The top 10 combat rifles (2 Viewers)

[parsifal]

Parsifal, I agree with your Aussies who believe the M16 lacks killing power. I am not a combat veteren but have killed a lot of game and consider the .223 inadequate for deer which are about the same body weight as a man. When I was on active duty in 61-62, I carried a carbine and it was easy to carry and handy but if we had gone into combat against the Warsaw Pact countries, I would have wanted something more powerful. To me something on the order of the power of the 7x57 would be ideal in a self loading battle rifle and I don't believe full auto is necessary. One more thing on the Garand. If one has a stoppage he is reduced to a bolt action rifle which was the same as the Mauser or Arisaka.

In some respects, not killing your opponent is more a burden on your enemy, than killing him outright. The effort needed to get the guy off the battlefield, and then rehabilitated is a heavy burden on any army. At Squad level, wounding even one of the guys can pretty much bring the forward motion of the squad to a halt. Its eithe that, or leave the wounded guy to his own devices.

On the o0ther hand, I believe that a wounded guy is quite dangerous. Even guys who have been hit fatally, for a few seconds can be pumped with adrenalin and still cause a lot of havoc. This is basically how a lot of Purple hearts (and in Aus, Victoria Crosses) are awarded. The guy just dos not know how to stop.

Gorey subject.....not my favourite

 

[renrich]

Parsifal, you have hit on,to me, an interesting question. Why would the US go into WW2 with a modern rifle like the Garand and a country like Germany that was always pretty much in the forefront of weapon design still arm it's troops with a design dating back to the 1800s? The US Army was not noted for developing revolutionary small arms in spite of a thriving gun industry in the US. Our troops were somewhat out gunned by the Indians at the Little Big Horn. Many of them had repeaters while the 7th was armed with single shot trap door Springfields which was a design that was a modified muzzle loader. Our troops in some cases were still using that trap door Springfield in 1898 during the Spanish American War while many of the Spanish had Mausers. Our handguns in the Phillipines during the Phillipine Insurrection were a SW 38 that was so puny the Army had to recondition a bunch of 1873 cavalry model Colts 45s in order to put down a Moro. Even the 03 Springfield was a knock off of the Mauser and we had to learn from the Germans that a spitzer bullet would give much better performance than our round nosed heavy bullets. Yet, the US adopted the semi-auto Garand in the 30s to replace thousands of 03s and 1917 Enfields that were still servicable. One can somewhat understand the British sticking with the SMLE because in the 20s and 30s they were too busy spending money on social programs to do much upgrading of their military. But Germany when Hitler came to power was spending money like a drunken sailor on it's miltary but left it's infantry with an outmoded bolt action. Hitler was an infantryman also but must have forgotten his beginnings. Thanks be too or there would have been a lot more dead Allied soldiers. On the M16 topic, a book called "We Were Soldiers Once and Young" coauthored by Lt Gen Hal Moore about a battle in the Ia Drang valley in 1965 states that they part of the credit for their survival against great odds goes to the M16. I know Hal very well and I never got around to asking him why he said that. To me, that light bullet with high velocity would not make a good jungle weapon. A heavier bullet at somewhat lower velocity would not be as likely to be deflected by a twig or big leaf.

 

[parsifal]

Hi Renrich

US has always had a strong civilian arms industry , and guns play a significant part in the upbringing of most American lads. Consequently, even if the army went into certain bwars somewhat less than well equipped, there was a strong indigenous market that could support a bevy of gun manufacturers. With large numbers of gun manufacturers, comes competition, with competition comes innovation. hence while the army sometimes lagged, the country never has.

Firms such as Winchester, Colt, Remington, Smith Wesson, Harrington and Richardson and many others were always ready to react to government cpontracts.

The weapons carried were selected by Ordinance department of the Department Of the Army. No other country had quite the same level of centraizedplanned procurement (except the USSR I guess). Germany, in particular, did not have nearly the same rigid, disciplined approach to procurement. The rigid procurement machine, coupled with the strong domestic suppliers, gave the US the ability to produce the best of sidearms.

The garand was the product of numerous committee recommendations and tests, but ultimately it was forced through as the main US sidearm by General macarthur

The US procurement mechanism was is really the best in the world. Unlike the Axis powers, the Americans selected good designs from the begining, but more importantly used standardised ammunition sizes that reduced the logistic difficultires enormously. Compare this to say italy, who at last count had something like twenty two differnt types of small arms ammunition.

