The top 10 combat rifles

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Re the P14 I stand by the statements that I found if you can find any that support your position then that is fine.
Re the ROF can you or Kurfurst find any statement that supports your position that the K98 had a faster ROF remembering that the K98 has to reload twice as often?

This is totally new to me. I have a number of books on the weapon, have checked a number of sites and spoken to people who own them but none of them mention the Lee Enfield having any tendancy to blow up in your face. Again can I ask for anything that supports this statement?

Thus Glider, the M98 is better suited for firing ammo of varying degrees in quality, while this can be bloody unsafe with the Enfield.
Click to expand...

Again I must differ on this. German snipers had access to special batches of ammunition which was of a higher quality than normal ammo to ensure accuracy. British Snipers used normal issue ammo. The only precaution taken by the British took was to ensure that all the ammo they used came from the same batch.

Interestingly there was one problem with the British ammo (who says I am not fair) that hasn't been mentioned. The quality of the powder was pretty low and very corrosive, so you did have to be careful about how you cleaned the barrel after firing it. Boiling water being the only sure method. A friend of mine bought a Lee Enfield that looked spotless on the outside, absolutely as new and he was delighted with it. Then he checked it, got it stripped and cleaned by an gun smith and found to his horror that the barrel was in a poor state. He shoots it at up to 300 yards but anything more and its not up to it. The general view was that it had only fired a few rounds to test it, then it was quickly cleaned and stored. However, it was enough to do the damage over the 20 years that it was stored.
 
Why are we discussing effective ranges of 800-1000yds for open sights. These were theoretically possible, but generally quite unrealistic ranges for nearly all standard Infantryman. It was far more common for rifle combats at ranges of 150 to 300 metres. this was the main reasoning for the reduced power rounds for assault rifles. It was found to be quite unnecessary to use the higher power rounds, because soldiers could not shoot that far effectively. Volley fire and sniper fire were the only really effective ways of reaching out to that range. As far as I know only the british used volley fire, and that was only during the opening stages of WWI.

IMO we should analyse effective ranges, not theoretical ranges, and the principal constraint for effective range was the training of the soldier, not so much the quality of the weapon.
 
There seems to be some confusion here. Military rifles for mass armies and hunting rifles are built for slightly different use.
Military rifle of course has to have reasonable performance and must be reliable, easy to handle and accept a certain amount of mishandling without malfunctioning. Besides it must be easy to mass-product and reasonably priced.
But ROF is clearly more important than range, ordinary conscript soldier could not be counted to hit a moving target constantly at 500m range. Probably not even standing target. Sniping is a different matter. But more bullets he could fire at attacking enemy at shorter distance the better, of course within reasonable limits and within limit of supply organization to supply more ammo.

Now I read in 70s, probably on Purnell's book on infantry weapons, that bolt of SMLE allowed shorter movement of handle than that of Kar 98k and because of that had higher rof and easier use from hip. True or not, I haven't checked that from other sources and had not used either bolt. My only knowledge on bolt action rifles is from Finnish military rifle, which was a modification of Russian/Soviet rifle, Mosin?. With it the rather long movement of the bolt handle would have reduced the ROF in aimed fire.

juha
 
Soren

Your point says that is is a good hunting rifle, thats all. I am just reporting what other posts are saying. You should take your grievances up with the author.

Another post that i read said that with regard to the big three BAs,

1) The US produced a target rifle
2) The Germans produced a sporting rifle
3) The British produced a combat rifle

I am not suggesting that the german defeat, or the British victory were entirely due to one factor, or one weapon system. What this rather light hearted comment made by another, and reported by me is saying, is that the rifles contributed to those respective outcomes.

The important things for you to take away from my post is really quite simple.

1) Your dour approach to this issue is in stark contrast to the way other forums are handling this issue. In the end you are achieving little, because your reputation is preceding you. Nobody really wants to talk to you about anything, because you refuse to listen and are not talking to people, you are lecturing, often when it is obvious that you do not have the knowledge to do that

2) There is a wide divergence of opinion regarding which rifle was superior

3) The war ended more than 60 years ago, and our discussions are not going to change the outcome one bit. The purpose of these discussions are to exchange information, and enjoy the experience, not walk into the forum with jackboots already on
 
My brother was a qualified gunsmith for some years working for Leech and sons of Chelmsford (sadly now no longer in business) although he worked mainly in the sporting weapon field producing tailor made furniture for gaming pieces he did work on historic collections and in his opinion of the standard issued army bolt action rifles the SMLE was the best engineered weapon
For a mass produced rifle with consistancy in accuracy and quality of finish.
 
