Yes I agree either one as an interest had a chance to move on a Johnson old man Ralph had 4-6 in his inventory $4600 was the cheapest he was eager to sell it was marked more than that just no funds like that going on that day.I got my G-43 from Ralph and a basically matching also K-98 which looked to of had the stock replaced while in service not numbered/stamped to the rifle like the G-43.
WHICH RIFLE?
- Thread starter loomaluftwaffe
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes I agree either one as an interest had a chance to move on a Johnson old man Ralph had 4-6 in his inventory $4600 was the cheapest he was eager to sell it was marked more than that just no funds like that going on that day.I got my G-43 from Ralph and a basically matching also K-98 which looked to of had the stock replaced while in service not numbered/stamped to the rifle like the G-43.
At one time B-17 crew members were offered a choice, carbine or .45. I couldn't hit the green side of a red barn with the .45 but the carbine was a different story. Neat little rifle. Shot like a .22
parsifal
Colonel
Absolutely bill. though my experience is more with the 9mm browning, and I finished up being an okay shot with it, I could hit targets far more accurately with the m1 on the few occasions we were allowed to fire it.
I like the M1 and dislike the garand because I think the garand was designed as a main battle rifle but inherently was not a rifle suited to the conditions it was placed in in the jungle and hard access areas. ive managed to upset most of the American contributors by saying that.......
I never fired the M1. Was shipped out of Basic Training the day before being scheduled for the firing range.
Agree Bill.I shot off hand(slightly open) one day at the range with the .45(5" barrel) and did better than the Weaver Stance but it was about 8yds and in the 2" orange circle pulled it off a few times just the first shot.I keep the Inland carbine by the bed I cannot miss with that one half asleep point shoot.
Hello Javlin,
I spent a VERY long time working on M14 types.
I also found that without a telescope, these guns were shooting a LOT better than I could see or hold.
On one of my target guns, I decided to collect all the targets that I shot off the bench for accuracy testing over a several month period with one particular gun. The results were quite surprising to me.
The average extreme spread for 5 shot groups was about 5/8 inch center to center. (100 yards)
Superimposed, consecutive 5 shot groups would give a 10 shot group that was about 3/4 inch.
With another gun, at 200 Meters, I was getting 5 shot groups a bit under 1.5 inch.
This wasn't quite as good as I was getting with similar loads out of a heavy barrel Remington 700, but it was VERY close.
I also found the M1A/M14 was very sensitive to a tight hold and accuracy would go all to heck under free recoil.
Sling tension was such that I could see the reticle move with my heartbeat.
If you do a side by side comparison, you may find that the tolerances are not that different between a semi auto and a bolt gun.
There are a whole lot more parts set in motion when a semi auto fires, but the tolerances and clearances on the critical parts are quite tight.
Hello The Basket,
With the procurement ability of beggars, the Finns still managed to do pretty well with their Mosin Nagants.
Note that Finnish M-N rifles only really share the receiver and trigger group with Russian guns. Everything else has been modified or replaced.
The guns feel a lot more solid than the typical Russian M1891/30 and have a very good reputation for accuracy which I can confirm is quite deserved.
As for the Mosin Nagant being the first choice in anyone's army, please note that the Russians and then their Soviet successors DID choose this gun and kept it in service until it was replaced by the SKS. Even after that, it served as a Sniper weapon.
Regarding the MAS 36, I would prefer the Russian M1891/30 if given a choice.
- Ivan.
Hello Parsifal,
Not offended at ll by your dislike for the M1 Garand. It has its issues, especially as a target gun and had some problems depending on the ammunition (slam fires with sensitive primers). The reputation over here (!) is very good as one might expect and I myself have never taken a Garand into a harsh environment.
A couple decades ago, many M1 Garands were re-imported into the US from Korea. I looked over probably a couple hundred over the years and I can see how one might have a poor opinion of these guns if one just grabbed one from the lot without any other examination.
Hello The Basket,
I almost forgot to mention:
At one point, I was interested in acquiring a Johnson rifle and had a pretty good conversation with a fellow who worked on them.
