Ideal rifle for ww2?

tomo pauk · Mar 5, 2013

Shortround6 said:
...
If needed 3rd and 4th men could be added as ammo carriers if belts were available and distances were great or hills/mountains high.

A time when pack animals come in handy? Back in the war, we did have a donkey on the disposal when on hilly mountainous terrain, close to Bosnian border.

They had learned that full auto 11-12lb rifles with 7.9X57 rounds were uncontrollable in full auto fire. Also 16in barrels and full power rounds don't get along well, LOTS of muzzle flash and blast and lost velocity. If you chop 24mm from the length of the cartridge you also get smaller, lighter receivers and magazines and more rounds for the same weight.

The FG-42 ought to be one tough beast when firing in full auto. The more ammo for same weight gets often overlooked benefit of intermediate cartridges.

Apparently the RPD had some feed problems despite going though 4 variations? And you are back to the belt vs magazine thing. Same ammo as the AK-47 but somebody isn't shooting if he is head down trying to refill a used belt.

The belt-fed weapons simply demanding the second crew member as an ammo carrier?

One could do a lot worse.

Barrier penetration might not be up to the .30-06, .303, 7.62X54 and 7.9X57 but it would be a whole lot better than the 7.9X33, 7.62X39 and ANY sub-machine gun round.

+1

yulzari · Mar 5, 2013

tomo pauk said:
A time when pack animals come in handy? Back in the war, we did have a donkey on the disposal when on hilly mountainous terrain, close to Bosnian border.
+1

I recall my father telling me of using de-brayed mules in the Apennines to carry Vickers MMGs and ammunition.

Maybe we need some sort of miniature donkey to carry LMG ammunition anywhere troops can go?

The 7.62mm LMG and SLR magazines were designed to be interchangeable (which is why metric FAL ones don't fit imperial SLRs.)

I still hold to the view that if a target is too far away for an SMG to engage then leave it to the LMG. But an SMG is the ideal when close up in heavy vegetation or a built up area. The Sterling SMG L2A3 is an excellent all round SMG choice. Cheap, strong, reliable, folds small but has a good rigid butt when (easily) extended. The Lanchester is the executive choice but far too expensive for an army but my personal choice, with pouches for 6 x 50 round magazines and loader and a useable bayonet to boot.

Machine guns deny ground and suppress fire. Rifles kill chosen individuals at a distance. SMGs/grenades clear the enemy so that you can occupy the ground. Platoons have x2 LMGs for the first, snipers have rifles for the second and squaddies will clear the ground with the SMGs.

If you have been taught properly (and not facing an enemy with Moisin Nagant 'pikes') the bayonet armed SMG can be very good in a close fight where you do not have time to change magazines: but you do need specific training. It is a little like a police side handled baton versus drunken lout with a big stick.

Give everyone assault rifle style rounds then you are left out ranged in open ground (SA80/M16 versus Taliban Lee-Enfield) and in urban fighting you are outgunned by SMG controllable automatic fire.

The assault rifle is the correct choice for ill trained conscripts and terrorists. In WW2 7.92mm LMGs and 9mm Patchetts were in service leaving the Lee-Enfield for the sniper.

michaelmaltby · Mar 5, 2013

I'm no weapons expert by any means, but I owned one of these Swedish 6.5 mm semi-automatics for a number of years before trading it for a Marlin 30 lever action ... a much more sensible gun for the "bush". I only fired it occasionally but was very impressed by its high velocity flat trajectory.

How does/did it stack up with similar infantry weapons on the Commonwealth, US and Soviet sides ...?

MM

parsifal · Mar 5, 2013

I think I have to agree with Dave in this one. The STG-44 was really years ahead of its time, cheap to produce. STG-45 looks even better, but is competely unfamilar to me.

Its only problemm is that it arrived too late and in too few numbers to make a difference. about 300000 were made from memory

Shortround6 · Mar 5, 2013

yulzari said:
I still hold to the view that if a target is too far away for an SMG to engage then leave it to the LMG. But an SMG is the ideal when close up in heavy vegetation or a built up area.

Machine guns deny ground and suppress fire. Rifles kill chosen individuals at a distance. SMGs/grenades clear the enemy so that you can occupy the ground. Platoons have x2 LMGs for the first, snipers have rifles for the second and squaddies will clear the ground with the SMGs. [/QUOTE]

A lot depends on the distances you want the troops to fight at. Sub-machine guns are great in cities and jungle/heavy forest (maybe). They turn to crap on open ground. If assault rifles are leave you out ranged on open ground the sub-machine gun armed troopers best friend is a shovel.
Rifles were used for volley fire at extreme ranges before the MG, not very well though. There is no reason they cannot provide "suppression" fire at 300-600yds. Most troops do not have the skill to hit individual targets at 500-600yds. The LMG, due to it's bipod is actually about as good as a rifle for point targets.

