used in Korea! So we have rapid fire small calibre large capacity weapon!
Problem was the round was too short ranged but what was the M2 doing on the front line anyways? Not my first choice!
I am loathe to call the M2 an assault rifle but if you were clever enough you could weasel a justification out of it as an assault rifle.

Also had WW2 gone on the Garand T20 with 20 round mag would have appeared which certainly would be in Korea. The war ended too soon for the T20 and it was cancelled.

So the 8 rounder was used in Korea! 

Another issue is ammo logistics. An AK can go through 30 rounds very easily whereas it would take forever for a Martini Henry. One story I've heard is that the Lee Enfield was kept on so that the average soldier doesn't go full Rambo and keep his finger on the boom switch and waste his ammo. That's why the SLR in uk service was semi only.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2016)

It was more of a submachine gun. A bit longer ranged than other Submachine guns but closer to them than to a Assault rifle.

The round nose light bullet of the.30 cal carbine lost velocity and striking power very quickly.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 24, 2016)

Quite so.
But it was used in a front line role which it's true capabilities didn't dessrve. As a pdw then fair enough.
I remember reading a soldier shot a Japanese soldier with the Carbine and the guy wouldn't go down. So he replaced it with the Garand as quickly as he could.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 24, 2016)

I think the carbine was only meant to arm someone usually armed with a pistol, but it ended up distributed to more troops than origionally planned.

A .30 carbine round has just a little more power than a .38 special, nobody should have been very surprised it wan't a manstopper.


----------



## yulzari (Sep 24, 2016)

The Basket said:


> Aha!
> One story I've heard is that the Lee Enfield was kept on so that the average soldier doesn't go full Rambo and keep his finger on the boom switch and waste his ammo. That's why the SLR in uk service was semi only.


The L1A1 was semi automatic as tests determined that only the first round was near the target. I have tried the L1A1 with the matchstick trick on full auto (no I will not tell you how to do that) in the past and it just reached for the sky. The barrel would quickly overheat but the key thing was that the target could be re acquired faster on semi as it had jumped less. Effectively you could put more rounds onto the target on semi than on full auto. How fast can you move your finger? The only fault I ever had with it was the length in vehicles and FIBUA. One hit stays hit and a proper length to use a bayonet if it comes to pointy stick time. The Lee Enfield was a better half pike though. The stock shape copied the Brunswick in giving you some grip in pulling a bayonet out. The Lee Enfield pigsticker spike bayonet may have been more efficient than a traditional one but nowhere near as intimidating as a decent blade and the job of a bayonet is to frighten the enemy.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 24, 2016)

The Falklands war was FAL v FAL.
Must have been one the few wars where both sides had same rifle.
The Argentine FAL was full auto and had a bigger magazine. This meant British forces could use Argentine magazines and ammo. Although I doubt any British soldiers changed thier rifle for the full auto. This eased logistic supply immensely as the Argentines were acting as the quartermasters! 
If other nations kept the full fat FAL then full auto must have had its uses


----------



## The Basket (Sep 24, 2016)

Why was the M1 Carbine so widespread if it was supposed to be pdw? Marines on Iwo Jima had carbines as their main combat battlefield weapon. Am I missing something here?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 24, 2016)

You are missing that the .30 cal carbine was actually much more powerful than a .38 special, and in fact was about 4 times more powerful than the Japanese 8mm Nambu and a bit over twice as powerful as a 9mm parabellum even with the 9mm being fired from an 8-10in submachine-gun barrel. 
Still doesn't make the .30 carbine a powerhouse though. US alternatives were the Thompson gun, the M3 Grease-gun and Reising submachine gun. While the .45ACP has a reputation for stopping power it has poor penetration of cover (much less penetration in wood for instance) than the 9mm and a much more curved trajectory making hitting at 150-200yds much more of a problem than with either the 9mm or .30 carbine. 
The .30 Carbine was supposed to be effective to 300yds.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 24, 2016)

That's what happens when you pass on something you've heard without checking if it's true. Sorry for passing on BS about the carbine .30.

Could we say about 2/3rd the power of the 7.62 x39 .


