The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Tactical Rifle & Carbine => Topic started by: Ocin on February 28, 2009, 02:44:35 AM
-
This poll is not meant to cover all infantry weapons, but I think I have those that were issued most covered.
If you think I missed one. please let me know which and why.
Ocin
-
Interesting poll, I voted the Mauser 98. I own one, and have read the history of the rifle. The bolt action used in the Mauser 98 has set the standard for modern bolt actions today.
When describing a bolt action the Mauser claw extraction and simple design and function are beautiful.
Yes the M1 was/is awesome, but the Germans and Japanese also knew when to listen for the "Garand Ping" fired on the last round, meaning the gun was in need of reloading. Moreover, one always needed the loading en bloc "clips" (sorry Haz), and reloading of those took longer than the stripper clips of the Mauser. Plus, the M1 was/is heavier.
The M1 semi-auto was the "equalizer" , however the Mauser, IMHO had more to offer for the Infantryman, and sniper. The 98K fitted with a scope, was lethal at longer distances than the M1.
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/twyacht/german_sniper_wwii_0603_d57.jpg)
Just my .02 cents. I am Mauser biased, and mine still shoots better than I can.
-
P.S. I forgot to mention the Garand bite. You had to watch that thumb.. ::)
-
Interesting poll, I voted the Mauser 98. I own one, and have read the history of the rifle. The bolt action used in the Mauser 98 has set the standard for modern bolt actions today.
When describing a bolt action the Mauser claw extraction and simple design and function are beautiful.
Yes the M1 was/is awesome, but the Germans and Japanese also knew when to listen for the "Garand Ping" fired on the last round, meaning the gun was in need of reloading. Moreover, one always needed the loading en bloc "clips" (sorry Haz), and reloading of those took longer than the stripper clips of the Mauser. Plus, the M1 was/is heavier.
The M1 semi-auto was the "equalizer" , however the Mauser, IMHO had more to offer for the Infantryman, and sniper. The 98K fitted with a scope, was lethal at longer distances than the M1.
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/twyacht/german_sniper_wwii_0603_d57.jpg)
Just my .02 cents. I am Mauser biased, and mine still shoots better than I can.
Us cagey 'Mercans got around that one. The rifleman would toss an empty clip up in the air and let it 'ping' on the ground after firing a round or two... ;D
And as to Garand Thumb, a bigger suckage knows no man than one slammed by that bolt. I was introduced to it on my uncles rifle when his neighbor didn't heed his warning.
-
At first I thought the Garand was the best because it was a semi-auto, but I voted for the Mauser because it's design influenced so many other rifles. But the SMLE is the most rugged from what I read. Now I think I should have voted for the Garand like my first instinct said. I'm still undecided.
-
The only way you got an M1 thumb is if you pushed down on the follower and not holding the handle back and you only did it once. More interesting was M1 trigger finger, which our DI's used on people for jerking the trigger. I imagine that in combat, with rifle fire noise, artillery, grenades going of, that the ping would be noticeable. If I remember right, the ping is when the clip(correct term, it is not a magazine) is kicked out of the rifle after the 8th round. Fortunately, I did not use the Garand in combat but in live fire problems, the ping was not noticeable.
-
My Dad talks about M-1 Lip, a fat lip from having your thumb hit you with each recoil.
-
I voted the M1 for several reasons, accurate, reliable, and more firepower, a better sighting system than anyone had to date, except for optics and I would bet more on the adjustability and durability, than the optics had at the time, not to mention the M1D optically sighted version, the M1 redefined the battlefield rifle, you could say the enbloc clip was a weak link, but single loading an M1 is not hard if you found yourself out of clips. I do believe I could put an M1 back in action as fast as someone could load a M98 with stripper clip, if not faster. I have experience with both and respect both, but in battle, I would take the M1, or more preferably M1A. I would not feel undergunned with either, but if given a bolt action, would change my tactics.
-
What General Patton said. ;D
As far as M1 thumb... Smart people only do that once... :P
-
What General Patton said. ;D
Everyone who didn't use it, pretty much had their asses handed to them in a sling.
-
As BHO has taught us...WE WON ! So basically anything that the US GI had was right and good. What the Bad Guys had didn't work. End of story. Otherwise we would be speaking German or Japanese now. The Garand ROCKS !
-
As BHO has taught us...WE WON ! So basically anything that the US GI had was right and good. What the Bad Guys had didn't work. End of story. Otherwise we would be speaking German or Japanese now. The Garand ROCKS !
