Best WWII Semi-Auto Rifle

[Zniperguy114]

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

that looks like a decent design, but how many were built? sounds like it wasn't massed produced, so i doubt it made a difference at all. Believe me, its not that i do not now like it, its just that it wasn't a gaint like the well-known ones above. If it was massed produced and became famous, sure i would have added it to the list, just that it didn't and i don't think an experimental rifle should be included with a bunch of well known sucessfully mass produced rifles. But I may be wrong...

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Full auto M1 Carbines (M2) were introduced in the latter part of 1944. I don't think the 30rd magazine was introduced during WWII though.

 

[renrich]

The main reason the M1 Carbine was liked is because it was easy to carry, which is all that most troops ever did with their weapon. In no way was it a battle rifle. If the US troops had been armed with the 30 Carbine instead of the Garand, their combat ability would have been substantially degraded.

 

[parsifal]

The carbine was more a semi automatic pistol than a rifle.

The Garand is the best workable design for the narrow confines of the poll. however it was outclassed by a rifle that is outside the parameters of the poll, the German STG 44 Assault Rifle. The FG 42 assault rifle also outclassed the Garand, but these weapons arent claassified as semi automatic. If you disregard the full automatic aspects of these guns and just concentrate on their semi automatic aspects, they still outclass the Garand by a mile.

 

[davebender]

Axis History Forum • View topic - Armaments of China and Siam to 1949 Part 3: Siam

7 x 57mm Mauser or 7.92 x 57mm Mauser?: ZB (Brno) ZH-29 semi-automatic rifle: This advanced rifle was designed by Emanuel Holek ca. 1927-1928, allegedly to meet a Chinese requirement for a semi-auto rifle. China acquired 150 of the rifles in 1929, and several hundred more were purchased through 1932, for a total of between 500 and 600 of these very well made rifles. This rifle was also exported in small quantities to Siam and Ethiopia, and was tested in 1932 by both Romania and Turkey. Several undisclosed South American countries tested the weapon as well.

I'd hazard a guess that total ZH-29 rifle production was well over 1,000. And most of the weapons were actually used in combat. Hence it was not experimental.

Germany halted production of the ZH-29 during 1939 because the weapon was expensive. But they could have gone the American route, throwing money at the problem and producing semi-automatic rifles by the millions. Instead they opted for the dirt cheap and even better StG44.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Axis History Forum • View topic - Armaments of China and Siam to 1949 Part 3: Siam

I'd hazard a guess that total ZH-29 rifle production was well over 1,000. And most of the weapons were actually used in combat. Hence it was not experimental.

Germany halted production of the ZH-29 during 1939 because the weapon was expensive. But they could have gone the American route, throwing money at the problem and producing semi-automatic rifles by the millions. Instead they opted for the dirt cheap and even better StG44.

Yeah, 5 years later. That's too little too late.

 

[davebender]

I agree. However you've got to consider that Germany had to build their military and supporting industrial complex practically from scratch beginning in 1934. Border defenses and army artillery had the highest priority so they could protect themselves from a threatened Franco-Russian invasion. Germany also needed aerial and coastal defenses.

Replacing the relatively effective Mauser 98 with an assault rifle fell into the "nice to have but not essential" category.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I agree. However you've got to consider that Germany had to build their military and supporting industrial complex practically from scratch beginning in 1934. Border defenses and army artillery had the highest priority so they could protect themselves from a threatened Franco-Russian invasion. Germany also needed aerial and coastal defenses.

Replacing the relatively effective Mauser 98 with an assault rifle fell into the "nice to have but not essential" category.

In hindsight though, a great rifle is a force multiplier that can be applied millions of times. If the Germans had created a magazine fed, semi-auto assault rifle or battle rifle who knows how that might have affected the defense of Normandy, the battle of the bulge, and Moscow/Stalingrad. Rate of fire can sometimes keep the battle moving forward and prevent offensives from bogging down.

When you think about it, a mag-fed battle rifle fits the concept of blitzkrieg far better than a top loading bolt gun.

 

[davebender]

A great machinegun is a bigger infantry force multiplier. Germany nailed that requirement with the MG34 and MG42. Well trained and equipped forward observers to coordinate artillery and air support are also huge infantry force multipliers. Germany nailed that requirement also.

The German Rifle Testing Commission began work on procuring an assault rifle during 1938. The program had a relatively low priority. However they eventually hit a home run with the StG44 and StG45 weapons. Now if money grew on trees in Germany these weapons would almost certainly have entered service sooner.

 

[Zniperguy114]

A great machinegun is a bigger infantry force multiplier. Germany nailed that requirement with the MG34 and MG42. Well trained and equipped forward observers to coordinate artillery and air support are also huge infantry force multipliers. Germany nailed that requirement also.

The German Rifle Testing Commission began work on procuring an assault rifle during 1938. The program had a relatively low priority. However they eventually hit a home run with the StG44 and StG45 weapons. Now if money grew on trees in Germany these weapons would almost certainly have entered service sooner.