----------



## The Basket (Sep 25, 2016)

As a pdw then fine as it could be classed as an alternative to a Thompson or a 1911 and the Carbine is ok with that.
My issue is that especially if you know that your going to make contact with enemy why choose the Carbine over the Garand? Was it a choice? I personally would take a Garand


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 25, 2016)

The Marines maybe had a misplaced faith in the effect all the firepower unleashed on Iwo Jima before the invasion. They thought they would only be mopping up a few shell shocked survivors, and it would only take a few days.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 25, 2016)

Individual Marines did not select their own weapons except in rare circumstances.
Even if extra weapons were available to draw from changing weapons before combat would require the approval of the platoon and/or company commander. 
Different weapon mixes in squads in the same platoon/company limit tactical flexibility. 
In the company my father was in before Okinawa one of the men had salvaged a .30cal Browning aircraft machinegun from a wreck and fitted it with a BAR bipod and shoulder stock from an M1 rifle. Gun fired at twice the rate of a normal ground gun. My father remembered it being test fired at the island they were at before loading on the transports. The company commander made him get rid of it before going into action, claiming it would take a whole platoon to lug ammo for it. 
About 1/2 dozen similar guns were used by other units on Okinawa or Iwo Jima. More liberal or progressive commanders?


----------



## The Basket (Sep 25, 2016)

Considering the outcome of most of the island campaigns planning on easy victory was never correct.

I can see the virtue in the Carbine but I can see it's vices. There is no perfect weapon although the assault rifle is closer than most.

Aircraft machine guns have usually faster rates of fire because the barrel is cooler at altitude and would have airflow. Using an aircraft gun as an infantry weapon is not good. Goes through rounds like crazy will overheat and will weigh a ton.


----------



## dogsbody (Sep 26, 2016)

From the Great White North.

Canadian Rangers Have New Rifle


Chris


----------



## parsifal (Sep 26, 2016)

The US experiences in the atoll campaigns were highly specialised and peculiarly suited to the US army and marine corps special capabilities. The role of personal sidearms in these campaigns was very secondary to getting a level of co-operation between ship bombardment forces and the troops advancing at the front. Generally the bombardment forces were only effective if they had been specially trained for such work. when the fast carrier forces were pushed into this role, they generally failed to provide effective NGS to the forces ashore which in turn led to unacceptable losses. The most effective gun platforms were the destroyers that could get in close and pump shells on demand into an enemy position. It was this sort of response that saved the US forces ashore at both Gela and Salerno.

These situations don't really tease out the limits to the American doctrine on fire support at squad level. The firepower of the force was still the artillery, albeit naval gunfire. in situations where the US army needed to fall back on its semi automatic rifles only it rapidly became clear that these weapons were of no advantage, and probably a slight disadvantage, compared to the bolt action equipped Australian forces fighting alongside them

M1s and garands were an advantage to building confidence, but as an actual battlefield weapon, were no better than their contemporaries in the jungle at least.

here is an article for the Australian army in developing a jungle warfare doctrine:

http://vuir.vu.edu.au/19393/1/Threlfall.pdf


----------



## The Basket (Sep 27, 2016)

The American insistence on full power cartridge was decisive in shaping military rifles post war. The Sturmgewehr fitted Soviet doctrine and not American doctrine until much later.
Of course British FALs were imperial to the inch. So no 7.62mm please. Strictly .308 inch!
Jungle warfare is gruesome stuff. Fight the terrain as well as the enemy and perfect for ambush


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 27, 2016)

dogsbody said:


> From the Great White North.
> 
> Canadian Rangers Have New Rifle
> 
> ...



If the Cdn government had equipped the Rangers with M-1s, instead of Lee-Enfields we'd now all be speaking Russian...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 27, 2016)

The Basket said:


> The American insistence on full power cartridge was decisive in shaping military rifles post war. The Sturmgewehr fitted Soviet doctrine and not American doctrine until much later.
> Of course British FALs were imperial to the inch. So no 7.62mm please. Strictly .308 inch!
> Jungle warfare is gruesome stuff. Fight the terrain as well as the enemy and perfect for ambush



not sure what your point is here, but Australian SLRs, over 50000 of which saw active service in Vietnam, used the standard 7.62 NATO round. Conversion from the Lee Enfield to FAL was more than anything so that we could meet agreements to re-equip to NATO standards. Conversion of the Enfield to the NATO standard was considered and a few even changed over to this calibre, but it was found to be not cost effective to do, and so the opportunity to change to the newer SLR was taken at that time.