Someone also made comment about indifferent quality of ammunition having a great risk of exploding the enfield. In twenty years of working around them, i have never seen a single failure of the gun due to poor ammunition. There are only be two possibilities arising from that

1) I have been incredibly lucky and not encountered bad ammunition
2) The enfield is more resistant to bad ammunition than the claim would suggest

In addition the enfield was incredibly strong as its performace in the jungle during the war would surely suggest. There were numerous instances of rifles being fired, after the barrels were completely fouled by mud and water. If the weapon was unreliable, it was hardly ever reported by the troops using it.

For that matter,neither did the Japanese, who were using the arisaka, essentially a modified Mauser action. My opinion is that each rifle was very similar in terms of reliability. However several of the posts on other sites report that the Mauser did on occasion jam up in the snow, because the bolt was machined to too finer tolerances. I cant confirm that, but it was reported on several of the sites that I visited
 
Nice work, Glider! I remembered reading about the good rifle work of the "Old Contemptibles" in 1914 but could not remember where I read it. Perhaps in Tuchman's "Guns of August?" The "Old Contemptibles" were the British regulars in 1914, getting their nickname when the Kaiser called them "that contemptible little army." Most were gone by 1915.
 
Glider,

The SMLE doesn't have a habbit of blowing up, that's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is that if you use to highly powered ammunition it WILL blow up, the action simply can't take very high pressures. That is one of the reasons the M98 action is so popular, you can load rounds to such high pressures that the cartridge will crack (approx. 68,000 psi), and the M98 still holds no sweat and safely vents the escaping gasses. Like I said you can weld the barrel shut and the action takes in no problem - a SMLE will blow up in your face in such a scenario.

German snipers had access to special batches of ammunition which was of a higher quality than normal ammo to ensure accuracy.
Click to expand...

Err, no. Some Snipers "stole" (Besorgen) higher powered V-patr. (V = Verbesserte = Improved) used by the LW for an extra 150m of effective range, but the quality of the round was the same, excellent, the only difference being that the V-patr. featured a more potent propellant charge.
 
Your point says that is is a good hunting rifle, thats all. I am just reporting what other posts are saying. You should take your grievances up with the author.
Click to expand...

Parsifal not only hunting rifles also military rifles!

The M98 has been massed produced since its introduction and nearly every bolt action sniper rifle, hunting rifle sporting rifle today are of the same design, THAT speaks for itself.

Another post that i read said that with regard to the big three BAs,

1) The US produced a target rifle
2) The Germans produced a sporting rifle
3) The British produced a combat rifle
Click to expand...

Parsifal what you read in other forums and posts has no merit at all.

The Germans produced a target rifle, combat rifle, sporting rifle hunting rifle all in one. The Karabiner 98k was THE most accurate rifle of WW2, both by virtue of the ammunition used and the design of the weapon.

Now the German Mauser K98k and US M1903 Springfield are completely similar in design, the only difference being a two piece firing pin being used on the Springfield. The Springfield however fired a much lighter, less stable and therefore less accurate round.
 
I have a question about firearms performance and since this thread is about combat rifles and there are so many "experts" participating, LOL, I would like to get the benefit of the wisdom which is so abundantly present. I am an "expert" in handloading(not really) but used to do quite a bit. I know that barrel length using modern smokeless powder, depending on the burn rate of the powder, has an effect on muzzle velocity. For instance, My #1 Ruger has a 26" barrel, my model 77 Ruger has a 22" barrel and my 1895 Browning has a 24" barrel. With a slow burning powder like H4831, the velocity gain over a 22" barrel of a 26" barrel was, I think, 400fps, although it may have only been 200 fps,( my books are mostly packed.) So, there is a good reason for the long barrels used on infantry weapons in WW2 besides sight radius or other considerations. This would also be true regarding naval guns and artillery pieces. Most naval guns in the larger calibres were 50 cal, meaning the barrel length was 50 time the bore diameter, where as many of the dual purpose weapons in 5 inch or less were 38 calibre or even 25 calibre. Now, here comes my question. Since black powder was not progressive burning and it consumed itself, once ignited,in one big flash, why did smooth bore muskets and naval guns as well as artillery pieces have such long barrels with the attendant weight and unhandyness? Even in rifled muskets would not the short barreled cavalry carbines have the same MV of the longer barreled infantry versions? An extreme example of this would be the Walker Colt, first used in combat by the Texas Rangers and later the US Army in the Mexican War. Reputedly the Walker had a longer effective range than the smooth bore muskets used by both sides in most cases. The Walker was a monster( I have held one and it weighs four pounds, nine ounces and the barrel was nine inches) and carried a huge powder charge. It's muzzle energy was close to the same as a modern 357 magnum, throwing a bigger bullet at a lower velocity than the 357. If that could be accomplished with a pistol, why the long barrels of the muskets?
 