His comment was that the Johnson may start off as a fairly accurate gun, but because of its recoil operation, the parts start to loosen up pretty quickly and accuracy degrades. The poor accuracy would not be noticed in a LMG but certainly would in a rifle.
- Ivan.
Not offended at ll by your dislike for the M1 Garand. It has its issues, especially as a target gun and had some problems depending on the ammunition (slam fires with sensitive primers). The reputation over here (!) is very good as one might expect and I myself have never taken a Garand into a harsh environment.
A couple decades ago, many M1 Garands were re-imported into the US from Korea. I looked over probably a couple hundred over the years and I can see how one might have a poor opinion of these guns if one just grabbed one from the lot without any other examination.
Hello The Basket,
I almost forgot to mention:
At one point, I was interested in acquiring a Johnson rifle and had a pretty good conversation with a fellow who worked on them.
His comment was that the Johnson may start off as a fairly accurate gun, but because of its recoil operation, the parts start to loosen up pretty quickly and accuracy degrades. The poor accuracy would not be noticed in a LMG but certainly would in a rifle.
- Ivan.
If you do a side by side comparison, you may find that the tolerances are not that different between a semi auto and a bolt gun.
There are a whole lot more parts set in motion when a semi auto fires, but the tolerances and clearances on the critical parts are quite tight.
But when I do reloads in my .308s they will not work in the bolts meaning FLdies I guess and for me that tells abit about the chamber.The Germans snipers would use a designated G-43 from Walter as a package out of the factory everything matched from Scope,Scope mount to rifle all # from 600yds in for the quicker fire and being able to back out.The K-98 was the weapon relied up on out from there to 1000yds a more stable platform and less moving parts.I agree though the M1a is one of the finest platforms I shoot ATTM I hit an 18"X18" plate off a bi-pod 4 out 5 shots @350yds open sights that's all I shoot.
Not offended at ll by your dislike for the M1 Garand. It has its issues, especially as a target gun and had some problems depending on the ammunition (slam fires with sensitive primers).
I am no were near as good with my M1 as the M1a but I have seen others shoot my Garand alot better than I.I do not recall his name anymore and it was years ago I was at the range right after I got my M1 a 1956.The fella out at the range that day wrote for a gun mag ammo was his specialty(went to Aberdeen later) I saw him lay 8 shots down range off the bench 100yds each shot in line touching each other I was like Frick!!He gave me the best piece of advice about ammo that day I would utilize today if not for reloading "if you would not drink the water in that country do not buy the ammo".The simplest thing to make consistent the cases they would not weigh the same as the reason.The Navy used our range after Katrina and I got about 3K case of .308 all LC a beotch to deprime the first go round but solid brass.
There are a whole lot more parts set in motion when a semi auto fires, but the tolerances and clearances on the critical parts are quite tight.
But when I do reloads in my .308s they will not work in the bolts meaning FLdies I guess and for me that tells abit about the chamber.The Germans snipers would use a designated G-43 from Walter as a package out of the factory everything matched from Scope,Scope mount to rifle all # from 600yds in for the quicker fire and being able to back out.The K-98 was the weapon relied up on out from there to 1000yds a more stable platform and less moving parts.I agree though the M1a is one of the finest platforms I shoot ATTM I hit an 18"X18" plate off a bi-pod 4 out 5 shots @350yds open sights that's all I shoot.
Not offended at ll by your dislike for the M1 Garand. It has its issues, especially as a target gun and had some problems depending on the ammunition (slam fires with sensitive primers).
I am no were near as good with my M1 as the M1a but I have seen others shoot my Garand alot better than I.I do not recall his name anymore and it was years ago I was at the range right after I got my M1 a 1956.The fella out at the range that day wrote for a gun mag ammo was his specialty(went to Aberdeen later) I saw him lay 8 shots down range off the bench 100yds each shot in line touching each other I was like Frick!!He gave me the best piece of advice about ammo that day I would utilize today if not for reloading "if you would not drink the water in that country do not buy the ammo".The simplest thing to make consistent the cases they would not weigh the same as the reason.The Navy used our range after Katrina and I got about 3K case of .308 all LC a beotch to deprime the first go round but solid brass.
parsifal
Colonel
I should clarify something about naming. here in Australia, most people refer to the carbine as the M1, whilst the garand is just the garand. I realize that is technically wrong but it is the naming convention I'm used to.
sorry if ive caused any confusion over this.
sorry if ive caused any confusion over this.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Hello everyone.