You're right. After the horrible outcome of trench warfare for germany, it was obviosly smart for german commandos to build the squad not of a rifle, but a GPMG. And that is exactly what they did, of course. The german squad during WWII was to serve a purpose - protect and/or aid the GPMG in anyway possible. And if I'm not mistaken, that statagy worked pretty succesfully if you look at the first part of the war.

 

[parsifal]

Its true that rifles provide a relatively minor component to platoon firepower, though to be fair to both the British and the Americans, they continued to believe that MGs were support elements rather than the focus of the squads firepower.

Interstingly however, rifles do provide greater defensive potential. The MG can lay down large amounts of firepower, but it also can be the focus of enemy efforts to silence it. Being a single point, rather than eight or ten like the riflemen, the opponent of the MG can concentrate firepower to destroy that MGs resistance.

The Grands alleged firepower advanatages have been discussed and rehashed many times. There is no doubt that the garand did confer additional firepower to the inidividual Infantryman, but for the squad as a whole, the Grand has been estimated as providing only about 20% more firepower to the squad overall. this is because as a a fraction of the squads total firepower potential, the rifle element only adds a relatively small proportion

 

[Clay_Allison]

American weapons gave far more mobility than German weapons though. The MG42 with ammo was heavier than the BAR and the 98 Mauser didn't give you a chance to shoot on the move without the bolt cycle slowing you down, the M1 carbines sprinkled in gave even more mobility and ability to sustain fire on the move.

If I was charging up a hill I'd rather be American than German.

 

[parsifal]

Your right about firepower on the move, however the manouvre was usually fire then movement. Standard Infantry Assault terchnique is that you have three elements to the assault, the support element, which is laying down the supressing fire. An MG 42 or a Vickers or a 30 cal could do that, Brens, BARs and the like were less effective at the support role, but were more mobile than a 30 cal or a Vickers, but only slightly more mobile than an MG 42 (MG42s were a "modern" design in that they could fulfil the Infantry Support and assault functions under the one design). The support element usually contained the heavy weapons of the platoon....the HMGs, and the mortars....their job was to keep the enemy pinned. Then in a textbook assault ther would be two assault elements, a firing element, and a moving element. The firing element would be digging in and returning fire, to assist the support squad in keeping the enemy formation pinned. Finally there was the moving or assaulting element, which concentrated in getting to a position, rather than waste time in firing while moving. The assaulting and the firing elements of the attack would alternate, as one elment reached its objective and dug in, it would lay down suppressive fire, whilst the original firing element would now assume the role of moving element and begin movement to its intermediate objective, all the while receiving covering fire from the other two elments.

Once the two manouvre elements had reached their final positions, usually on the flanks of the defender, the three elments would then corordinate for the final assault. The support element would lay down smoke and as intense covering fire as was possible, whilst the two mobile elements would fix bayonets (for the riflemen) and use machine pistols to keep the heads of the enemy squad down, until they had either surrendered or died. The semi-automatic rifle did not play as big an improvement to that formula as one might expect, though its effect is undeniable. Being able to fire from the hip might improve the elan of the assaulting troops I suppose.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Also the two-element plan doesn't work as well fighting in little cramped european towns and hedgerows.

 

[renrich]

Watched an episode last night on the Military Channel, ( which I had seen before.) Was reminded again that you cannot trust any information from the media. This episode was best rifle. The Garand ranked 4th, which was alright with me since length of service played heavily in the rankings. However, they said that a weakness of the Garand was that the noise the clip made when it was ejected told the enemy that the rifle was empty and therefore the enemy soldier would then attack the soldier with the empty rifle. What a crock! They had combat film showing soldiers firing Garands, in Europe and in the Pacific. All the film showed the soldiers behind some cover, a tree, a wall, a trench, etc. along with other soldiers firing the Garands. Now a 3006 round makes a lot of noise and a clip making it's ching noise would be impossible to hear in the din of battle. Now, if two soldiers were stalking one another, in the pitch dark and were within a few yards of one another and it was very quiet, that ching noise might be audible if no other weapons were firing. The episode said that the US soldiers learned to keep an empty clip in their pocket to throw on the ground and fool the enemy. BS! The ching noise occurs when the clip is ejected from the breech, not when the clip hits the ground. When I was in basic, our cadre were almost all Korean War vets and some also WW2 and not one said that the noise of the ejecting clip was a problem. On the range, with a lot of rifles firing at once, one could hear that ching from one's own rifle and maybe the one's on either side sometimes but for an enemy to hear it, he would have to be right next to you. If you see, read or hear it in the media, it is either inaccurate, exaggerated or a damn lie.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Watched an episode last night on the Military Channel, ( which I had seen before.) Was reminded again that you cannot trust any information from the media. This episode was best rifle. The Garand ranked 4th, which was alright with me since length of service played heavily in the rankings. However, they said that a weakness of the Garand was that the noise the clip made when it was ejected told the enemy that the rifle was empty and therefore the enemy soldier would then attack the soldier with the empty rifle. What a crock! They had combat film showing soldiers firing Garands, in Europe and in the Pacific. All the film showed the soldiers behind some cover, a tree, a wall, a trench, etc. along with other soldiers firing the Garands. Now a 3006 round makes a lot of noise and a clip making it's ching noise would be impossible to hear in the din of battle. Now, if two soldiers were stalking one another, in the pitch dark and were within a few yards of one another and it was very quiet, that ching noise might be audible if no other weapons were firing. The episode said that the US soldiers learned to keep an empty clip in their pocket to throw on the ground and fool the enemy. BS! The ching noise occurs when the clip is ejected from the breech, not when the clip hits the ground. When I was in basic, our cadre were almost all Korean War vets and some also WW2 and not one said that the noise of the ejecting clip was a problem. On the range, with a lot of rifles firing at once, one could hear that ching from one's own rifle and maybe the one's on either side sometimes but for an enemy to hear it, he would have to be right next to you. If you see, read or hear it in the media, it is either inaccurate, exaggerated or a damn lie.

