What is the best rifle of WWII?

[Zniperguy114]

Here are the stantard issue rifles of the following nations in WWII:

America: M1 Garand/M1 Carbine
Germany:Kar98K
USSR:Mosin Nagant M1891/30
Japan:Arisaka Type 98/38

Choose the one you think is the best!

 

[parsifal]

Why isnt the Lee Enfield included, or the Stg 44. You might also consider the Mannlicher Carcano series

 

[Kurfürst]

Or the Tokarev SVT, G41/G43 semiatuo rifles for that matter...

Though the M1 Garand is an obvious choice overall. Semi-autos are more practical than bolt action rifles, that goes without saying. At least on the level of the individual soldier, on wider view, it also matters a lot what your other buddies carry..

 

[ToughOmbre]

Gotta be the Garand!

Because I own one!

TO

 

[Zniperguy114]

I didn't name a few of the rifles because they wern't as common nor as in servivce long in the war, like the Stg44. It came too late to save germany, and even though it was mass produced, it saw limited service in all fronts except the russian front. As for the Lee-Enfield, It was only used by Britian (and its colonies and loyal former colonies except america)and saw some use in the french resestance. In my Opinion, Britian was the smallest of the main contributers to the war, even though it was once the only allie left. As for the rest of the rifles named, and the ones i have already named, have no excuse to be excluded. sorry, but can you guys, of the rifles listed, choose the best still?
Restpectfully,
Zniper

 

[parsifal]

The Arisaka was only used by Japan, produced to about 10 million copies, and equipped perhaps 100 Division altogether.

Atleast 17 million copies of the Lee Enfield were built, and equipped no less than 120 divisions during the war (roughly....52 Brit Divs, 12 Canadian, 40 Indian, 12 Australian, 4 NZ, 2 Burmese, 4 South African, 6 west and east african). It was used to equip formations of free french and other forces in exile, and by several European nations as well, on substantial, but not exclusive basis. It was used to equip Abysynnian guerillas in 1941, as well as a whole range of independant militias. It was supplied to the Chinese. It easily outproduced and out equipped foreign forces compared to the garand. I wont say the Garand was only used to equip the US forces during the war, because I know that isnt true, but it is valid for me to say that compared to the lee enfield, the distribution of the Garand to foreign forces was on a miniscule scale.

If you are going to exclude a weapon as widespread and important as the Lee Enfield, how about getting your facts right first.....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

In my Opinion, Britian was the smallest of the main contributers to the war, even though it was once the only allie left. Zniper

Oh boy, wait until all the Brits, Aussies, Canadians, etc... see this thread...

Edit: I added the Lee Enfield. It was one of the major contributers like it or not.

 

[evangilder]

In my Opinion, Britian was the smallest of the main contributers to the war, even though it was once the only allie left.

You may want to read more before you make a statement like that.

For your fact bank, the British had about 452,000 military casualties in WWII, the US, about 295,000 military casualties. That would make the US even smaller of a contributor. Numbers vary widely according to sources, but the British had more casualties than the Americans. They were also in the sights of the Germans for a long time. The US had the benefit of a large water mass to protect us from the Germans.

How many countries do you think were part of the allies???

 

[parsifal]

Thanks Adler,

Having had my mandatory dummy spit over the initial choice, i should make a contribution I guess. For me the best overall rifle was the Garand, however, both the K-98 and the Enfield were very good bolt actions. The difference is in the technology....both the bolt actions were developed in the late 19th century, whilst the Garand was 40 years younger. Soren managed to convince me many arguments ago that the K-98 was a better ranged weapon, but I think as a battle rifle, the enfield was better overall. It had trhe priceless advantage of a 10 round magazine, and the rate of fire for the Enfield was better as well.

Both rifles were relatively expensive to build, using machined parts instead of stampings and forgings like the MP-40 SMG. The Garand also had this problem. It took quite a bit of training to build even average proficiency in both rate of fire and accuracy for any bolt action, compared to the garand, according to most of the books I have, though I am not quite sure why. The Lee Enfield was modified with the mk-4, to simplify the sghts and make it easier to train men to a certain standard, though these sights were somewhat less accurate than the original types fitted to the MkIII. It was not really necessary to train soldiers on the garand to get their ROF up, they could let the machine do it by itself.

But sepite my affinity to the Enfield, and my belief that it was the best bolt action of the war, I still think the garand was the best overall. If the StG-44 had been included I would say that rifle was the best....but it aint here

 

[Vincenzo]

the advantage of semiauto rifles it's too large, garand it's the best,
i don't understand because the M 1 carabine it's in the poll


p.s. and garand it's alone rifle that i used

 

[Colin1]

In my Opinion, Britain was the smallest of the main contributors to the war, even though it was once the only ally left.
Respectfully

Respectfully?
We'll assume the capital 'o' for opinion was a freudian slip..

If I don't ask you someone else will
facts, figures, statistics, manufacturing output, boots on ground from mainland UK, operational aircraft from UK factories, naval force projection out of British shipyards.

Then compare and contrast with the same for our Allies - we don't however, pretend to have the industrial might and capacity of the US.

We'll overlook the fact that the two best fighters in the world at the time were fighting for the fate of the free world and one of them was ours.

Of course, you may have meant the smallest geographically...

 

[renrich]

TO, the serial number of "my" Garand in basic was 5182609. It was made by International Harvester, I think, and was very accurate. You don't happen to have it, do you? At a guns show in Montrose, CO during the early nineties, I saw a Garand that was very close to that serial number. Despite being broke, I would have bought it if it had been "my" rifle. Obviously, I voted for the Garand, but agree with Michael that the Enfield was a great battle rifle, because of it's ROF, superior to the Mauser.

 

[stona]

In my Opinion, Britian was the smallest of the main contributers to the war, even though it was once the only allie left.
Restpectfully,
Zniper

As that's your opinion I won't dignify it with a reply. I'll just say you need to read a lot more.
Steve

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Thanks Adler,

Having had my mandatory dummy spit over the initial choice, i should make a contribution I guess. For me the best overall rifle was the Garand, however, both the K-98 and the Enfield were very good bolt actions. The difference is in the technology....both the bolt actions were developed in the late 19th century, whilst the Garand was 40 years younger. Soren managed to convince me many arguments ago that the K-98 was a better ranged weapon, but I think as a battle rifle, the enfield was better overall. It had trhe priceless advantage of a 10 round magazine, and the rate of fire for the Enfield was better as well.

re

I agree with you about the K98. I think it was an excellent ranged weapon (2nd to none), but I would rather carry a Garand into battle. I have a K98 back in the states and it shoots very very well.

 

[tomo pauk]

Since the German FG-42, G-41 -43 and Russian SVT-38 -40 are omitted, how about making separate, repeating-rifle self-loading-rifle polls?

 

[Demetrious]

I love the Springfield, much for the same reason I love the Kar98- they were both reliable, powerful battle rifles that never let their users down. (The Springfield was such a shameful copy of the excellent Kar98 that Springfield had to pay Mauser royalties after WWI, IIRC.) They're essentially the same rifle, and excellent ones at that.

With all that said, though, the M-1 used the same full-sized, powerful round, and the same ruggedness, but combined it with a semi-automatic capability that gave American forces superior firepower in every theater of war from the word "go." (Springfield-equipped Marines in the early Pacific days nonwithstanding.) It was heavy, yes, but that helped hold down the beastly recoil of the rifle, so it was a net plus. No other rifle did so much to further it's nations victories then the M-1, in my opinion, both because of it's technical superiority and it's ruggedness and power.

 

[timshatz]

Anybody on this board spend any time shooting the Nagant? I've got a carbine I've fired from time to time and a full sized rifle as well. Both of them have flakey actions. Rattle around a lot (I know that it was intended that way) but I find ejecting spent cartridges to be a hassle. Usually, they don't come out well, if at all.

Anybody else have that problem? I've tried several different bolts in both weapons and the problem is the same.

 

[Demetrious]

Anybody on this board spend any time shooting the Nagant? I've got a carbine I've fired from time to time and a full sized rifle as well. Both of them have flakey actions. Rattle around a lot (I know that it was intended that way) but I find ejecting spent cartridges to be a hassle. Usually, they don't come out well, if at all.

Anybody else have that problem? I've tried several different bolts in both weapons and the problem is the same.

I'm sure somebody has. The Moisn Nangant was so over-produced by the Russians during the war that endless quantities of surplus rifles are still knocking around, and can be had for $80-120 dollars in some cases.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"..... In my Opinion, Britian was the smallest of the main contributers to the war, even though it was once the only allie left"

Give your head a shake.

MM

 

[ToughOmbre]

TO, the serial number of "my" Garand in basic was 5182609. It was made by International Harvester, I think, and was very accurate. You don't happen to have it, do you? At a guns show in Montrose, CO during the early nineties, I saw a Garand that was very close to that serial number. Despite being broke, I would have bought it if it had been "my" rifle. Obviously, I voted for the Garand, but agree with Michael that the Enfield was a great battle rifle, because of it's ROF, superior to the Mauser.

No ren, unfortunately it's not your Garand. It's a Springfield Armory (1485424). When I traced the serial number I found that it was manufactured in April 1943.

Actually, read a story though about a guy who bought his father a Garand for his 80th birthday. Turned out that the rifle was the exact one that his father carried during thre Korean War. And with 5,468,772 M1s produced, the odds of that happening is like winning the lottery.

TO