The 30-06 cartridge can be criticized today, but in 1940 it had few equals.
The .45 in pistol ammunition was a tad big, but it at least gave the US ttroops the confidence to believe it had a killer knockout punch.

So, in essence the American advantages were a strong domesticc market, and a centralized and professional procurement machine. it was a war winning formula

By contrast the germans lacked this central control, believe it or not. Nazi Germany was more like a series of feudal fiefdoms rather than a highly centralized government system. This is the fundamental weakness of the Fascist system, one man cannot run everything, so he delegates to people without any real methods of accounting. The normal system of checks and balances, and accountability that we aree used to simply is not there.

The decision to adopt the 98K seems to be the result that all the talent in the general Staff was being lured into the more exotic areas, like transport, tanks, airborne and the like. Also by 1935 germanies economic and factory space situation was already starting to shown the signs of overburden. The adoption of the 98K was a quick and easy expedient that suited the economic and industrial situation facing germany at the time.

In other areas the germans showed great vision. German small arms industry had, as its trademark, the ability to turn out many weapons with a minimum of machining. The redesigned MP40 is an excellent example of this. It takes roughl;y half the factory time to produce as compared to the MP-38, and about a third as much less againas the thompson. The really big issue with small arms, when thinking on a national scale is not so much the quality of the side arm, but the quantity. The overriding issue needs to be output. That, and standardization are the number one priorities for any nation. The US got the design issues right, had vastly more factory space (so was not so worried about manufacturing times or costs), and adopted standardized ammunition from the very start.

The M-16 is a good weapon, its just that its "philosphy" in the Jungle is not so great. The big thing about the jungle are stealth, not firepower (well, not until you ahve located your enemy). The other thing, in my opinion, is the limited logistic system. You cannot feel more naked, if you are stuck out in a foxhole somewhere, and have used up your last clip firing wildly into the jungle. your scared Sh*tl**ss, and you have an automatic weapon on your shoulder, what are yoou going to do, fire in every direction, I would think

 

[renrich]

Parsifal, I believe your explanation about the Germans sticking to the Mauser 98 may be on the mark. I am still a little surprised that the US adopted the Garand. An example about the thinking of the US Army was that during the Civil War an inventor offered the Army the Spencer carbine, a breech loading with seven shot magazine repeating rifle with metallic cartridges. The army turned it down. The story is that the inventor got in to see Lincoln and he took the carbine out to shoot it in the yard at the White House. Lincoln liked it and advised the Army to adopt it. They bought some in the carbine and musket model and it served well. Our boys(Confederates) hated it. After the war, the army discarded the Spencer and went to the trap door single shot Springfield. Go figure.

 

[parsifal]

yep, some decisions are like that.....not much to add i guess. I am waiting for the germanophiles to arrive to be honest

 

[Matt308]

Top 10 in modern history? Don't get me wrong, I admire the G36. But Top 10? That's rareified air.

 

[SoD Stitch]

To me, that light bullet with high velocity would not make a good jungle weapon. A heavier bullet at somewhat lower velocity would not be as likely to be deflected by a twig or big leaf.

The theory was (and it has more or less been borne out) that most combat, especially in the jungle, took place at <100 yards; a larger bullet was not required for these ranges and, also, a soldier is able to carry about twice as much 5.56mm ammo as 7.62mm ammo. Yes, "leaves twigs" make a difference, but if there are leaves twigs between you the enemy, you probably can't see him anyway; that's what the M60 was for.

 

[parsifal]

Nevertheless, firing blind, and wildly is only going to give away your position, and use up precious ammunition. IMO, it is better use of ammunition to locate your enemy first, and then use targetted fire to eliminate the threat, rather than just rely on the squads firepower advantage.

 

[gazzaMAN]

AK47 is ok but the 74su is much betterand the austyer (austalia's modified version of the steyer AUG) is much better screw the AK47

and the austeyer has a small muzzle flash compared to the ak47 parsfal is right about muzzle flash giving away your position

 

[davparlr]

Parsifal, I believe your explanation about the Germans sticking to the Mauser 98 may be on the mark. I am still a little surprised that the US adopted the Garand. An example about the thinking of the US Army was that during the Civil War an inventor offered the Army the Spencer carbine, a breech loading with seven shot magazine repeating rifle with metallic cartridges. The army turned it down. The story is that the inventor got in to see Lincoln and he took the carbine out to shoot it in the yard at the White House. Lincoln liked it and advised the Army to adopt it. They bought some in the carbine and musket model and it served well. Our boys(Confederates) hated it. After the war, the army discarded the Spencer and went to the trap door single shot Springfield. Go figure.