I actually don't know if the UK L1A1, essentially the same rifle as the Australian SLR , was built to 7.62mm Nato standfard, but would highly expect so.

7.62mm SLR Rifle Specifications


----------



## The Basket (Sep 28, 2016)

The Australians still recognise the Queen as thier sovereign so used the SLR same as the Brits. Not the FAL and it's metric ways. I am not into this too deep to know the real difference between imperial SLR and metric FAL but the rounds were the same. As had to be NATO standard. The SLR seemed to be the standard rifle of the commonwealth

The Australian and NZ troops used the SLR in Vietnam and found it to be powerful and the round a real stopper. From what I've read the SLR overall was a first class weapon and was as good as it gets for a mass produced general issue rifle. It was over long and heavy but that was the nature of the beast. It was a worthy successor to the Lee Enfield and as good as the SA80 was bad.

Oddly the Soviets did not make a SLR equivalent. 

If one looks at say the CETME or the G3 the StG 45 rifle which both were based on used the Kurz assault rifle rounds whereas the modern rifles were full power. The MP44 may have been replaced by the StG 45 but of course history stopped that!


----------



## stona (Sep 28, 2016)

The Basket said:


> I am not into this too deep to know the real difference between imperial SLR and metric FAL but the rounds were the same. As had to be NATO standard.



The 'inch' and 'metric' refer to the tooling used to manufacture the weapon. It doesn't matter if you use imperial, metric or standard cubits to tool your rifle as long as they are all manufactured the same size.

My brother lives 72.6 miles away from me, but at 116.84 kilometers he's in exactly the same place, as he would be at 383,328 feet 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2016)

The Basket said:


> Oddly the Soviets did not make a SLR equivalent.



They did, it was called the SVT-40. Which tended to show them they wanted to go in a different direction. 
However it was followed in the late early 60s by the Dragunov SVD as a squad support weapon.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 28, 2016)

The SVT was pre war not post war and the Dragonuv is not a mass produced general issue rifle.

In my view the SLR is not equivalent to either the SKS or AK.

Inch to centimetres is actually an intriguing engineering conundrum. Not straight forward because if you buy steel in inches and convert to mm it will either be too thick or too thin.

Good example of this is when the Soviets copied the B-29 and had to convert everything to mm and find steeel which matches the original American inches.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2016)

The Basket said:


> The SVT was pre war not post war and the Dragonuv is not a mass produced general issue rifle.
> 
> In my view the SLR is not equivalent to either the SKS or AK.



The SVT was built to the tune of 1 to 1.6 million rifles and didn't stop production until around 1945-46. Yes it was pre-war but it was a semi-auto rifle (a few full auto) with a detachable box magazine and firing a full power round and it weighs within a pound of the SLR. 
The Soviets didn't need to _adopt _and run extended troop trials on an SLR clone. They could pull them out of storage. From any practical stand point the Soviets had an equivalent to the SLR or could have made new magazines to bring the capacity up to 20 rounds. 
They chose not to which is a different thing.

Please define "general issue" or mass production as the Dragonuv was issued in much larger numbers than any western "sniper" rifle. Issued at the rate of at least one per platoon and sometimes higher it was built in large numbers. And could have been even higher if the Soviets had wished to go in that direction. It certainly has few, if any, of the hand fitting or careful machining of true "sniper" rifles. 

You are correct in that the SLR was not equivalent to either the SKS or AK but that was a difference in tactical doctrine. The doctrine dictated the choice of weapons. The weapons did not dictate doctrine.


----------



## stona (Sep 28, 2016)

Here's some depressing reading for we Brits.

SA80 (Small Arms for the 1980s): The Sorry Saga of the British Bulldog's Bullpup

We are not alone in having various armament procurement programmes run amok, but this is really appalling 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## The Basket (Sep 28, 2016)

I was talking post war and the difference between the. West and the Easf.
The SVT is similar to the Garand and a modernised SVT would be similar to M-14. I guess 
The Dragonuv is not a 'every soldier has one' type of rifle like the SLR or AK. I can't find production numbers although depends if you include Chinese and WarPac clones. The SLR and Dragonuv are simply different. If your in a firefight with a Dragonuv then you need a SLR and if your hitting target 600 metres away with your SLR then you need the Dragonuv. Very different strokes.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2016)

The Basket said:


> The SLR and Dragonuv are simply different. If your in a firefight with a Dragonuv then you need a SLR and if your hitting target 600 metres away with your SLR then you need the Dragonuv. Very different strokes.



