WHICH RIFLE?

My vote went to the Garand with the Mauser second. The extra firepower it gave to the infantryman had to be significant (as said by Patton). It made the bolt action obsolete (except for sniper use). The Mauser and the Enfield were similar in being excellent quality weapons. I chose the Mauser as second only because it came out before the Enfield and was also the inspiration (copy) of another excellent rifle, the Springfield.

Its interesting that Garand did not make the next step on adding a removable magazine, which would have made an even greater weapon. I have heard that was not considered because of concern of using too much ammo. A concept made obsolete by WWII. Add a full auto mode and voila, an M-14.

"was also the inspiration (copy) of another excellent rifle, the Springfield."

Umm, no.... The Springfield came into being in 1903, where the Kar 98 came into being in 1898, hence the 98 in the name.

Back on subject though, I would take the M1 Garand (again). I could easily rail off enough shots to make the enemy think they were facing a Machine Gun firing in bursts. If that didn't work, then I'd have a Garand with a calibrated scope handy, so I could hit the officers, and get the heck out of Dodge. I think there was a report from Japanese defenders at one point, when they first encounterd Americans using the M1 in large numbers. The field report says that the Japanese soldiers came under fire from what they assumed to be submachine guns and machine guns from a much larger force of Americans.

PS: If anyone has that report, can ya send it to me via PM?

davparlr, it is actually the M1903 which is a direct copy of the K98k, and in this case the original is definitely the better of the two. The americans just had to mess around with the firing pin mechanism among other things, which resulted in a weaker and less safe action than that of the K98k.

Hmmm, didn't know that!

I think the SMLE was a great bolt action, but I would have the Garand anyday. Either that or the M1 Carbine depending on what type of comabt your doing.

Garand: Long range, stopping power, accurate.
Carbine: Short range, more ammo in clip, good for use in close combat.

Hi guys, sorry for not being around of late (though I guess y'all secretly loved my absense?)


All this rapid-fire malarkey...

Ever seen a Lee-Enfield "mad-minute"??

It made German soldiers actually thought they were up against MG's!!

The bolt on the SMLE is very, very differrent (and far better IMO) than any other bolt-action rifle.

I go for the Lee-Enfield No.4 - all the virtues of the SMLE only cheaper and easier to mass produce. Also very reliable with it's free-floating barrel, just a bit heavier.

Good both at close and far range and far lighter than a Garand (lighter than an MP40 infact!!).

- Kinda like a 20th Century Longbow.


The K43 was good, but standard issue?

BTW: Does the BAR count? What about the FG42?

The Cei-Rigotti?

loomaluftwaffe said:

STANDARD-ISSUE, it is Hitlers fault that it didn't become standard issue

Click to expand...

Too true looma, his and that idiot Goerings.

Vassili Zaitzev said:

Only problem with it was the fact that it was difficult to reload mid clip so soldiers just fired off the remaining ammo in their rifle.

Click to expand...

Not that hard(?) (there's a release catch IIRC?)

BTW Vassili, a Turkish 98 should be a pretty cheap way for you to get a Mauser.

davparlr said:

I have heard that was not considered because of concern of using too much ammo. A concept made obsolete by WWII.

Click to expand...

Not obsolete (e.g. the M16 being de-autoed).

Soren said:

davparlr, it is actually the M1903 which is a direct copy of the K98k, and in this case the original is definitely the better of the two. The americans just had to mess around with the firing pin mechanism among other things, which resulted in a weaker and less safe action than that of the K98k.

Click to expand...

Yes, I stated that very poorly. I should have said that he Mauser inspired another excellent weapon, the Springfield (which was practically a copy of the Mauser). That would have been much clearer.

While I own a K98 I would have been caught dead with it in 1944 Europe. Yes I'd have been dead since firepower was the paramount concern after D-Day. The Enfield couldn't hold a candle, nor could any bolt action stick to a semi-auto. Come on you all know it! You've obviously all sloshed a bolt through its positions with the attendant loss of sight picture as you shift the weapon around during the bolt slide for shell ejection and live cartridge-to-breech action.

It's not a thing about quality or what anyone like as a favorite rifle. It's about being on par with the enemy in the high firepower mobile assault technique of France 1944.

By then the bolt action arm was completely eclipsed except in sniper work. It was as dead then as entering a battle field today would be with a semi-auto versus full automatic arms.

Twitch said:

By then the bolt action arm was completely eclipsed except in sniper work. It was as dead then as entering a battle field today would be with a semi-auto versus full automatic arms.

Click to expand...