You are right about this. Other weapons turned down that could have shortened the Civil war was the Henry and Gatlin. I guess someone was inspired by the Garand. We certainly didn't know how to build and test torpedos!

As for the Garand, as far as common issue infantry weapon of WWII, it is superior to all, too much fire power. In all my exposure to military history, I have never heard the M-1 being less than rugged and I think most military historians will consider it one of the worlds great rifles (along with the Mauser, Lee Enfield, Springfield).

If I were choosing sides of squads, and both squads were of equal capability and one side had any sort of bolt action, Mauser, Lee Enfield, and the other had M-1s, I would certainly pick the M-1 side in a typical WWII battlefield environment. The M-1 squad could just put up too much firepower. So, don't pick any bolt action over an M-1 for typical combat.

 

[parsifal]

I think it goes without too much argument that a semi-autometic self loader, is going to have ahigher rate of fire than any bolt actions. The best of the bolt actionss must be the British 0.303 SMLE Lee Enfield. it gave a trained soldier the theoretical rate of fire of 15 RPM. Thats quite adequate, but to achieve 15 RPM of accurate fire, you newed a lot of practice, and thats the problem in wartime. The average grunt is never going to be better than an average shot, at best, and never goiong to achieve 15 RPM of accurate fire. This is a figure easily achieved on a semi-autometic rifle. If you assume 1 shot per moving target, a Garand equipped soldier might get off 15-20 RPM of accurate fire (ie within about a metre of the target, over 100 metre ranges. I am not completely sure of these figures, would not mind some help from someone with better, more complete experience on the M1

 

[renrich]

Parsifal, it has been a long time, 1959, since I was in basic and I have never been in combat but our rapid fire exercise was we started with a round in the chamber and when the order was given to commence firing we had 10 seconds to fire that round load a new clip and fire eight at a target at 100 yards from the prone position. It was easy to get off that many rounds in that time and with a loop sling from prone it was pretty easy to stay in the black which as I remember was a 20 inch bull. I recall the orders from the range officer were: "Lock one round load, the flag is up, the flag is waving, the flag is down, you have ten seconds.........commence firing! There would be about 75 or so men on the firing line and after the firing order you would hear someone bust that first cap, then another and another and then as the clips were loaded a nonstop rattle of musketry until the order to cease fire. I would say that under ideal conditions a well trained man with the Garand could get off 40-50 aimed rounds in a minute. The "Old Contemptibles" the British regulars in August, 1914, were trained to get off it seems to me about twenty rounds per minute of accurate fire at ranges of up to 800 yards at enemy troops in the open. When the Germans first met that kind of fire they thought they up against machine guns.

 

[parsifal]

Hi Renrich
Yes What you are describing is the basic way that basic, basic rifle fire is taught. I went through the same sort of training.

How the effective rate of fire is calculated, i am not exactly sure, but I recall that when I did my QMGs course (which was a precursor to more advanced small arms courses), I had to pass an excercise that was rather more difficult. I was on the range, with an instructor behind me. There were multiple numbered targets down the range, at distances that varied from between 150 to 300 metres. The instructor would call out a number behind me, I would sight up, and have to hit the target I think three times (cant remember exactly how many). I had to hit a certain number of targets, a certain number of times, in a given time period. This was a much harder excercise than the one you have described

With what equates to moving targets, the effective rates of fire drops greatly, and in those circumstances, the theoretical rate of fire advantage of the garand might not be as great as you say.

In close combat the Garand had definite advantages. basically, you dont need to aim, you just fire. So in a trench assault, once you made it to the enemy trench the Garand in my opinion would probably be have a real advantage. But not as much as might be expected. The weapon par excellance in the trench situation has to be the SMG. It only takes one or two SMGs per squad in the close combat to negate all benefits the semi-auto equipped squad might otherwise enjoy (this is whether or not both sides have the benefit of an SMG). Intersetingly, SMGs are pretty much seen as obsolete nowadays. i think this is because close assaults of the kind I am describing are considered pretty rare. i wonder how the Iraqi vets think about that theory!!!!

Dont get me wrong, I am not trying to bring out some sort of revisionist history to assert that the bolt actions were somehow equal or superior to the semi autos. They are not. But what I am saying is that the margin of difference in squad firepower as a result of the garand alone is not as great as might be assumed by the theory.