The Finns used Mosins because they had access to them. Far easier to use liberated rifles than bought ones. Finns would do a good job with Black Besses.
The fact you would put the Mosin in front of the MAS-36 is the worst criticism you could ever give to a rifle. Poor old Frenchie!
I forget if the Johnson went through any formal testing. Is the accuracy issue with new guns or old guns? If given the choice of a Johnson v 1903 Springfield then that's a decision to make.
The M1 carbine was a personal defence weapon and as an alternative to a 1911 it was fine as far easier to train and get a man accurate with a M1. But it should never have seen infantry use.
G43 is important to note if we're talking semis so glad it's out there.
The Finns used Mosins because they had access to them. Far easier to use liberated rifles than bought ones. Finns would do a good job with Black Besses.
The fact you would put the Mosin in front of the MAS-36 is the worst criticism you could ever give to a rifle. Poor old Frenchie!
I forget if the Johnson went through any formal testing. Is the accuracy issue with new guns or old guns? If given the choice of a Johnson v 1903 Springfield then that's a decision to make.
The M1 carbine was a personal defence weapon and as an alternative to a 1911 it was fine as far easier to train and get a man accurate with a M1. But it should never have seen infantry use.
G43 is important to note if we're talking semis so glad it's out there.
I don't think you are giving the Finns enough credit here. (!)
They didn't just re issue captured Russian M-N rifles; They rebuilt them to a different standard.
The Finnish M27 and M28 are quite fine rifles. The bolt is a bit clumsy but no more so than any other bolt action with a straight bolt handle.
The action isn't pretty, but these guns have a very good reputation for accuracy and are well made.
The comparison between MAS 36 and M-N from me is honest even if your opinion may differ. My test of the MAS 36 was unimpressive enough that I did not keep the rifle while I do have a couple M-Ns.
The problem with the Johnson rifle is that it is recoil operated. That means that the barrel moves back and forth with each shot and apparently this causes the accuracy to degrade as parts begin to wear. That is what I was told by a man who could easily have sold me such a rifle. With Machine Guns, mediocre accuracy is pretty normal, but this is unacceptable in a rifle.
Regarding the M1903 Springfields, my own personal preference is for the M1903 or M1903A1 of the double heat treat type over the later nickel steel guns like the M1903A3. The actions are much more "slick". The only problem is that there is no way to "zero" the sights so that the markings are guaranteed to line up in the center when the gun is zeroed. (There are different height front sight blades, but no easy way to adjust laterally.)
The M1 Carbine in my opinion is basically a semi auto version of a submachine gun.
Its reputation for stopping power is poor as a semi but its ballistics may surprise you.
A fellow at our range brought in a 1/2 inch (IIRC) thick piece of laminated Kevlar with various handgun calibers fired at it.
The only penetration was by the .30 Carbine round which I believe was fired from a pistol.
If you take apart and examine the M1 Carbine, you will find that there is really no way to improve the accuracy though at 100 yards, the accuracy is usually pretty comparable to that of an unaccurized M1 Garand Rifle.
- Ivan.
Hello All,
I realise that with this discussion I am going way off topic and this post isn't even about WW2 Service Rifles any more.
Apologies to anyone offended and let us know if this should be a new thread.
Regarding German G43 / K98 sniper guns, I find it hard to accept that either would be effective out to 1000 yards with the low power and poor optical quality telescopes that were mounted.
Regarding the M1A/M14 types (Use what I tell you at your own risk. This is only my own experience.)
Try chambering your spent cases back into the chamber they were fired from. The result may surprise you.
There are several issues (that I know of) that may combine to cause this:
The chambers of the M14 types are typically cut to a different radial dimension than SAAMI specification for clearance for dirt.