Not really, the difference is in ammunition (quality not bullet weight/velocity) and sighting equipment, which was more varied over the years on the SLR. 
Problems with the Dragonuv in a firefight are the 10 round magazines although that may be minor and the light barrel overheating. But then in close range firefight a small change in point of impact isn't that important.
The 7.62 Nato round is every bit as good at 600meters as the 7.62X54R round from a ballistic standpoint. 
The SLR in British (or commonwealth service, they differed a bit) had better iron sights and the British did have an optical sight for designated marksmen which would bring the SLR very close to the Dragonuv in actual hit percentages. The Dragonuv has a couple of foibles when trying to use it as a real sniper rifle (very precision work) that come into play as ergonomics. That is usable/deliverable accuracy vs test accuracy. 
Had the Soviets felt the need for/desired a longer range rifle than the AK the Dragonuv could have been fitted with a slightly heavier barrel and a longer magazine. At least until they came up with a new rifle.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 28, 2016)

During my military time the old guys who used the SLR called it an elephant gun. Vastly powerful big and heavy. Over powered. That round is going a long way with plenty of punch and if your on guard duty or on the streets of Belfast that's the absolute last thing you want!
As you mentioned before, Soviet army is a conscript army and I don't know the unit price of a Dragonuv over a AKM but i bet the AK is cheaper and more throwaway. The Dragonuv is a designated marksman rifle so 100℅ accuracy is not important. Interesting that I think it's was Yugoslavia made their Dragonuv clone from the AK design. Because the AK and Dragonuv look very similar it's easy to confuse them for the same design. Something of course wouldn't happen on this forum!


----------



## dogsbody (Sep 28, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> They did, it was called the SVT-40. Which tended to show them they wanted to go in a different direction.
> However it was followed in the late early 60s by the Dragunov SVD as a squad support weapon.



Like mine?


Chris


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2016)

The thing with conscript armies isn't so much the cost of the weapons to equip them but the limited amount of training time. 
Some people learn to shoot quicker than others and some never seem to learn. So it may make sense to take 100 troops to the range and after a couple of days take the 5-10 best (or whatever percentage works) and make them designated marksmen and give them the high power rifle that will work at 6-800 meters and give the 3-400 meter weapons to the other 90 troops (minus machine gunners and mortar men, etc).
The Soviets had experience with the SVT-40 and variations, like Dogsbody's rifle. This included a few (like maybe 50,000?) that fired full automatic which convinced the Soviets that 9-10lb rifles firing full power ammo on automatic was NOT a good idea. The AK-47 made sense in that it would cover the ranges most combat took place at. There was one study that claimed 98% of all rifle fire was at under 400 meters and 50% of it was under 200yds. The problem for squads comes in that 50% of use of MG fire was at over 400meters. 
The Russians tried a belt fed LMG using the 7.62x39 cartridge as a squad weapon but it lacked range and power. The squad/platoon needed some sort of weapon that could engage, even in a limited way at 600-800 meters. Either designated marksmen or LMGs using 7.62x54R or both. 

NATO had gone for the 7.62X51 which was ballisticly identical to the 30-06M2 load no matter what rifle used it, M-14, SLR, Cemte or German G3. None were going to work on full auto and with most troops not having either the ability or training to make use of them at long ranges (3-400 meters and longer) NATO had a lot of range capability they couldn't use. 
Different rifles had different abilities to function in lousy conditions but from a ballistic point of view they were pretty much interchangeable with the main difference being the sights. SImple sights require less training and may be less confusing when under fire in combat but don't have the flexibility of more complicated sights that allow the better marksmen to achieve more hits at longer range. 