I agree. I certainly would want to be able to squeeze off a few rounds without have to operate a bolt. It seems obvious.

schwarzpanzer said:

Not obsolete (e.g. the M16 being de-autoed).

Click to expand...

I suspect that you can still lay down a good amount of fire support with the present design, even with three shots a pull,....and not have to operate a bolt.

Like the Garand over the others. It is really in a seperate class, given it is semi-auto and the others are bolt action. You'll never get a bolt action up to the speed of a semi in RPM. Just not there. But once you take the Garand out, you are left with a much closer bunch. All had their advantages. The K98 and Springfield are very close. The K98, it is my understanding, is a carbine version of the full length rifle. And the Springfield's action is a copy of the Mauser action so much so that the German's sued the US Govt either during or after WW1 for compensation!

As for the Enfield, smooth, pretty and evenly balanced. Large magazine and very good action. Can put out a lot of rounds fast.

Arisaka is a clanky thing. Has a dusk cover that is a bit odd. Fires a 6.5mm round. Probably longer than it needs to be too.

MN is a good rifle. But the action is weird. Loose. Doesn't seem to matter if you oil the thing or not. It keeps on going.

Fired about half of the and they are all accurate, heavy kicking (though the M1 loses a tad due to the semi feature) and around 9lbs.

What I find interesting compared to newer rifles is the almost complete lack of stamped parts. All are machined. Lots of machining too. And the furniture is all wood. Not that there were other viable options (bakelite is fragile and Nylon/Polyester was just invented in the mid 30s). But there are very expensive rifles to make.

One last point, the US did graft a BAR magazine onto an M1 in the later part of the war. Called the T1 or T3, I've seen pictures of it. Looks a bit like the M1A/M14 family.

Enfield all the way for me, you can recock and keep your sights

Twitch said:

While I own a K98 I would have been caught dead with it in 1944 Europe. Yes I'd have been dead since firepower was the paramount concern after D-Day. The Enfield couldn't hold a candle, nor could any bolt action stick to a semi-auto. Come on you all know it! You've obviously all sloshed a bolt through its positions with the attendant loss of sight picture as you shift the weapon around during the bolt slide for shell ejection and live cartridge-to-breech action.

It's not a thing about quality or what anyone like as a favorite rifle. It's about being on par with the enemy in the high firepower mobile assault technique of France 1944.

By then the bolt action arm was completely eclipsed except in sniper work. It was as dead then as entering a battle field today would be with a semi-auto versus full automatic arms.

Click to expand...

Whilst I would agree that the semi auto has advantages over the Enfield and was one of the first mass production semi auto weapons overall the differences were not huge. Given the choice I would take the Garand Rifle but its worth remembering that althought the M1 stayed in service for many years it started to be replaced in 1957 I think, by the M14, which in rifle terms is quite a short period of dominance

Before this topic becomes strained by sentimental favorites and all that sillyness remember that by by 1943-44 fast moving squad tactics dictated rapid fire capability that no bolt action pre-war conceived rifle had. It was a different place out there and volume of fire was paramount. The WW I idea of popping well-aimed shots from trenches across no man's land was a long dead fantasy as was the theory of "squandering" ammo by trigger happy soldiers that every old fart establishment general knew would happen.

If you're talking "best" to kill the emeny with you need to tally semi-auto or auto rifles. Yes I have a K-98 but I'd upgrade to the M-1 and if possible to the STG 44 in a heartbeat to increase my chances of staying alive.


Volume of fire is not always the optimal approach. Where there are logistics issues such as occurred in the jungles and often on the eastern front, where re-supply to say the least was nearly always problematic, conserving ammunition was the overwhelming consideration. US soldiers armed with the high rate of fire Garand were often caught out by this when confronted with ammunition shortages and suffered inordinate casualties as a result.


The other issue to consider is concealment. Blasting away wildly has the problem of giving away your position. It adds little to your personal safety and essentially makes the infantry a target. In most battle situations, where one side has an artillery advantage (or advantage of some other description in terms of firepower, eg air support or AFV support). Friendly Infantry waits until enemy (inferior) artillery is suppressed or neutralized, then fires for effect. Defending (ie opposing) Infantry is fired upon, revealing friendly Infantry's position and often driving it into cover. However the enemy Infantry is now exposing their position and draws fire from the friendly supporting artillery and must either relocate, but more likely retreat under darkness to avoid destruction.


To maximise your own infantry's survival, in the jungle at least, it is important that you have large magazines and a reliable weapon. ROF is generally a liability because of the aforementioned logistics issue.