Regards

Michael

 

[Soren]

Parsifal,

I can't agree with you I'm afraid. The German smallarms industry was infact well ahead of anyone elses, Germany's clear lead in aerodynamics ballistics combined with their prowess in engineering enabling them to produce more advanced and effective weapons ammunition than anyone else.

For example Germany was the first country to design, build and deploy a truly effective dual purpose machine gun, the MG-34. The MG-34 was a breakthrough in machine gun design, being very light, accurate, fast firing and beltfed it was like no other MG in history and no'one had anything like it. To no surprise the Allies really came to fear this weapon and even more so its improved offspring, the MG42, arguably the best machine gun in history.

In North Africa where the were many large open stretches of land the British came to refer to the MG34 42 as automatic cannons, as they were often being engaged at ranged past 3000m, and effectively so, much to the surprise of the poor British troops caught in the fire.

The Allies failed to design any such effective machine gun during the war.

As for SMGs, well the Germans were the first to put these to use during WW1 and the Wehrmacht were very well equipped with SMGs at the breakout of WW2, infact it was equipped with more SMGs than any other army of any other nation.

Moving on to rifles,

Well the StG.44 was the best infantry rifle/smallarm of the entire war, and the G-43 was a very good semi auto rifle which was comparable to the Garand.

On the StG.44:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SccU2BppZeg

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOFSdtUUQj0
Being fired (one alongside AK-47):

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_XIN7VMUzc

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRYm11j3wwA

Germany also fielded the most accurate sniper-rifle of the war, the bolt action Karabiner 98K. Being the prime smallarm for most German soldiers up until very late in the war, it lacked the firepower of the semi automatic rifle and was very much due to be replaced as the std. infantry rifle by either the G43 or StG.44, it however came completely into its own right once deployed as a dedicated sniper rifle. Equipped with the best optics in the world ranging from 1.5, 4, 6 to 8x scopes from Zeiss or Hensoldt Dural-Dialytan, and firing heavy boattailed projectiles, it was every sharpshooter's dream rifle. For long range sniping nothing came close.

As for ammunition;

Germany was the first nation to deploy boattailed projectiles as-well, the most common types being the heavy, low drag and very high BC 198gr Patr. sS [Schwere SpitzGeschoss] FMJ-BT projectile and the 178gr Patr. SmE [SpitzGeschoss mit Eisenkern] AP FMJ-BT projectile. These two projectiles feature very high ballistic coefficients, the Patr. sS having one around .580 to .590, while Patr. SmE has one around .510 to .520, MUCH higher than any Allied rifle projectile of WW2 and infact also higher than todays 7.62mm M118 Matchking sniper projectiles.

The 30-06 cartridge can be criticized today, but in 1940 it had few equals.

It did have one superior though, the 7.92x57mm Mauser.

The .45 in pistol ammunition was a tad big, but it at least gave the US ttroops the confidence to believe it had a killer knockout punch.

The key word is "believe" as the 9x19mm Parabellum is more accurate and has a high kinetic energy. Nonetheless the effect is the same, they're both sidearms and so they aren't knock overs.

 

[parsifal]

Hi Soren,

No argument that the german small arms industry was advanced, but its procurement machine left a lot to be desired. The US was streets ahead of them on that score.

My comments, are directed almost exclusively about the selection of the 98K as their main sidearm. As a combat rifle it was not particulalry accurate because of the configuration of the sights, which were unfortunately too short to be effective. I dont have any real criticisms of the sniper version, its the main combat version that I am critical of.

The really big drawbacks of the 98K were threefold. Firstly it has a relatively slow bolt action. if you accept the Lee Enfield as having a theoretical rate of fire equalling 20 rounds per minute, then the mauser has to be rated at about half that, ie 10 rounds per minute. if the Enfield is 20 rounds per minute, the Garand is 30 rounds per minute. This means that the standard german Infantryman is going into battle at a marked disadvantage compared to his opponents.

Secondly, the magazine capacity is only five rounds, compared to the enfields ten, and the garands eight. The small magazine capacity only serves to reinforce the slow action of the bolt. It decreases even further the amount of firepower that the standrard german Infantryman can generate.

