Best WWII Semi-Auto Rifle

[Zniperguy114]

Okay, here is a new poll that hopefully will please you guys. You are all right, I did leave out too many good rifles in the last one, so i have decided to change it to a more far game with semi autos only. britian did not have a semi auto of its own( that is, speaking about the origin of a semi auto rifle). So please choose the one of the following rifles you think to be the best.

USSR: SVT-38/40

USA: M1 Garand and M1 Carbine

Germany: G43 (also known as K43)

Vote and Have Fun!

 

[tomo pauk]

Garand gets my vote - reliable, very good punch, produced early enough in quantity.

 

[Messy1]

M1 Garand. I'd be surprised if this poll was close at all.

 

[renrich]

Garand all the way

 

[Thorlifter]

Ditto......Garand.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Ditto Ditto

 

[ToughOmbre]

The M1 Garand is the icon of WW II infantry rifles.

TO

 

[Messy1]

I'm sensing a trend here!

 

[Vincenzo]

all for garand...,
only to tentative to up discussion, i'm sorry i take the data from wiki...
semi auto rifle
Garand - weight 10.5 lbs, lenght 43.6 inch, MV 2800 fps, rounds 8, ammo 30-06 (7.62x63) 152 gr, production over 5 milions
SVT-40 - weight 8.5 lbs (u), lenght 48 inch, MV 2756 fps, rounds 10, ammo 7.62x54R 185gr, production over 5 milions
G43 - weight 9.7 lbs, lenght 44.5 inch, MV 2328 fps, rounds 10, ammo 7.92x57, 197 gr., production over 400 thousands

M1 carbine - weight 5.2 (u), lenght 35.6 inch, MV 1970 fps, rounds 15/30, ammo 30 carbine (7.62x33) 110 gr, production over 6 milions this is alone with no rifle ammos

 

[Clay_Allison]

Only one battle rifle suitable for mass production and general issue as the standard infantry arm. No brainer.

 

[timshatz]

I'll break the trend and go with the Carbine. Lighter, larger clip capacity, good enough.

I own an M1 Rifle and know how they shoot. A lot of fun to blast away with. But the Carbine just seems easier. Have fired that as well. Less kick and does damage.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I'll break the trend and go with the Carbine. Lighter, larger clip capacity, good enough.

I own an M1 Rifle and know how they shoot. A lot of fun to blast away with. But the Carbine just seems easier. Have fired that as well. Less kick and does damage.

It's a very good weapon, but if I could only pick one to arm my entire infantry with, gotta go with the Rifle over the Carbine. Make a bigger carbine in .30 Remington (rimless semi-auto capable version of the 30-30) and we'll talk.

 

[riacrato]

SVT had problems probably due to relatively poor worksmanship. It's also too long imo. Other than that a good rifle.

G43 is not mature enough, worksmanship is poor and the bolt carrier moving outside of the stock is problematic.

M1 has good to very good worksmanship and is a very mature design. It also has better sights for long range shooting. Clip reloading is inferior to magazine reloading, but the other two others were usually loaded from stripper clips as well.

So all in all: M1 Garand wins by a good margin. If worksmanship was on equal level and the SVT and G43 were actually issued with spare magazines it'd be a little closer. M1 carbine would be a candidate if there were spitzer type bullets for it.

 

[fastmongrel]

A rifle which very nearly made it into service but was stopped by the invasion of Poland when the Belgian army decided to concentrate on bolt action rifles was the SAFN. It was produced as the FN model 49 after the war. I have fired one in 30-06 calibre and I thought it was a lovely rifle with a beautiful balance. It would have been introduced into Belgian service in 1940 and I have read that the British Army had a great interest in it.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I'm a big fan of the FN 49. If it was indeed the same rifle it would have been very good.

 

[riacrato]

Indeed a missed opportunity. Saive fled to Britain in 40. Wonder why he never tried to market the rifle to Enfield or the likes.

 

[davebender]

All these semi-automatic rifles were relatively expensive to produce. Which is why nobody except the U.S. produced semi-automatic rifles for general issue. However since we are on the subject you missed a rifle which might have been mass produced if Germany had considered it to be cost effective.

ZH-29 Rifle.
Modern Firearms - ZH-29 rifle

Caliber: 7.92x57 mm Mauser, also 7x57 Mauser, .30-06 US, and others
Action: Gas operated, side-swinging bolt
Overall length: 1150 mm
Barrel length: 545 mm
Weight: 4.5 kg
Magazine capacity: 5, 10 or 25 rounds

 

[CharlesBronson]

That was ugly, actually even the italians and japaneses have some kind of semiatuo rifles in development, the Armaguerra 6,5 carcano was fully developed and ready to production as early as 1939 but with no effect. The K-43 was good, but my vote goes to the Garand, is the best definately.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F25NarNVzSc

 

[Zniperguy114]

I'll break the trend and go with the Carbine. Lighter, larger clip capacity, good enough.

I own an M1 Rifle and know how they shoot. A lot of fun to blast away with. But the Carbine just seems easier. Have fired that as well. Less kick and does damage.

I agree. the .30 carbine round (7.62mm by 33mm) was considerably smaller than the .30-06 (7.62mm by 63mm). Also it weighted less than the current standard U.S. M16 rifle, contianed more rounds, had low recoil and thus was alot more controlable than its big brother, the Garand. I not saying the Garand was a bad rifle, because it was great, but the carbine was the future. it was only .30mm away from the german 7.92mm Kurz ( or the 7.92mm by 33mm round) used the the very first assault rifle, the sturmgewehr 44.
So, with that said, if the carbine had a full auto ability, you could consider it an assault rifle. But it still packed a .30 calibre punch and was loved by the troops because of these great traits.(by the way, there was a full auto one built during the Korean war, though it was in a library book that I read a few years back, but there was one none the less if you take the time to look it up.) That is truely why I voted for the carbine, because it was argueably more innovative than the Garand and was a poineer of the american assault rifle.

 

[B-17engineer]

From another forum and found it interesting...

The Garand was a regular rifle round, accurate and deadly well beyond 200 yards which is just about the limit of the .30 caliber Carbine round and barrel length. The Carbine is short range, quick point, low recoil, and less than a "power puncher" with its little 110 grain bullet travelling at only about 1990 feet per second.

The Garand is every thing the Carbine isn't. Long range, slower point time, higher recoil, and a real "hitter" with its 150 grain bullet travelling at nearly 2900 feet per second.

The Carbine was the "non-rifleman's" weapon, staff officers, clerk typists, cooks, truck drivers. The paratroops used them but preferred the Garand. The sweet little .30 carbine was an alternative, but to a pistol, not the Garand. If the M2 select-fire and it's 30 round banana magazine had been introduced sooner, with a slightly more powerfull round than the straight walled extended pistol round, America may well have fielded a very successful "assault rifle".