You may keep your garand thanks very much.

SVT-40 does count as a service weapon as it was in service and would have been standard had war not interfered.
The best 5 shot rifle I would go with the Arisaka type 38. Although the SMLE would be my choice for bolt action. One weapon which isn't on there is the MAS 36 and that should be and would be a good choice

I would choose the FG42 if I had a choice although it isn't standard but the StG44 or even StG45 would gain interest.

I suppose you would have to by default go with the Garand. Simply because it's ease of loading and semi auto fire makes it the clear favourite.
Not the most reliable in very adverse environments but tops the list.

Wouldn't pick the Mosin or the Carcano although a 7mm Mauser would be of interest.

A magazine M1 would have around if the war dragged on a year or two but isn't relevant to WW2.

Blaming the rifle for excessive ammo consumption rather over looks training/doctrine and command function (or lack of it).
Deliberately equipping your infantry with a slow firing rifle to prevent them from running out of ammo in a fire fight is an admission of inadequate training. Both of the riflemen and the non-coms or low rank officers commanding them.
Granted it is a lot easier to fire off ammo with a semi-auto but about the only ranged infantry weapons that could NOT fire off a basic load of 80 rounds in 15-20 minutes over the last 500 years would be crossbows using winches and rifled muzzle loaders using patched round balls. Granted some of the black powder guns tended to foul making it difficult (if not impossible ) to get the later rounds down the barrel.
Firing 80 rounds from a muzzle loader at 4 rounds per minute would be exhausting work but theoretically possible.
One can look at the study of guns picked up at the Battle of Gettysburg to see what some troops were capable of however. several guns were picked up with 12 or more loads rammed into the barrel and one gun had a record 22 loads of alternating powder and minie ball. One would think that the lack or recoil (or cloud of smoke coming out the barrel ) would have been a clue let alone the ramrod only going about 1/2 to 1/3 the way down the barrel. Dozens of rifles had 3 or more rounds loaded and double loaded rifles may have numbered over 100.
Does mean the the troops should have been issued bows and arrows instead so they (and the sargents ) could more readily tell if the "weapon" was loaded or not?
Anyone somewhat familiar with a bolt action magazine rifle that loaded from clips could fire 10 to 15 rounds a minute and could get rid of 80 rounds in 5 to 8 minutes.
An expert could fire a Snyder rifle at about 10 rounds per minute.
Type of action is no guarantee that careful aim at identified targets is being done.

When comparing the Garand to other rifles the comparison tends to focus on rate of fire and reliability. The Garand also had sights that were arguably among the top 3 even if perhaps not the best. However they did require training and checking to make sure they are not out of adjustment. The ring or aperture rear sight is much easier to use (assuming the troops even use the sight) under stress or poor conditions. The MAS 36 was the only other rifle aside from the No 4 rifle to use aperture sights in first line rifles (US used aperture sights on late 1903, 1917s and M1 Carbines).
The shooter merely has to look through the rear sight ring, place the front sight on (or just under the target) and pull the trigger. NO trying to make sure the front sight is in the "notch" left and right and that the top of the front sight is level with the top of the rear sight.
IF the shooter is actually looking through the rear sight (and not over it) then front and rear sight alignment is automatically taken care of (at least at common combat ranges) and the shooter can concentrate on putting the front sight on the target.
The shooter's eye only has to focus on two different different distances, the end of the barrel and infinity (target) and for most people of military age they won't even notice the difference in focus. The notch rear sights mounted on the rear of barrel mean the eye has to focus on 3 different distances or two different practical distances , the rear sight around 8 inches (200mm from the eye) and the end of the barrel/target. Theory says that if you have to choose, focus on the front sight and let the target go a little blurry. Fine on the target target range with a black bullseye on buff/tan or white background, not so good on soldier in a uniform designed to blend into shadows or foliage. Trouble with the notch rear sight is even if the front sight and target is clear a slightly fussy rear sight means the gun may be out of alignment and the gun is actually point left or right of the target or above or below even if the front sigh t is dead on.