I've always found that myth to be ridiculous. The only part that was a little bit plausible is that the clip shooting upward would give away your position visibly to someone looking in that direction, especially a sniper.

 

[timshatz]

Watched an episode last night on the Military Channel, ( which I had seen before.) Was reminded again that you cannot trust any information from the media. This episode was best rifle. The Garand ranked 4th, which was alright with me since length of service played heavily in the rankings. However, they said that a weakness of the Garand was that the noise the clip made when it was ejected told the enemy that the rifle was empty and therefore the enemy soldier would then attack the soldier with the empty rifle. What a crock! They had combat film showing soldiers firing Garands, in Europe and in the Pacific. All the film showed the soldiers behind some cover, a tree, a wall, a trench, etc. along with other soldiers firing the Garands. Now a 3006 round makes a lot of noise and a clip making it's ching noise would be impossible to hear in the din of battle. Now, if two soldiers were stalking one another, in the pitch dark and were within a few yards of one another and it was very quiet, that ching noise might be audible if no other weapons were firing. The episode said that the US soldiers learned to keep an empty clip in their pocket to throw on the ground and fool the enemy. BS! The ching noise occurs when the clip is ejected from the breech, not when the clip hits the ground. When I was in basic, our cadre were almost all Korean War vets and some also WW2 and not one said that the noise of the ejecting clip was a problem. On the range, with a lot of rifles firing at once, one could hear that ching from one's own rifle and maybe the one's on either side sometimes but for an enemy to hear it, he would have to be right next to you. If you see, read or hear it in the media, it is either inaccurate, exaggerated or a damn lie.

Agreed. 40 guys shooting M1s, and IF you hear it go "ping", are you gonna know which one is empty or do anything about it. Nah, BS.

 

[ToughOmbre]

Couldn't agree more ren about the Garand "ping myth".

Throwing an en-bloc clip on the ground to fool the enemy?

People just love to believe in myths, legends and conspiracy theories.

And 99.9999999% of them are pure BS!

TO

 

[Clay_Allison]

That's a great idea, give away your position to "fool" the enemy. That's got to be entirely spurious.

 

[Zniperguy114]

Watched an episode last night on the Military Channel, ( which I had seen before.) Was reminded again that you cannot trust any information from the media. This episode was best rifle. The Garand ranked 4th, which was alright with me since length of service played heavily in the rankings. However, they said that a weakness of the Garand was that the noise the clip made when it was ejected told the enemy that the rifle was empty and therefore the enemy soldier would then attack the soldier with the empty rifle. What a crock! They had combat film showing soldiers firing Garands, in Europe and in the Pacific. All the film showed the soldiers behind some cover, a tree, a wall, a trench, etc. along with other soldiers firing the Garands. Now a 3006 round makes a lot of noise and a clip making it's ching noise would be impossible to hear in the din of battle. Now, if two soldiers were stalking one another, in the pitch dark and were within a few yards of one another and it was very quiet, that ching noise might be audible if no other weapons were firing. The episode said that the US soldiers learned to keep an empty clip in their pocket to throw on the ground and fool the enemy. BS! The ching noise occurs when the clip is ejected from the breech, not when the clip hits the ground. When I was in basic, our cadre were almost all Korean War vets and some also WW2 and not one said that the noise of the ejecting clip was a problem. On the range, with a lot of rifles firing at once, one could hear that ching from one's own rifle and maybe the one's on either side sometimes but for an enemy to hear it, he would have to be right next to you. If you see, read or hear it in the media, it is either inaccurate, exaggerated or a damn lie.

And, if you don't know already, if the ping was a problem, you could just have a squad mate be ready with a full clip to take the enemy out when he pops uphis head and tries to shoot at the soldier with the empty clip anyway. simple prolem solved.