But there is a world of difference between 200 yds and 400yds. The Sub-machine gun is pretty much maxed out at under 200yds.

A study of WW II rifle and MG use showed that while 95-98% of rifle use was under 400 yds just about 50% of rifle use was over 200yds. The full power rifles were a waste but replacing them with sub-machine guns was not the answer.

There is also the question of barrier penetration, at what point does concealment become cover? High powered rifle bullets can go though just under 2 feet of oak, over 1 foot of sand, 4-6 in of Brick and so on and at several hundred yds. Pistol bullets (SMG) are lucky to make it though 7-10in of pine 15 ft from the muzzle.

yulzari said:
Give everyone assault rifle style rounds then you are left out ranged in open ground (SA80/M16 versus Taliban Lee-Enfield) and in urban fighting you are outgunned by SMG controllable automatic fire.

A semi-auto rifle with 20 round magazines goes a long way in urban fighting. House clearing not so much but if you have to cross streets that have 100-200yd sight lines?

yulzari said:
The assault rifle is the correct choice for ill trained conscripts and terrorists. In WW2 7.92mm LMGs and 9mm Patchetts were in service leaving the Lee-Enfield for the sniper.

Lee-Enfields could be fired at around 20rpm into a 1 ft circle at 200yds from a rested position. ( some sargents could exceed 30rpm before WW I with a SMLE but such expertise was not at all common). A sub-machine gun is going to need divine intervention to place even 1/3 of it's shots in a 1 ft circle at 200yds.

tomo pauk · Mar 5, 2013

michaelmaltby said:
I'm no weapons expert by any means, but I owned one of these Swedish 6.5 mm semi-automatics for a number of years before trading it for a Marlin 30 lever action ... a much more sensible gun for the "bush". I only fired it occasionally but was very impressed by its high velocity flat trajectory.

How does/did it stack up with similar infantry weapons on the Commonwealth, US and Soviet sides ...?

MM

The Swedish AG-42 looks surprisingly similar to the Automat Fedorova (Fedorov's automatic rifle), the Swedish cartridge being slightly more powerful. The AG-42 was featuring the detachable magazine, like Fedorov's rifle and most of other European semi-automatics, but unlike the Garand. The intermediate cartridge should reduce the recoil, while allowing for more rounds to be carried.
Suits the opening question well?

yulzari · Mar 5, 2013

One could argue rifle versus SMG etc. for as long as one likes but it will ultimately tell you more about the experiences and prejudices of the protagonists.

The essential of the point I was alluding to is that the ideal rifle has to be seen as part of the whole all arms team and there will always be some occasion where you are left as the person who brought a knife to a gunfight.

As an individual infantry soldier in WW2 I would want a personal weapon to protect me. Hence my personal prejudice of wanting a Lanchester. In another example, in the Dhofar, the Omani contract soldier's SLR could both outrange an Adoo AK47 but also penetrate an improvised stone sangar and ensure a hit once, stays hit record.

Now if it is what is the coolest rifle for WW2, then the STG44 will attract most. Me, I would still have no problem with being issued a Lee-Enfield Mk4. If I could have it modified it would be to a 15 round detachable magazine I could top up in situ with 5 round charger strips and a battle sight a gnats smaller.

Matt308 · Mar 5, 2013

A4K said:
Lee Enfield No.4 mk.I any day... fantastic rifle - great to fire and very reliable.

I agree with the statement, but am still flummoxed with what brit rifle had sights that "...are worth anything". While enfield sights are okay, they are nothing special over any other adjustable leaf sights.

SKS hits alot of the marks to be a world beater for a design that just missed the end of the war.

michaelmaltby · Mar 5, 2013

As stated, I know d*ck about guns, but learned to shoot with a 22-barreled Lee Enfield.... heavy mother for a 14 year old. But the fact that Canada's Eskimo Rangers still use the Mk 4 speaks volumes to me about reliability, punch and accuracy with standard sights. Their issued rifle is also their put-food-on-the-table rifle .... seal head shot at a couple hundred yards.

After the war, the cut down jungle carbine was very popular with Canadian hunters

fastmongrel · Mar 5, 2013

michaelmaltby said:
As stated, I know d*ck about guns, but learned to shoot with a 22-barreled Lee Enfield.... heavy mother for a 14 year old. But the fact that Canada's Eskimo Rangers still use the Mk 4 speaks volumes to me about reliability, punch and accuracy with standard sights. Their issued rifle is also their put-food-on-the-table rifle .... seal head shot at a couple hundred yards.