Typical setup is to cut the chamber for a headspace of 1.632 inch instead of the minimum 1.630 inch used for most .308 Winchester.
If this is a military barrel / gun, it may be even longer because NATO spec is a bit different.
The bolt face is usually not square with the chamber. Typically the top is a bit further forward.
This means that when the cartridge is fired, the top of the bolt face sets the correct headspace, but the bottom of the case head will expand to meet the bolt face and unless you get the alignment exactly the same, it won't fit back in after it has been fired.
If you reload, you probably have tools to spin the cases to confirm what I am telling you.
The last issue is that typically as they come from the factory, the op rod will begin to cam open the bolt while there is still residual pressure in the chamber. The case stretches as a result.
A Bipod on the M14 may not be the best idea. The typical AMTU match tuning process results in downward tension of the stock against the front band and gas cylinder assembly to dampen vibrations. Sling tension adds additional downward force. A Bipod may reduce the stock tension. Try a heavy sling and sandbags.
Maybe the issue between M1 and M1A is one of ammunition.
There is a lot more air space inside the loaded .30-06 case than inside a .308W. This allows for the powder to move around a bit.
A manually loaded round leaves the powder typically at the back near the primer. Semi auto loaded leaves the powder forward.
This results in a velocity difference between the first and following rounds.
My procedure for processing cases before first reload is also quite tedious, but basically I am essentially trying to reload for a semi-auto Benchrest gun. I actually do not use brass that was not first fired from my target rifles because the original chamber they were fired in might have caused some differences. The same ammunition fired from a MG is going to be stretched a bit more than if it was first fired from a bolt gun for example.
- Ivan.
I realise that with this discussion I am going way off topic and this post isn't even about WW2 Service Rifles any more.
Apologies to anyone offended and let us know if this should be a new thread.
Regarding German G43 / K98 sniper guns, I find it hard to accept that either would be effective out to 1000 yards with the low power and poor optical quality telescopes that were mounted.
Regarding the M1A/M14 types (Use what I tell you at your own risk. This is only my own experience.)
Try chambering your spent cases back into the chamber they were fired from. The result may surprise you.
There are several issues (that I know of) that may combine to cause this:
The chambers of the M14 types are typically cut to a different radial dimension than SAAMI specification for clearance for dirt.
Typical setup is to cut the chamber for a headspace of 1.632 inch instead of the minimum 1.630 inch used for most .308 Winchester.
If this is a military barrel / gun, it may be even longer because NATO spec is a bit different.
The bolt face is usually not square with the chamber. Typically the top is a bit further forward.
This means that when the cartridge is fired, the top of the bolt face sets the correct headspace, but the bottom of the case head will expand to meet the bolt face and unless you get the alignment exactly the same, it won't fit back in after it has been fired.
If you reload, you probably have tools to spin the cases to confirm what I am telling you.
The last issue is that typically as they come from the factory, the op rod will begin to cam open the bolt while there is still residual pressure in the chamber. The case stretches as a result.
A Bipod on the M14 may not be the best idea. The typical AMTU match tuning process results in downward tension of the stock against the front band and gas cylinder assembly to dampen vibrations. Sling tension adds additional downward force. A Bipod may reduce the stock tension. Try a heavy sling and sandbags.
Maybe the issue between M1 and M1A is one of ammunition.
There is a lot more air space inside the loaded .30-06 case than inside a .308W. This allows for the powder to move around a bit.
A manually loaded round leaves the powder typically at the back near the primer. Semi auto loaded leaves the powder forward.
This results in a velocity difference between the first and following rounds.
My procedure for processing cases before first reload is also quite tedious, but basically I am essentially trying to reload for a semi-auto Benchrest gun. I actually do not use brass that was not first fired from my target rifles because the original chamber they were fired in might have caused some differences. The same ammunition fired from a MG is going to be stretched a bit more than if it was first fired from a bolt gun for example.
- Ivan.
Regarding German G43 / K98 sniper guns, I find it hard to accept that either would be effective out to 1000 yards with the low power and poor optical quality telescopes that were mounted.
I would not say that every sniper could pull that shot but they have special ammo made for them to make that happen;some of the later scopes went out to 8X.The figures I mentioned were from memory from an old G43 forum that ran tell about 2009 I guess mine is definitely does not fit that category for accuracy.
There are several issues (that I know of) that may combine to cause this:
The chambers of the M14 types are typically cut to a different radial dimension than SAAMI specification for clearance for dirt.
Typical setup is to cut the chamber for a headspace of 1.632 inch instead of the minimum 1.630 inch used for most .308 Winchester.
If this is a military barrel / gun, it may be even longer because NATO spec is a bit different.
Those rounds I got from the Navy did come out of M14 FA and an M60 that day last time they were allowed on the range.I know what you are saying Ivan and I am no big time reloader just about 15 yrs simple simple.I have a gauge for the case length for they do stretch more so if I crimp but I have used to different manufacture dies but they do not always fit in a bolt action receiver now the 30-06 I can go 1903 or M1 does not matter
Yeah this thread has drifted quite a bit but it's like 8 yrs old so ....Cheers
I would not say that every sniper could pull that shot but they have special ammo made for them to make that happen;some of the later scopes went out to 8X.The figures I mentioned were from memory from an old G43 forum that ran tell about 2009 I guess mine is definitely does not fit that category for accuracy.
There are several issues (that I know of) that may combine to cause this:
The chambers of the M14 types are typically cut to a different radial dimension than SAAMI specification for clearance for dirt.
Typical setup is to cut the chamber for a headspace of 1.632 inch instead of the minimum 1.630 inch used for most .308 Winchester.
If this is a military barrel / gun, it may be even longer because NATO spec is a bit different.
Those rounds I got from the Navy did come out of M14 FA and an M60 that day last time they were allowed on the range.I know what you are saying Ivan and I am no big time reloader just about 15 yrs simple simple.I have a gauge for the case length for they do stretch more so if I crimp but I have used to different manufacture dies but they do not always fit in a bolt action receiver now the 30-06 I can go 1903 or M1 does not matter
Yeah this thread has drifted quite a bit but it's like 8 yrs old so ....Cheers
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Mosin is still a Mosin. There is no consequence if I underestimated the Finns. The Soviets, however, did and paid a heavy price. But as I read somewhere, for the western support they got, most Finnish weapons were liberated from the Soviets.
Johnson inaccurate because of its short recoil action? Dunno. Is that over what range and how is inaccuracies measured?
But the short range firepower of a semi auto is certainly better than a bolt action. The main concern over the Johnson was the little bayonet and whether the short recoil action was robust enough for bayonet sticking.
The lack of votes for the Arisakas is a poor show as they were as good as another bolt action.
Johnson inaccurate because of its short recoil action? Dunno. Is that over what range and how is inaccuracies measured?
But the short range firepower of a semi auto is certainly better than a bolt action. The main concern over the Johnson was the little bayonet and whether the short recoil action was robust enough for bayonet sticking.
The lack of votes for the Arisakas is a poor show as they were as good as another bolt action.
Shortround6
Major General
A new, tight, recoil operated gun may show good accuracy (good in military context can 2-4 minutes of angle, or more), as the they wear the accuracy can get worse.
If you get an extra few thousands of inch of 'slop' at the front barrel bushing on a gun with barrel bushing half way out the barrel it could be twice as bad as the same amount of wear on gun with a barrel bushing at the muzzle. Balanced against that is the much longer barrel shroud is more likely to get damaged (bent)over time. The two piece stock doesn't help and wood shrinkage/swelling also doesn't help, wood shrinkage also covering the areas where the recoil from the gun gets absorbed/transmitted to the wood. Some guns are known to split the wood over time.
However a lot of these guns will still outshoot 80-90% of soldiers who have never fired a gun before basic training.
I doubt very highly if you could damage a Johnson by the simple act of using the bayonet. A common technique taught in basic training to loosen a bayonet caught in an opponent's body was to fire the rifle and use the recoil to help break it free. I have no idea if this was really effective but apparently some DIs thought firing the rifle was more violent than trying to tug the bayonet out using arm muscles.