Not exactly true, the Sherman was an under gunned, under armored death trap. it took 4-5 Sherman's to kill each Tiger or Panther tank, 3 or 4 to be knocked out drawing fire and 1 to sneak around back and put a round into the rear. The Sherman was so under armored that German anti tank ammo,designed to kill Russian T 34's sometimes passed through them without effect leaving only 2 holes through the sides. But for every 1 the Germans destroyed we built 2 more. While it is true that our troops kicked butt on the battlefields (due in large part to the M-1 Garand ) it was America's factories that "won the war".
-
Not exactly true, the Sherman was an under gunned, under armored death trap. it took 4-5 Sherman's to kill each Tiger or Panther tank, 3 or 4 to be knocked out drawing fire and 1 to sneak around back and put a round into the rear. The Sherman was so under armored that German anti tank ammo,designed to kill Russian T 34's sometimes passed through them without effect leaving only 2 holes through the sides. But for every 1 the Germans destroyed we built 2 more. While it is true that our troops kicked butt on the battlefields (due in large part to the M-1 Garand ) it was America's factories that "won the war".
I still remember the first time I heard the stats on the Sherman vs. Tiger. I am in awe of anyone who rode a Sherman into battle.
One stat I heard says it all. The krauts built a total of 1600 King Tigers (or Panthers - can't remember which) and the US built nearly 50,000 Shermans. No wonder Yamamoto was distressed when his navy didn't wipe out the US fleet completely - he knew and told the Emperor that they had essentially awakened a sleeping tiger.
-
Not exactly true, the Sherman was an under gunned, under armored death trap. it took 4-5 Sherman's to kill each Tiger or Panther tank, 3 or 4 to be knocked out drawing fire and 1 to sneak around back and put a round into the rear. The Sherman was so under armored that German anti tank ammo,designed to kill Russian T 34's sometimes passed through them without effect leaving only 2 holes through the sides. But for every 1 the Germans destroyed we built 2 more. While it is true that our troops kicked butt on the battlefields (due in large part to the M-1 Garand ) it was America's factories that "won the war".
Ditto what Tom said. And I would add the Sturmgewehr would have been number one had it been produced in sufficient numbers. That rifle is known as a paradigm shifter, or a more commonly used phrase, a game changer.
-
Kaiser could build a Liberty ship in 24 hours and a "Jeep Carrier" in a week. No country on earth could compete with that kind of production capability.
-
Kaiser could build a Liberty ship in 24 hours and a "Jeep Carrier" in a week. No country on earth could compete with that kind of production capability.
That is why we won WW2. Once our manufactoring got into high gear, it was just a matter of time.
-
Totally agreed Tom.
As the years go by, history shows how close Germany was to having a victory. Tremendous blunders in strategy, Stalingrad and the Easter Front come to mind,.. Terrible supply lines, far too long to be sustainable, have defeated more than just the Third Reich. Hitler was no military genius by any means, but at the beginning of the war the "Blitzkrieg" was a big shock to the world, and it was so successful, it covered most of modern Europe in just a few years.
The technology that came from the Germans was amazing, the M262 jet fighter smoked every American plane, but it came too late and the industry that supported it was being destroyed by the week. Rommel is still studied at military academies because what he did, with what he had worked for a long time,....Than he met Patton.. ;)
The Bismarck was such a grave threat, (Americans and Brits knew this big time) that they focused all they had at sea to get it. The anti aircraft guns on the Bismarck were so advanced, they couldn't hit WWI slow torpedo biplanes as they approached... They got one right in the "sweet spot" (rudders), and she was a sitting duck after that. But the HMS Hood, flagship of the British Navy, went with one shell from her, and 99.9% of her crew died.
The American Industrial machine was the driving force to achieve victory. No other country had it, and the fact that a mere ocean separated our shores from combat vs. all the others, made a huge difference.
The Mauser was/is a great rifle, the Garand too was/is a great rifle. The resources and soldiers that carried the Garand, Made in America, won those battles and ultimately the war.
Think about it are there any 1942-44 American cars? NO. As a COUNTRY, we were united to defeat the enemy at all costs.
Times have changed now, and some Americans view the war on terrorism as someone else's problem better left to the UN. :P
From TAB,
That is why we won WW2. Once our manufactoring got into high gear, it was just a matter of time.
Totally agree TAB. :o
-
Lee-Enfield .303 ALL the way baby
it is the reason I am speaking english hehe
that and the fact I have one hehe
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you're reading this in English, thank a digger.
-
I was torn between the Mauser and the Garand.... then I asked myself which one would I choose if I had to take it into battle.....
I chose the Garand
-
The tech in the US also jumped by leaps and bounds. Just look at what dupont came up with during the war. One could argue that WW2 pushed the US chemical industry to its highest hights. The english acutally had a couple great ideas as well. One that comes to mind is the jet engine. Like many other discoverys during WW2, they were looking for something completly diffrent.( in this case as way to turbo charge a piston engine using fuel.)
-
The tech in the US also jumped by leaps and bounds. Just look at what dupont came up with during the war. One could argue that WW2 pushed the US chemical industry to its highest hights. The english acutally had a couple great ideas as well. One that comes to mind is the jet engine. Like many other discoverys during WW2, they were looking for something completly diffrent.( in this case as way to turbo charge a piston engine using fuel.)
There is another side to this story. The British had a working prototype of a jet engine in the late 30's, but because of chauvinistic high ranking brass in the RAF, being afraid of anything new, this project was cancelled. If they hadn't, the British might have had a functional jet fighter long before the Germans.
-
I still remember the first time I heard the stats on the Sherman vs. Tiger. I am in awe of anyone who rode a Sherman into battle.
One stat I heard says it all. The krauts built a total of 1600 King Tigers (or Panthers - can't remember which) and the US built nearly 50,000 Shermans. No wonder Yamamoto was distressed when his navy didn't wipe out the US fleet completely - he knew and told the Emperor that they had essentially awakened a sleeping tiger.
According to Wikipedia there were 6000 Panther tanks built, 1355 Tiger I and 487 Tiger II
As I heard the story, it was mainly the Panther that was the threat, Although being heavier armed and armoured, the Tiger I and II tanks were due to their weight not always that reliable. In situations where a Panther could move around, a Tiger tank crew was forced to wait in ambush. Even though in certain situations that worked quite well, there is a story where in Normandy 1 single Tiger tank destroyed 48 Allied vehicles. The allied were only able to move on after that tank was destroyed by fighterbombers. That of course is the high risk with vehicles that have limited mobility: high vulnerability to aircraft.
Besides, lets not forget the 40 or so thousand Russian T 34 tanks.
-
Let's not forget a couple of US developments like Robert Goddard inventing rockets (to which von Braun paid tribute), the development of the atomic bomb, and the cracking of the Japanese and German codes to name just a few. Inventions though don't win a war. Good reliable practical weapons, tactical brilliance and leadership (Patton, MacArthur, Eisenhower etc) and yes manufacturing all contribute. It all gets rapped up together in a bow from a historical perspective. I'll say it again, WE WON. So nothing the japanese or nazi animals had matters for squat.
-
Weaponolgy did a show about the greatest miliatry small arms a year or two ago. I would vote for the Enfield then the M-1 Garand. I also like the K98k a lot. Waffenalaskan
-
I'll say it again, WE WON. So nothing the japanese or nazi animals had matters for squat.
We did win. However, the legacy of the Mauser bolt action carried far beyond WWII. Most high end bolt action rifles to some extent or other, COPIED the Mauser design to this day.
-
I'll say it again, WE WON. So nothing the japanese or nazi animals had matters for squat.
We did win. However, the legacy of the Mauser bolt action carried far beyond WWII. Most high end bolt action rifles to some extent or other, COPIED the Mauser design to this day.
We also copied the Ballistic missile, the Sturm Gewehr, and the guided bomb.
-
germens also came up with the Assualt rifle... If it was not for hitler, they would have won the war.( atleast as far as europe is concerned.)
-
We also copied the Ballistic missile, the Sturm Gewehr, and the guided bomb.
I beg to differ...Robert Goddard (American) is a god in the pantheon of rocketry.
In 1919, the Smithsonian Institution published Goddard's groundbreaking work, A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes. The report describes Goddard's mathematical theories of rocket flight, his experiments with solid-fuel rockets, and the possibilities he saw of exploring the earth's atmosphere and beyond. Along with Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's earlier work, The Exploration of Cosmic Space by Means of Reaction Devices (1903), Goddard's little book is regarded as one of the pioneering works of the science of rocketry, and is believed to have influenced the work of subsequent pioneers such as Hermann Oberth, Wernher von Braun and Sergey Korolev.
An don't forget the Pederson device and Thompson of WWI (American). If that didn't start the trend of "select fire/auto, less than full rifle cartridge, large cap magazine" I don't know what did.
Oh and how about the proximity fuse and radar?
-
I beg to differ...Robert Goddard (American) is a god in the pantheon of rocketry.
In 1919, the Smithsonian Institution published Goddard's groundbreaking work, A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes. The report describes Goddard's mathematical theories of rocket flight, his experiments with solid-fuel rockets, and the possibilities he saw of exploring the earth's atmosphere and beyond. Along with Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's earlier work, The Exploration of Cosmic Space by Means of Reaction Devices (1903), Goddard's little book is regarded as one of the pioneering works of the science of rocketry, and is believed to have influenced the work of subsequent pioneers such as Hermann Oberth, Wernher von Braun and Sergey Korolev.
An don't forget the Pederson device and Thompson of WWI (American). If that didn't start the trend of "select fire/auto, less than full rifle cartridge, large cap magazine" I don't know what did.
Oh and how about the proximity fuse and radar?
My understanding is that the Pederson device was a flop, The Thompson didn't come out till well after WWI that's why it was called the M (model of ) 1927 Well after the model 1896 Mauser had been sold in Full auto versions and after the Erma sub machine gun. And it's irrelevant anyway, every one had Submachine guns, they called them "machine pistols" because they were PISTOL caliber. The reason the Germans wanted an "assault rifle" was because the pistol calibers weren't doing the job.
All your claims for Goddard are pointless, sure he did the research, but it was the Germans who did the ENGINEERING that changed theory into reality, the V-2 is still in service today slightly updated as the Scud.
The Germans also pioneered the Cruise missile (V-1)that we used after the war as a target tug, and the guided bomb (Fritz X)
Radar was a British development that Marconi had working before the war, how do you think they won the "Battle of Britain"?
-
I have to say M1 i just about as perfect a rifle someone could ask for. My second choice would a Mauser 98k, and my third choice the SMLE. The 303 is just to weak.
-
The increase in firepower due to semi-automatic capabililty makes the Garand hard to beat by any boltguns. But perhaps more importantly, American fighting rifles always seem much more shootable and ergonomic than those from other countries. Garands certainly have better sights than these other rifles and typically have a better trigger. The safety is also easier to deactivate.
I appreciate the Mauser's importance (at least the receiver's importance) and own several nice sporterized Mauser hunting rifles. That being said, many military Mausers are quite crude and they all have medicore sights at best. No thanks.
I love the Enfield and believe it to be the best battlefield boltgun even though it's receiver is not as stout as a Mauser. You can sure operate an Enfield quickly and many MkIVs have decent sights.
I have to agree with the previous comments about the Stg44 which was the "paradigm shifter."
Finally, I can't help but weigh in on the debate about industrial capacity. Certainly, American industrial, agricultural and economic might was an absolute necessity in defeating the Axis. They never really had a chance once we starting producing for the war effort. We not only kept our own troops supplied we provided for the logistics of all of the other Allies, including the Soviet Union (which may very well have fallen without our supplies). But supplies in and of themselves don't win wars. And while there were many terrible early mistakes, Americans had already starting showing battlefield prowess early on in the war at places like Midway and Guadacanal, far before our industrial might came into play. The bravery, talent, and fortitude of American servicemen was an essential element in winning WWII not just American economic might.
The Germans proved themselves technologically savvy but they were never able to put that genius into action like the Americans.
-
American and German firearms (except the crap they threw together for the "volksturm") have always had the best lines and balance, this is not really surprising since our gun making culture came from Germany to Pennsylvania.
Good troops, well led, armed with bolt action rifles, going against good troops, well led, armed with semi auto's will ALWAYS be at a HUGE disadvantage, this was proved as far back as the Civil War when Buford's cavalry brigade armed with repeating rifles held Seminary Ridge against Henry Heth's entire Division at the beginning of the Battle of Gettysburg. So no matter how good the K 98 was it was 2nd best as soon as some one adopted a reliable semi auto.
Except for doubles all English guns are ugly. And all Soviet guns show so so workmanship, although they tend to be very reliable, it comes from the mindset.
I don't think the Soviets would have LOST without our aid, but the Germans would have penetrated much further before the production east of the Urals allowed the Soviets to stop them. If Germany had taken Moscow and been able to penetrate to The Caspian sea Hitler probably would have tried negotiating a cease fire with Stalin as he would have had a clear shot at the Arabian oil fields and India.