After the war, the cut down jungle carbine was very popular with Canadian hunters

After Nuclear armageddon only 2 machines will still work. The VW Beetle and the Lee Enfield rifle.

tyrodtom · Mar 5, 2013

I got my first deer with a Enfield No.5 mk I, when I was 15, borrowed from a uncle. Always wanted one since then,
I got a clone Jungle Carbine, about 10 years ago. My son-in-law got me a scope for it for Christmas a few years ago. Only thing i've took with it so far is a wild pig.

muscogeemike · Mar 5, 2013

I understand why MacArthur insisted on Garand using the .30-06, and for the time he probably couldn't have made any other decision.

Yet the M-1 could have had a 7 mm rd and a 10 shot capacity (20% less reloading and more rds downrange). It also would have been easier to use and if the B.A.R. was re-designed to use the same round, it too would have had more firepower and been easier to keep on target.

Also, as I suggested, since reusable magazines were already in use by many countries (in MG's and auto rifles) , it is not unreasonable to think Garand could have put this feature in the M-1. This would have given the U.S. GI an even greater advantage.

I agree with all who have suggested the M-14, I trained and used this rifle and love it still. If I remember correctly we routinely fired on targets out to 600 meters. I would have one now if I could afford it.

But the M-14 was a 1950's design, I think more realistic was the experimental T25 of 1945. If the Army could have started this train of thought at the time of the M-1's development (and had the money) the US could have had a truly world beating rifle much earlier.

I saw a TV program that tested the Enfield against the .03 Springfield and the Bren against the B.A.R..
The conclusion was the S.M.L.E. action was by far smoother and faster, and the .303 was a much easier round to use then the .30-06; and 10 rds, of course, was twice the capacity of the Springfield. Recovery was much faster so regaining the target was also.

The same was true for the Bren, the top mounted mag was faster to switch out and, again, the .303 was much easier to keep on target.

Shortround6 · Mar 5, 2013

Matt308 said:
I agree with the statement, but am still flummoxed with what brit rifle had sights that "...are worth anything". While enfield sights are okay, they are nothing special over any other adjustable leaf sights.

The No. 4 MK I Enfield had a decent battle sight.

Some of them had a cheaper Stamped version and some had a simple "L" two aperture sight (no worse than some M1 carbine sights).

If we ignore the settings above 600yds we still have a pretty good sight for deliberate shooting (no windage but then few other people had windage on their rifle sights) and when folded down we have a pretty good "battle" sight out to 300yds or so. Better in poor light than many of those rear notch sights half way out the barrel. (many shooters tend to shoot high with those trying to see the "blade" on poor light)

Mauser rear sight.

Harder to use in a hurry or in poor light.

Or if you are getting old and need glasses

SMLE rear sight isn't enough different from Mausers or anybody else's to say so.

tyrodtom · Mar 5, 2013

The only thing wrong with the .303 is that rim. I run into the problem with my scoped Enfield. If you don't load the rounds with each rim ahead of the rim of the round below it, you will have a failure to feed. No problem if you use the stripper clip, but you can't use the stripper clips with a scope. So you detach the magazine, and handload it, carefully.
You'd have no such problem if the .303 had a recessed rim.

muscogeemike · Mar 5, 2013

I saw my cousin down a running hog at over 100 yds with a .303 Enfield and open sites.
I think it is a very fine weapon still.

michaelmaltby · Mar 5, 2013

Which would you rather have in a mouse-hole fight?

The premise of this thread was rifles .... and that expanded to assault rifles ... if I had to be in close combat ... the Pacific facing the Japanese at night, for example .... I would want the Thompson 45 in my hands and the Colt 45 on my hip .... not the German weapon (although I'm sure it's great). Lucky is right .... you can't beat old proven designs.

IIRC, there's a scene in Battle of The Bulge (B&W film circa 1955 starring Jack Palance) where an American infantry man is charging down a slope to a farm house where a German Officer is standing - unseen - in the doorway. He fires a single shot with his side arm - killing the American - who still remains on his feet until he crashes into the house.

In close quarters - raw stopping power surely what you want ... but you also want/need riflemen with reliable - easy to use rifles - that can reach out.

Matt308 · Mar 5, 2013

Shortround6 said:
The No. 4 MK I Enfield had a decent battle sight.

View attachment 226944

Some of them had a cheaper Stamped version and some had a simple "L" two aperture sight (no worse than some M1 carbine sights).