There is a lot of doctrine going into the choices that were made, rightly or wrongly, but the doctrine has to be taken into account when evaluating the weapons and while NATO may have standardized ammo they were far from standardized on tactics/doctrine and so the weapons varied from country to country.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 28, 2016)

SRs explanations make a lot of sense to me. However, I cant help but make the observation that a force in which accuracy is embedded into the training of its forces, and emphasised in its engagement doctrine, IS going to derive a lot of benefit from weapons that allow that accuracy training to be utilised. And personal observation shows that to be the case....a man with an accurate rifle, and trained in a manner to exploit that ability, is a dangerous asset on the squad level battlefield. Both the enfield and the SLR were weapons of that ilk. They were inherently more accurate than the "spray fire allover the place" weapons like the AK-47. or dare I say it, the M-16. You can get accurate fire out of an AK or an M-16, but inevitably, the army that relies on these mass fire weapons is not going to put a premium on accuracy. The Australian army, and most all volunteer outfits like it....the so called "professional army" camp will always place a premium on accurate fire. In the end, man for man, these armies are better than the mass fire power rabbles that weapons like the AK-47 tend to encourage. The problem is that the training and experience needed for a professional able to hit a man target at 600 yards is exponentially greater than a man able to fire a great deal of lead in the general direction of the enemy and hit something at say 150 yds. The 5 bob a day murderers are better value from that perspective than the latter day jousters the modern day professionals tend to mimic.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2016)

Accuracy is always an advantage, the question is wither the people making the decisions are willing to pay for it. More ammo for training, more time spent training, more frequent replacement of weapons (or rebuilding/re-barreling) perhaps more ranges (land and facilities) and so on. 
Troops that have a higher confidence in their weapons and their ability to use them will be more aggressive or have higher morale.
Although some troops have false confidence which can lead to some major screw-ups. 
Given the historical data on which weapons actually cause the the causalities,like artillery causing something like 50% or more of causalities on the battlefield (in general) and some armies find it hard to justify large expenditures on rifle marksmanship. 

I have been a target shooter for a large part of my life and may have a slightly warped idea of what constitutes "accuracy" which I may try to over compensate for in some of these discussions. However that comes from tradition. When I was ten years old I asked my father for a BB gun for Christmas. He told me a BB gun wasn't accurate enough to be worth spending money on. On Christmas there was a long box under the tree. It held a Winchester .22 bolt action rifle with target sights front and back and a target sling. Cost about 8 times what the BB would have cost. Twice monthly practice sessions at the local armory followed. My Father worked at Winchester at the time and shot for the Winchester Factory team. 
However target shooting on the range is not combat shooting and in many cases target equipment is not rugged enough for combat use. I have also spent over ten years helping coaching junior teams, ages 10 through high school with well over 100 kids in the program in any given year so I think I have some idea of teaching basic marksmanship. 
I have never been overly impressed with the US Army's standard of shooting no matter what kind of lip service they may have given it at certain points in time. 

But given the restraints on training an easy to use rifle (with easy to use sights in varied light conditions) will be a better bet than a more accurate rifle that is harder to use or is only more accurate in certain conditions (good daylight but without strong shadows?).


----------



## The Basket (Sep 29, 2016)

The value of being stationary hitting a stationary target in your own time is good for general gun drills.
Problem is stress and pressure is not there. The 2 gun matches which are against the clock which involve physical exertion and making mistakes that stress and time pressure creates is far more useful in a combat setting. People lose magazines, people accidentally press the mag release, the heart rate is up and the clock is ticking.
Obviously not combat but stress has to be involved. Under stress mistakes happen and only training under stress can lessen them.
A soldier has to fire a rifle in snow, in NBC suit, when he is exhausted thirsty and hungry, when he is terrified and when he is moments away from certain death. So the more basic and simple and robust and reliable the rifle is the better. Thats why the AK is such a fantastic weapon. It was designed by a soldier, not a watch maker, for soldiers. Accuracy means zip when the Banzai charge is on.
That is why I question loading using stripper clips. If your hands are shaking wearing gloves in -20 and the Zulus are running at you then that's where the excrement hits the apparatus with rotating blades.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 29, 2016)

The Basket said:


> The value of being stationary hitting a stationary target in your own time is good for general gun drills.