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="192px" width="660px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
If you get an extra few thousands of inch of 'slop' at the front barrel bushing on a gun with barrel bushing half way out the barrel it could be twice as bad as the same amount of wear on gun with a barrel bushing at the muzzle. Balanced against that is the much longer barrel shroud is more likely to get damaged (bent)over time. The two piece stock doesn't help and wood shrinkage/swelling also doesn't help, wood shrinkage also covering the areas where the recoil from the gun gets absorbed/transmitted to the wood. Some guns are known to split the wood over time.
However a lot of these guns will still outshoot 80-90% of soldiers who have never fired a gun before basic training.
I doubt very highly if you could damage a Johnson by the simple act of using the bayonet. A common technique taught in basic training to loosen a bayonet caught in an opponent's body was to fire the rifle and use the recoil to help break it free. I have no idea if this was really effective but apparently some DIs thought firing the rifle was more violent than trying to tug the bayonet out using arm muscles.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Constant bayoneting
Although if you had rounds then why not shoot?
Armies did love a good bayonet. Why not say I but if you're spending a fortune on rifles then train them on the trigger and not the bayonet.
The Johnson was a day late and a dollar short. So the army saying the bayonet was an issue was certainly eye catching. Why not just say we got the Garand so go away?
Although the Johnson bayonet was certainly less manly than the 1903. Top of my head I can't think of other short recoil combat rifles. So maybe the issues mentioned put the kibosh on that.
Semi auto rifles were common since the turn of the 1900s so the Garand was not this magical unicorn that is often portrayed. And it probably wasn't best of breed either. Plenty of other semi autos I can mention from other countries but of far less historical import so only for the what ifs and not what is.
Although if you had rounds then why not shoot?
Armies did love a good bayonet. Why not say I but if you're spending a fortune on rifles then train them on the trigger and not the bayonet.
The Johnson was a day late and a dollar short. So the army saying the bayonet was an issue was certainly eye catching. Why not just say we got the Garand so go away?
Although the Johnson bayonet was certainly less manly than the 1903. Top of my head I can't think of other short recoil combat rifles. So maybe the issues mentioned put the kibosh on that.
Semi auto rifles were common since the turn of the 1900s so the Garand was not this magical unicorn that is often portrayed. And it probably wasn't best of breed either. Plenty of other semi autos I can mention from other countries but of far less historical import so only for the what ifs and not what is.
Hello Shortround6,
Since we are discussing the use of Bayonets:
The M14 rifle had a serious issue when slashing with the bayonet. Sometimes the front band would unhook from the stock ferrule.
Although I have a suitable bayonet, I have never actually tried to use it on anything. One just does not do that with a target gun.
I also do not know what the effect would be with the front band on the wrong side of the stock ferrule. I imagine disassembly to correct the problem might be difficult but maybe it is easier on a gun that has a sloppy enough fit for this to happen.
It is a good rifle design but allows for a lot of poor assembly and tolerance stacking which match conditioning procedures try to take out.
The Stock on wooden stocked rifles is also pretty thin through the magazine well area and very weak.
There is also very little recoil shoulder area in the stock to resist the impact of firing.
Hello The Basket,
I personally am under no illusion that the M1 Garand was the best design out there. There were contemporary designs that were better in my opinion but I do not believe they were mass produced. The German G43/K43 is a handier package but also has a goofy locking system which apparently is prone to breakage. As I see it, the Garand was a durable and potentially accurate gun that unfortunately was pretty high tech (The M14 was even more so) and very difficult to manufacture.
What other designs were you thinking of that were closer to "best of the breed"?
- Ivan.
Since we are discussing the use of Bayonets:
The M14 rifle had a serious issue when slashing with the bayonet. Sometimes the front band would unhook from the stock ferrule.
Although I have a suitable bayonet, I have never actually tried to use it on anything. One just does not do that with a target gun.
I also do not know what the effect would be with the front band on the wrong side of the stock ferrule. I imagine disassembly to correct the problem might be difficult but maybe it is easier on a gun that has a sloppy enough fit for this to happen.