A good shooter can do good work with most any rifle, some are easier use than others. a poor shooter will be near useless with just about anything (shotguns included). The weapon selected should be for the troops in the middle. What is the easiest weapon/rifle to master with a given amount of training. Perhaps the semi-auto is harder to field strip/clean but this training can be done in barracks and not at the range. Range time is almost always limited.
I am pretty good with rifles on a target range and own a No 4 rifle but never had the ammo (money) or situation to practice rapid fire the way the British did it. I have fired bolt action rifles with stripper clips in matches and fired M1s in the same type match ( 10 rounds in 60 seconds in sitting position but you start standing up, 9 ring is just over 12in at 200 yrds, very many 9s and you loose). The bolt guns (not service rifles) had better sights and better triggers, were heavier (less recoil) and had better fitting stocks but the M1 gave you more time to actually aim between shots. The next stage was 10 shots in 70 seconds at 300 yds prone from standing. It usually took 20 seconds to get into position to get the accuracy we were looking for which was way more than most combat situations would call for. At some point they changed the time limits, back in the 50s/60s and early 70s the M1s got 10 seconds less per stage or string but keeping track of the different times or trying to squad all like rifles on the same relays was a pain in the a**.

The M1 was one of the best rifles of the war. The German and Russian semi-autos had crap sights. They may have been well machined but if they are hard to see or hard to align then they are crap. The M1 could be fired faster if need be by troops that less experience/practice on the range than bolt guns. Fully admit that the Enfield is very impressive with a good shooter and can well cross over results with the M1 depending on shooters.
The M1 and the Enfield No 4 are the top two. Anything else is a distant third.

For what it's worth, back in the 1980's, a co-worker of mine who was a former SS Panzergrenadier, took me to the range a few times and showed me what my Mauser could do. Literally.

He was able to sustain an accurate and high rate of fire from standing, prone and semi-kneeling that was extremely impressive. While a bolt-action may not be able to "dump a mag" downrange, he showed that a well trained infantryman (or panzergrenadier) with a bolt action rifle was a very dangerous asset on the battlefield.

Shortround6 said:

Anyone somewhat familiar with a bolt action magazine rifle that loaded from clips could fire 10 to 15 rounds a minute and could get rid of 80 rounds in 5 to 8 minutes.

Click to expand...

We trained using the Lee Enfield in the 70s and were expected, as recruits, to deliver accurate aimed fire within a 9x9 target over 250 yds at a minimum of 15 rounds per minute. we also used the cousin of the garand, the M1 carbine in similar exercises. The Lee Enfield was ideal to the purpose of training a man to shoot accurately and watch his ammunition expenditure, the M1 was not. The old SMLE NEVER failed us. it was reliable, accurate, effortless and for the average grunts like us. By comparison the M1 was a mule, with constant stoppages, vastly less accuracy but most important of all this desire to make up for those weaknesses by firing off rounds as fast as was possible. the result, by calculation, the firepower generated by a squad of enfield armed men was vastly more effective because of accuracy and dependability over the M1. I have only fired the Garand occasionally, and I would concede that its greater weight and length might make it a better proposition, but im not convinced.

some time further up the food chain, i trained using the SLR and the M-16. The M-16 had a full auto function, the SLRs (that we used) were only semi auto. The m-16 as a meaningful weapon of war was in my opinion a total waste of time. Sure, you could go nuts and spray bullets in every direction as your fear prescribed, but your ability to deliver accurate, measured fire designed to keep a target's head down whilst your mates enveloped and then repositioned themselves was inconsequential and totally ineffective when compared to the SLR. this is not just my bias talking. the RAR, considered to be far more effective in battles in Vietnam than any comparable US outfit except the very top elite forces refused to use the m-16 as a rule for those reasons and time and again proved the point that the measured, deliberate aimed fire of the SLR was far superior .

Semi auto superiority is a theoretical advantage, but in the real world is a total crock

To be honest, I like the M1 Carbine over the M1 Garand, but my stepfather had an affinity for it and had several in his collection.

But he also recounted that in Korea, it was worthless in the freezing temps when they needed it most. When the Chinese attacked at Chosin, they were having a terrible time getting the Garand to function and I had asked him if they "peed" on it to get them to work. That was perhaps not the best question to ask a Chosin survivor...

His response was "Who the f**k had time to piss on their rifle? Our foxholes were waist deep with freezing water and waves of Chinese were coming at us".

So thier Garands ended up being used as clubs. Or they used Chinese rifles and they used helmets, shovels, Kabars and anything else they could get their hands on...

I suppose the Chinese rifles would have been Mosins.
The Garand didn't do well in extreme environments and was a weakness. Why this wasn't picked up in testing I don't know.
Anyway. The G43 used stripper clips to load so yes it was semi but it took time to reload. The Garand with its clip could be reloaded in an instant so not only rate of fire but it can keep up that rate of fire for longer. And that's a nice thing to have. Semi is very good in CQB so if your door kicking in urban warfare you don't want a bolt action.