View attachment 226945

If we ignore the settings above 600yds we still have a pretty good sight for deliberate shooting (no windage but then few other people had windage on their rifle sights) and when folded down we have a pretty good "battle" sight out to 300yds or so. Better in poor light than many of those rear notch sights half way out the barrel. (many shooters tend to shoot high with those trying to see the "blade" on poor light)

Mauser rear sight.

View attachment 226946

Harder to use in a hurry or in poor light.

Or if you are getting old and need glasses

SMLE rear sight isn't enough different from Mausers or anybody else's to say so.

I stand corrected. I'm a MkI owner and forget that the later marks were improved. Good point buddy.

parsifal · Mar 6, 2013

michaelmaltby said:
Which would you rather have in a mouse-hole fight?

The premise of this thread was rifles .... and that expanded to assault rifles ... if I had to be in close combat ... the Pacific facing the Japanese at night, for example .... I would want the Thompson 45 in my hands and the Colt 45 on my hip .... not the German weapon (although I'm sure it's great). Lucky is right .... you can't beat old proven designs.

IIRC, there's a scene in Battle of The Bulge (B&W film circa 1955 starring Jack Palance) where an American infantry man is charging down a slope to a farm house where a German Officer is standing - unseen - in the doorway. He fires a single shot with his side arm - killing the American - who still remains on his feet until he crashes into the house.

In close quarters - raw stopping power surely what you want ... but you also want/need riflemen with reliable - easy to use rifles - that can reach out.

The photos you posted were

1) SMG (Thompson)
2) Daves STG-45 An early Assault Rifle
3) A 9mm Browning Pistol

And then asked which type I would prefer.

SMGs offer a lot of fire power, but are not accurate and are relatively short ranged. Pistols are small and handy, good for work that is "in the hole", but not a serious weapon in most types of firefights. Ive used the 9mm in anger, and consider myself a reasonable shot. In a real situation, anything over 25-30 yards againsta moving target you are basically trying to scare them more than anything.

The Assault Rifle is a combination of the accuracy of the old bolt actions rifles with the firepower of the SMG....an SMG that is accurate and far more controllable. Thats why they have all but eclipsed SMGs on the modern battlefield.

There are semiautomatic ARs and fully automatic. In theory the fully automatic versions, like the Armalite and AK 47 have a big firepower advantage. im afraid Im old school on this. Whilst the AK47 can switch to autometic when required, a full mag will last less than 5 secs in burst. And the fire is still pretty innaccurate. When you are carrying around your entire ammunition supply on your back, the last thing you want is to waste that ammunition firing innaccurately. The SLR is more powerful because each shot is delivered accurately and in a controlled way. It has peep sights, which allow you to deliver accurate fire out to about 400m if you are even a half reasonable (that would be me)...

The notion that an SMG is superior to assualt rifles is just not supported by post war policies. Every nation virutally abandoned SMGs in favour of a more general purpose rifle that was good for all situations, or more situations. the trouble with the SMG is that its a very specialised, and limited wepon. Pistols are good, but need a lot of practice to be better than a bad shot with them.

michaelmaltby · Mar 6, 2013

Interesting analysis ... thought I was posting a picture of a Colt 45 automatic, not a Browning, but hey ... WTH ...

MM

Shortround6 · Mar 6, 2013

Getting back to the original question "IDEAL rifle" and not best substitute or best available.

6.5mm cartridge with a 120-125 grain bullet (8 grams) spitzer boat tail at 2600fps (788ms).

Weight about 4-4.5 kg

Pretty much a FN FAL

20 round magazines although a 30 might be able to fit (or be interchangeable with the squad LMG?)

Full auto depends on how controllable it is. With about 70% of the recoil of a 7.62 nato round it has a chance even if heavier recoil than the true intermediates.

There is nothing in the FN FAL that didn't exist in WW II except perhaps for the exact metallurgy which could be solved by making it just a bit heavier ( although with a bit small receiver it may be a wash?)

Front sight an interchangeable blade to allow for zeroing ( various heights and the ability to be moved side ways) protected by wings.

Rear sight mounted on the back end of the receiver with elevation steps of 200, 300, 400 and 500 yds or meters depending on country. One or two steps each side for wind correction nice but not essential.

Ideal rifle for ww2?

Creator of Interesting Threads

Tech Sergeant

Colonel

Attachments

Colonel

Major General

Creator of Interesting Threads

Tech Sergeant

Glock Perfection

Colonel

Attachments

1st Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Major General

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Colonel

Attachments

Glock Perfection

Colonel

Colonel

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads