Accuracy is always determined by those firing the weapon, whether bolt-action, semi-auto or auto...Having handled some WWII weapons during my term in the Armed Forces, they all had their uses and specialities...My preference as a general combat weapon is a semi-auto, with a reasonably 'beefy' calibre, which can give a fast rate of fire in the case of 'covering-fire' for your advancing comrades, and also slow-shot accuracy for more distant targets. Automatic weapons prime use is in close-combat situations, such as jungle or urban warfare, other than the like of Brens, GPMG's etc. which can give concentrated-fire and support. The ability to handle any weapon is directly dependant on how well you've been trained in their use. The M1 Garand was a fine weapon which I would have preferred to an Enfield, partly because they were lighter, and obviously a faster rate of fire...Thompsons were nicknamed 'choppers' because their firepower was devastating close-range, but on rapid-fire they were a handful to keep aimed. The Sten was the same, but the idea was to fire only in short bursts. As for the AK47, I have used both the Russian Chinese variant, and disliked both, they were heavy and I personally didn't like their balance, range and their 'ease of use'..., at least in comparison to their NATO counterpart, the Belgian FN SLR. There is better range hitting-power in their 7.62x51, than the AK's 7.62x39.- There is confidence in using a firearm that has been well manufactured than one that's 'stamped-out' in volume...the Sten for example, while adequate, was very basic, but stoppages and malfunctions could be dangerous to the users....