The last weakness of the design is not unique to the 98K, the same criticism can also be levelled at both the enfield and the garand. All three weapons were relatively expensive to construct, using the time honoured methods of vast amounts of machinng, lathe turning and the like. This is wasteful in terms of time, and in terms of materials. The majority of steel used in the fabrication of these weapons ends up as floor waste on the factory floor. But whereas the US, and to a lesser extent, the british, had the steel making capacity to absorb this waste, the germans did not, So in that sense, the choice of the 98K as a mainstay weapon becomes even more difficult to comphrehend

The G-43s and G-44s that you mention were both quite good, But they each had problems. The G-43 was somewhat poorly balanced, and quite heavy, its unloaded weight was 9lb 8oz, compared to the 8lb weight for the 98K. It had the same weight as the garand, but the garand was a nearly perfectly balanced weapon.

The MK43 was never going to amount to more than a sideshow curiosity (given its late introduction at the end of the war), for one reason, its ammunition. It needed the production of a special reduced power round. If it had been more widely adopted, it would have meant that the vast amounts of "old style" 7.92 mm rounds would have been obsolete. the germans could have introduced a dual logistics system, but this would doubled their logistics problems, and undoubtedly led to many embarrasing moments at the front.

As I said at the beginning, the germans certainly displayed great ingenuity in their production of certain items, this is particularly true of their MGs, SMGs, and late war self loaders and semi autos. But they were badly let down by their procurement machinery, which meant, of the big three (US, Brit and germany) they were relatively, the worst equipped forces for the most part. they were consistently short of weapons and ammunition as the war progressed. Against the russians i am not as sure, but can quite easily look into the issue. I have heard from several east front vets that the german SMGs were not as good as, and not as well supplied, as the russian PPSHs, despite the agricultural look of the Russian weapon.....but i will leave this for now.

Your comments about the german ammunition are noted and accepted, although I really question the need for even more hitting power....the problem with the old wartime rounds was not that they were not powerful enough, but in fact were too powerful. modern ballistics, tends towards lighter weight and calibre rounds, with a reduced power rating. this makes the design of of firing mechanisms much easier, and there is no real sign that killing power is that badly affected...so i guess my question to your suggestion about german rounds being more powerful is...so what

 

[renrich]

Remarks about 9mm parabellum being more accurate and having the same effectiveness in combat as 45 ACP are not borne out by experience both in warfare and in law enforcement. Please show me how the 8x57 JS is superior to the 3006. So Germany had better gun designers than that fellow from Utah, name of Browning? Hmmmm!

 

[parsifal]

Hi renrich

I can understand your exasperation about the comments concerning the 45 cal. It was basically an elephant gun. Yanks used it to great effect in bunker busting. Its hard to believe that ther is any doubt about its effectiveness. i certainly dont have any, well, with one exception (being the adequacy of the magazine ...the number of rounds I mean).
I have to say, on the flip side, that I am an absolute follower of the browning. i never had any problems vis a viz the killing power of the 9mm (although I never killed anybody with it), and having 13 rounds up the spout is kinda cool. No-one that i know has ever criticized the browning. It is a very good pistol indeed. Another big advantage of the browning is that it used the same ammunition as that for the SMGs of the war, thereby easing logistic problems.

 

[fly boy]

Speaking of M1's, I just bought a converted Garand in a .308,great shape,new barrel, had a smith check it over.i paid 625$ for it. I know it's not a collector piece but I have a ton of .308 that I need to shoot and this will be a fun rifle to do it in. looking forward to some range time.

nice buy torch the m1 rifle is semi auto rifle so it can pack a punch

 

[SoD Stitch]

nice buy torch the m1 rifle is semi auto rifle so it can pack a punch

Adler, got another quote for your signature here . . . . .

 

[renrich]

Parsifal, I can certainly understand where you are coming from and I too have never shot anyone with either my Browning Hi power in 9mm or my two 1911s in 45ACP. However, most of the "experts" seem to think that the 45ACP is the weapon of choice for a more sure man-stopper. As you know the 45ACP was the caliber the Thompson gun was chambered in and some of the Stens were chambered in 45 also as well as the grease gun. I qualified with the 1911 and having quite a lot of handgun shooting experience including with the 41 and 44 magnum, I never found the 45 to be hard to handle. On paper, the 45 is superior to the 9mm and I understand that many of the special forces types in the Middle East are back to 1911 types in 45ACP. Strictly intuitive but I suspect that the Browning Hi Power would not be as reliable in the field as the 1911 but 13 in the mag is a lot more than 7 although a lot of the 1911 derivatives now have more mag cap.