It is a good rifle design but allows for a lot of poor assembly and tolerance stacking which match conditioning procedures try to take out.
The Stock on wooden stocked rifles is also pretty thin through the magazine well area and very weak.
There is also very little recoil shoulder area in the stock to resist the impact of firing.
Hello The Basket,
I personally am under no illusion that the M1 Garand was the best design out there. There were contemporary designs that were better in my opinion but I do not believe they were mass produced. The German G43/K43 is a handier package but also has a goofy locking system which apparently is prone to breakage. As I see it, the Garand was a durable and potentially accurate gun that unfortunately was pretty high tech (The M14 was even more so) and very difficult to manufacture.
What other designs were you thinking of that were closer to "best of the breed"?
- Ivan.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
ZH-29
SVT-40
MAS-40
wz.38M
Pederson
Johnson
G41/43
FG-42. I have always believed the Pederson was interesting.
SVT-40
MAS-40
wz.38M
Pederson
Johnson
G41/43
FG-42. I have always believed the Pederson was interesting.
Hello The Basket,
I am very curious as to how you selected the guns on your list.
What factors do they have that make them "better" than the M1 Garand?
There are a few I don't know about, but there are also a few that I do know something about, so here is why I believe that some of these guns are NOT better than the M1 Garand. (Not in the order you listed.)
1. The Pedersen Rifle: As a delayed blowback mechanism that required lubricated cartridges, it has the potential advantage of better accuracy because there does not need to be any mechanism such as a gas cylinder attached to the barrel.
The disadvantage is that it requires lubricated cartridges and that the action begins to open as soon as the round is fired which means that there is a LOT of chamber pressure as the extraction cycle begins. Some modern guns get around it by fluting the chamber.
The reduced recoil and weight was due to the .276 cartridge which was not adopted.
2. The SVT-38 / SVT-40 series of rifles, as mentioned before, are generally not accurate because of their design and somewhat fragile and not very durable because of their excessive weight savings. If you disagree with this conclusion, please let me know why.
This design wasn't all bad. Its very thin operating rod (probably meant to isolate the vibration from the gas cylinder) was inherited in part by the Dragunov and the front end of that system looks much better thought out. The Dragunov is also fairly light weight but uses a different locking mechanism and is stronger in critical places.
3. The Johnson Rifle as mentioned earlier has a tendency to loosen up with use and exhibit rather poor accuracy for a rifle.
Why do you view this as a superior design? If recoil operated rifles were a good idea, we probably would have seen a lot more of them, but recoil operation seems to be used mostly in guns that do not need extreme accuracy: Machine Guns and Pistols.
4. The G41 and G43 / K43 were tactically equivalent and had detachable box magazines. In that respect one could argue that they were superior. I do not know if ammunition was issued in magazines or stripper clips but I believe that it was stripper clips which would have made them effectively no better than the clip loaded Garand.
The Germans themselves determined that the G41 gas trap was not such a great idea and dropped it with the G43 / K43.
The Flap locking mechanism seemed a bit odd to me in examination and I have been told that they do break in use.
The ZH-29 with its side locking is a bit odd but its offset sights suggest that the firing cycle has some kind of dynamic that causes a lateral dispersion.
It and the WZ-38M appear from the few existing examples to be quite functional but also very complex designs to manufacture. I am not sure what advantages they would actually offer over the M1 Garand other than the protection of more of the operating parts from the elements.
The offset magazine on the FG42 seems a bit goofy to me and there are a few features of the gun that do not seem optimal for accuracy, but I really don't know much about how the gun performed. It certainly was an ingenious design.
Regarding MAS 40: I have handled the MAS 49/56 but can't remember ever having fired one so have no opinion on it.
- Ivan.
I am very curious as to how you selected the guns on your list.
What factors do they have that make them "better" than the M1 Garand?
There are a few I don't know about, but there are also a few that I do know something about, so here is why I believe that some of these guns are NOT better than the M1 Garand. (Not in the order you listed.)
1. The Pedersen Rifle: As a delayed blowback mechanism that required lubricated cartridges, it has the potential advantage of better accuracy because there does not need to be any mechanism such as a gas cylinder attached to the barrel.