For the record, this quote has been misquoted...here is the full text of my post

One of the discussion boards I posted raises a point, which I think will bring a smile to this rather dour discussion. Basically the Mauser as the main sidearm of nations has not won, or helped to win a single war for its owners, whereas the enfield has won every major conflict that it was a part of. Havent checked the veracity of these claims, and it was a very tongue in cheek statement, but it kinda makes you think for a minute.....does that mean that for the greatest poll, ie the ones that matter, ie the two world wars, that the enfield is leading 2-0 over the mauser????
 
Richard

You would know more than I on this subject, but in the simplest terms, barrel length isnt only about MV, I think it is also about achieving better accuracy as well. in the case of muzzle loaders, the long barrel i think is required to make the very heavy and none too ballistic ball travel as straight as possible
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Agreed but to in contrast to what you believe not everything the Germans made was superior to what the allies made...
Click to expand...

I don't believe everything the Germans made was superior to everything the Allies made. When have I ever said that ?

In your previous post you tried to make it look like I claimed the K98k was a better std. infantry rifle than the Garand! I've always said the exact opposite!

So perhaps if you read my posts a little better you wont get that faulty impression of me.
 

I read your posts just fine Soren, just like everyone else. Frankly it is getting very old, very quick.

Here I will give you an example of what convos with you sound like:

12345 said: British Field Rations were great!

Soren said: Thats Bullshit! German Rats were way better!

6789 siad: American Band Aids are great!

Soren said: Utter Rubbish and nothing more than Allied propaganda! German Band Aids were far superior.
 
A longer barrel increases MV, hence why the German AT guns were of such a high lenght caliber.

However depending on the ammo used the barrel can only be so long before it decreases MV. If for example you use a 740mm barrel for a 9x19mm round the bullet will just lodge itself in the barrel.

For AT guns a lenght caliber ratio of 71 - 73 is generally believed to be the optimum before MV stops increasing and starts to drop.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I read your posts just fine Soren, just like everyone else.
Click to expand...

Well no you obviously don't.



Hehe despite having never said anything like that I'd like to see real examples which resemble it thank you.
 
Soren said:
Hehe despite having never said anything like that I'd like to see real examples which resemble it thank you.
Click to expand...



I am not going to waste my ****ing time going back and finding your ****ing posts.

People are tired of the Bullshit Soren! Why do you think people dont get along with you?

1. They are tired of you talking down to them.
2. They are tired of your holier than thou attitude.
3. They are tired of the Everything German is better than anything else BS.

Why are you so ****ing blind to it!

I actually agree with a lot of what you say about different topics, but I hate the way your present yourself.

Get over yourself Soren...

I will let this go for now, because this is not the place for it.
 
Adler,

I don't talk down to people if they don't talk down to me. If you care to look back you'll see when I start talking down to people it has always been triggered by them starting off talking down to me.

Take Parsifal for example, he pushed my buttons when he used the phrase "If you want to be further demolished". What kind of thing is that if not demeaning to say ?? And hence I lost my respect for him that very second as it showed me he knows nothing of what he's talking about (There was no Mk43).

Anyway like you said this isn't the place to discuss this, so I'll leave it for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
The OV-10 Fought ISIS
Replies
0
Views
576
MIflyer
M
THE A-10 THUNDERBOLT II Attack Aircraft AKA The Warthog
Replies
4
Views
848
Denniss
D
A-10 THUNDERBOLT II "Warthog." The Untold Story And Things You Might Not Know, Part 2
Replies
0
Views
524
Dronescapes
A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog". The Untold Story And Things You Might Not Know
Replies
1
Views
616
Gnomey
M
Last USAF KC-10A Heads For The Boneyard
Replies
14
Views
763
MIflyer
M
Menu
Log in
Register