 Yes, and if the recruit/soldier can't do that to a certain minimum standard then all the rapid fire drills and changing magazines stages and firing while wearing gas masks are going to have very predictable results. Uniformly bad if not approaching dangerous to his own side. 
For a number of years (over 30) I belonged to a marching and drinking society (and not necessarily in that order) that was actually an official state militia. You could not belong to one of these units (there were four) and be a member of the national guard at the same time Because if the Governor went completely off his/her nut they could activate these units (last time was in 1941).
Every so often there would be a "shoot off" between the National Guard and this Militia. The 4 militia units would compete against each other and the winning team would then compete against several national guard teams. The Militia team I was on was a bunch of ringers. A group of target shooters who had been recruited into the unit to be it's rifle team. 2nd generation, one indoor .22 match had 3 father-son pairs. 
Point of this is we only "lost" once and even loosing meant 2nd place. And that was when 3 out of our 4 team members were in their 60s and wearing bi-focals. And I refused to fire a shot during the gas mask drill because the mask didn't fit right on my beard and lenses fogged so bad I couldn't see the front sight let alone the target. We were in an indoor range with concrete floor/walls and ceiling. The NG solider monitoring me was urging me to shoot to get some sort of score despite me telling him I couldn't see which doesn't impress me much with their safety standards. It wasn't life or death and a few points of score wasn't worth a dangerous situation. 
Several years previous I had qualified "expert" during one of these matches with the M9 Beretta pistol. First time in my life I had ever fired one. I was wearing bi-focals at the time and didn't fire 14 rounds out of the allotted 82 or so. I manipulated the safety wrong and rather than wave the pistol around in an unsafe manner I didn't fire or attempt to clear it (it was a rapid fire stage).
Qualifying expert with 14 rounds saved indicates to me a rather low standard of marksmanship. The course of fire during these matches changed considerably over the years. One might qualify as a sharpshooter if you didn't shoot the range officer.  
In matches going back to the 80s and 90s we often wound up coaching our "opponents" and giving them all the aid we could (loaning shooting coats, spotting scopes, gloves, assisting in sighting in, etc) instead of simply writing down their scores. In some cases they showed up with rifles that weren't even hitting the paper at 200 yds (paper being over 4 ft wide and 5-6feet tall) so giving all possible aid wasn't going to affect the outcome. If your rifle is off by 2-3 feet at 200yds all the fancy drills in the world aren't going to do you much good in combat. 
I could go on for several more pages but basically the US army didn't follow through with proper training for many, many years despite building/buying rifles that had the capability to do much better than most of it's soldiers were capable of due to the training. Things seemed to be getting better the last few times but then some of the other teams were mid-east veterans. 
I was a firefighter of 33 years, if you can't do it on the training ground you can't do it on the fire ground. There is little sense in running a complicated multi-part drill if many of your unit don't have the basics down.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 29, 2016)

The major problem with today's military is political correctness and poor retention/ poor recruitment. So it's a one size fits all nonsense where it's ok if you can't shoot.


----------



## Token (Oct 9, 2016)

The Basket said:


> The major problem with today's military is political correctness and poor retention/ poor recruitment. So it's a one size fits all nonsense where it's ok if you can't shoot.




Poor retention is by choice in some services. In many ways the military today does not want second enlistment folks. They want first enlistment warm bodies, and a few dedicated career NCO's. Today it is increasingly hard to reenlist for the first or second time unless you are well up on the scale of performance. They want either motivated E-4/5 or no E-4/5, the day of the career E-5 is gone. If you want to make E-7 you better have at least an associates degree.


Part of the issue is lack of ability at the NCO level to discipline soldiers under them. Back in the day if you were an E-1 to E-3 messing up your E-4 to E-7 had many options to "educate" or "counsel" you. At the end of the day when everyone else in the shop was leaving you might find yourself hanging around and finishing up tasks. If your Chief said you lost your civilian apparel privileges for a month you did. Today NCO's targeting specific juniors in such a way may face charges when the junior complains. I have seen it happen.


The options have become NJP or nothing, kind of like using a hammer to swat a fly. And today an NJP is a career ender. Back in the day you would find many E-7 to E-9 that had prior NJPs, shoot, in some rates it was a badge of honor and in the Goat Locker they may not want to share berthing with you if you were a goody two shoes and had never had a Mast. Today you won't make E-7 with a Mast / NJP / Article 15.


I hear these issues often, I have three kids in the Army, two are career and one will be getting out this year after her third enlistment. Further, our house was the watering hole (literally, our pool) for the kids in the neighborhood over the years, and several of them are enlisted or commissioned in various branches, the regulars who still stop by the house when on leave range from E-5 to O-4. We do a lot of setting around and shooting the bull over beer. And I work around and with active duty mil every day.