The disadvantage is that it requires lubricated cartridges and that the action begins to open as soon as the round is fired which means that there is a LOT of chamber pressure as the extraction cycle begins. Some modern guns get around it by fluting the chamber.
The reduced recoil and weight was due to the .276 cartridge which was not adopted.
2. The SVT-38 / SVT-40 series of rifles, as mentioned before, are generally not accurate because of their design and somewhat fragile and not very durable because of their excessive weight savings. If you disagree with this conclusion, please let me know why.
This design wasn't all bad. Its very thin operating rod (probably meant to isolate the vibration from the gas cylinder) was inherited in part by the Dragunov and the front end of that system looks much better thought out. The Dragunov is also fairly light weight but uses a different locking mechanism and is stronger in critical places.
3. The Johnson Rifle as mentioned earlier has a tendency to loosen up with use and exhibit rather poor accuracy for a rifle.
Why do you view this as a superior design? If recoil operated rifles were a good idea, we probably would have seen a lot more of them, but recoil operation seems to be used mostly in guns that do not need extreme accuracy: Machine Guns and Pistols.
4. The G41 and G43 / K43 were tactically equivalent and had detachable box magazines. In that respect one could argue that they were superior. I do not know if ammunition was issued in magazines or stripper clips but I believe that it was stripper clips which would have made them effectively no better than the clip loaded Garand.
The Germans themselves determined that the G41 gas trap was not such a great idea and dropped it with the G43 / K43.
The Flap locking mechanism seemed a bit odd to me in examination and I have been told that they do break in use.
The ZH-29 with its side locking is a bit odd but its offset sights suggest that the firing cycle has some kind of dynamic that causes a lateral dispersion.
It and the WZ-38M appear from the few existing examples to be quite functional but also very complex designs to manufacture. I am not sure what advantages they would actually offer over the M1 Garand other than the protection of more of the operating parts from the elements.
The offset magazine on the FG42 seems a bit goofy to me and there are a few features of the gun that do not seem optimal for accuracy, but I really don't know much about how the gun performed. It certainly was an ingenious design.
Regarding MAS 40: I have handled the MAS 49/56 but can't remember ever having fired one so have no opinion on it.
- Ivan.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Better is a subjective term and like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I have no issue with the Garand as a rifle or as a weapon but it has to been seen as subjective against its peers and in an historical context. Not as a unicorn for fanboys. I.have no idea how many of the rifles mentioned would have have operated in the real world. Because they didn't. Remember accuracy is only a fraction of what makes a rifle. Reliability and cost can be just as important.
The short recoil system for the Johnson is a good case in point. How inaccurate is inaccurate? How many rounds? What ranges? Over how long? The Pederson cost more so it's Toggle lock is engineering interesting but economic non starter. Good example is the Thompson machine gun which is too heavy and too expensive so any good points are negated. The Johnson use in American service is purely accidental. But regardless it was considered a better bet than a bolt action.
Is the short recoil system better? Worse? That's subjective The Browning model 8 has long recoil and that was John Browning himself! So if Browning thought long recoil was a good idea I am not in a position to argue!
I have no issue with the Garand as a rifle or as a weapon but it has to been seen as subjective against its peers and in an historical context. Not as a unicorn for fanboys. I.have no idea how many of the rifles mentioned would have have operated in the real world. Because they didn't. Remember accuracy is only a fraction of what makes a rifle. Reliability and cost can be just as important.
The short recoil system for the Johnson is a good case in point. How inaccurate is inaccurate? How many rounds? What ranges? Over how long? The Pederson cost more so it's Toggle lock is engineering interesting but economic non starter. Good example is the Thompson machine gun which is too heavy and too expensive so any good points are negated. The Johnson use in American service is purely accidental. But regardless it was considered a better bet than a bolt action.
Is the short recoil system better? Worse? That's subjective The Browning model 8 has long recoil and that was John Browning himself! So if Browning thought long recoil was a good idea I am not in a position to argue!
Last edited:
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="1px" width="1px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="16px" width="16px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)