A story, this was 20+ years after I left active duty. Some years ago I walked into an Avionics shop in a hanger. An E-5 was sweeping the deck out in the hanger. Walking into the shop I see there is an E-3 with his feet up, reading a book. I turned around and went out to ask the E-5 why he was sweeping the deck while an E-3 was feet up, skylarking. I figured the E-3 must be on light duty or something. The E-5 said nope, the E-3 did not want to sweep the deck, and short of taking it up the chain and writing paper the E-5 had no way to make the E-3 do what was asked. It was easier for the E-5 to do the work himself than to do the paperwork required. I was, literally, shocked.


The US Navy is having a hard enough time making senior NCOs that they are expanding a program that takes civilian middle managers, puts them through a short training cycle, and brings them into the service as a Chief Petty Officer.


However, depending on your job, it is NOT OK if you can't shoot. I know soldiers and sailors who have been removed from certain status's or ratings because they failed weapons qualifications. If your MOS / Rate requires the qualification, and you are incapable, then you are not promotable, and if you are not promotable then you cannot reenlist.


T!


----------



## The Basket (Oct 9, 2016)

The mondragon was a Mexican rifle in service before ww1 so having a bolt action rifle in the 1950s is pretty lame. 
There was a rifle called the Farquhar Hill which was pretty good.
The Garand wasn't the first or the best but was the first to follow through with replacing bolt action with semi auto. Amazing number of semi autos were around and about pre ww1 and 1920s that it was lack of money and general apathy that stopped the greater spread of semi autos. 
The French example of the RSC m1917 and somehow ended up with the MAS36 20 years later is like building a biplane after designing a monoplane. 
The uk tested a bewildering number of semi autos from Pedersen to the prototype FN-49 and didn't go far.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 10, 2016)

The Basket said:


> The value of being stationary hitting a stationary target in your own time is good for general gun drills.
> Problem is stress and pressure is not there. The 2 gun matches which are against the clock which involve physical exertion and making mistakes that stress and time pressure creates is far more useful in a combat setting. People lose magazines, people accidentally press the mag release, the heart rate is up and the clock is ticking.
> Obviously not combat but stress has to be involved. Under stress mistakes happen and only training under stress can lessen them.
> A soldier has to fire a rifle in snow, in NBC suit, when he is exhausted thirsty and hungry, when he is terrified and when he is moments away from certain death. So the more basic and simple and robust and reliable the rifle is the better. Thats why the AK is such a fantastic weapon. It was designed by a soldier, not a watch maker, for soldiers. Accuracy means zip when the Banzai charge is on.
> That is why I question loading using stripper clips. If your hands are shaking wearing gloves in -20 and the Zulus are running at you then that's where the excrement hits the apparatus with rotating blades.



I agree with most of this, but will raise one point that might be viewed as somewhat tangential. the Australian army trains to a fairly standard doctrine known as "fire and movement". That really should read as 'fire or movement". A squad when engaged will under theoretical conditions, break into threes. On contact, every man will pass the excess ammunition for the support gun to the gun crews. first priority is to secure this gun and commence suppressive fire which works out the fire support mission on the basis of available ammunition mostly. almost always short controlled bursts and aimed fire. if there is an APC in support, this AFV can usually take the place of fire support team.

Once the fire support is set up and doing its job, the two other teams can start their job. You are either firing, or moving, but not both at the same time. You are either in cover and firing, or moving forward, preferably unseen, to your next firing position. The group in cover and engaging is a hard target, the group moving is somewhat vulnerable and you don’t want to attract attention to that group by firing wildly with un-aimed fire. Once the moving group has made it to the new interim position, it makes or seeks cover, starts firing to allow the other group that has just given its support, to move forward to its new cover position.

If there is no or inadequate cover, the fire teams will use speed or darkness or smoke to put into effect their advance. Infiltration is still the preferred method however.

By remaining stationary when you fire, rather than firing from the hip, accuracy of fire is maximised. Its an exceptional soldier that can fire accurately whilst he is also moving. Most soldiers with some basic rifle skills can do better if they are not moving.

There are many, many occasions that this formula will vary. It’s the theory, not the rule.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Oct 27, 2016)

This bloke gives a clear and reasonably concise explanation of why the Lee Enfield action was so fast.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-EdQuAxAII_


Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Oct 27, 2016)




----------