Another MAJOR component of victory was leadership, The EXACT SAME troops who were defeated in the 1st battle of Kasserine Pass, the ones who ran away under fire, were the troops that their NEW commander, Patton, used to beat the vaunted Africa Corps in the 2nd battle only a few days later. Patton had Leadership ability, his predecessor didn't.
Another advantage enjoyed by America and the Soviets was that our factories did not get bombed the way Germany's did.
-
Probably a lot more merit to the poll if all the guns were of the same action... Throwing a semi-auto in there isnt much fair. True they were on the same battlefield, but how much older are those other guns in design than the garand? I know the Mosin's been around since at least 1930!!! Sorta like racing a '57 bel air against a '70 camaro. Their both nice, but not really fair to compare them to one another.
Thats just me though. I voted for the Garand ONLY because its semi-auto which is IMO far superior in a field fight. The Mauser is a far better weapon design for its age. Heck, the Mosin Nagant was in service for over fourty years by Lord only know how many countrys!!!
If I were forced to take a bullit from a Mosin, Mauser, or a Garand... I'd choose the Garand for that poll as well. Hopefully there a BB gun in that poll though! :)
-
The M1 has accuracy and dependability, the sights are far superior to anything any other country had to offer, all other designs however good, did not allow the shooter to adjust to the ability the M1 had, the 1903 A3 had very adjustable sights as well, the US, decided the shooter needed to be able to adjust the sights, where other countries just gave elevation adjustment with crude ladder type rear sights. Most of these other rifles were sighted in at the factory and the troops just used what they were given, The US, made a point of making soldiers RIFLEMEN. I think this makes the biggest difference, if you gave a US rifleman a foreign rifle and asked him to shoot it, it would print where it did, and then he would ask " how do I make shoot where I want?" The Mk4 Smle, did have decently adjustable sights, not really all that accurate, but sturdy, and usable.
And the .303 is not a bad round, it hits as hard as any other round used, 173 grn bullet at 30/06 velocity. That's not hay.
-
I have to agree with both of you on this, the others combined could not match the Garand for accuracyM25 can correct me if I'm wrong but I thought they used the M-1 to shoot the 1000 yard Wimbledon Match at Camp Perry, I know that it was used to win the service rifle match against 03 Springfield's in the late 30's. Where I will differ with M25 is that because of our shooting heritage and the influence of the NRA and CMP The Recruits the services got were generally better rifleman than trained soldiers in European Armies, where often a recruit had never handled a rifle before, we think of Europeans losing their gun rights but that isn't necessarily the case. While it's true of England and they are under attack in Switzerland,in most other European countries commoners have not been allowed weapons since the dark ages and have only started gaining gun rights since WWI, While many countries had hunting traditions it was only for royalty, "the sport of Kings".
I will agree with Badgersmilk that the poll IS NOT fair, The Garand was designed in the late 20's early 30's,
The basic Mauser design was introduced in the 1880's and the epitome of that, the K-98 was accepted for service in 1898, The Lee Enfeild replaced the Lee Metford around the same time.The Mosin Nagant was RELATIVELY unchanged since 1891.where I will differ with Badgersmilk is on bullets all 4 used bullets designed around the same time using the same technology and design theory, the newest was ours designed in 1906( an improvement on the 1903 design that was our first smokeless round).
Truthfully this is a trick thread because the only WWII battle rifle was the Garand, all the others were built for the needs anticipated for the previous war.
-
The M1 has accuracy and dependability, the sights are far superior to anything any other country had to offer, all other designs however good, did not allow the shooter to adjust to the ability the M1 had, the 1903 A3 had very adjustable sights as well, the US, decided the shooter needed to be able to adjust the sights, where other countries just gave elevation adjustment with crude ladder type rear sights. Most of these other rifles were sighted in at the factory and the troops just used what they were given, The US, made a point of making soldiers RIFLEMEN. I think this makes the biggest difference, if you gave a US rifleman a foreign rifle and asked him to shoot it, it would print where it did, and then he would ask " how do I make shoot where I want?" The Mk4 Smle, did have decently adjustable sights, not really all that accurate, but sturdy, and usable.
And the .303 is not a bad round, it hits as hard as any other round used, 173 grn bullet at 30/06 velocity. That's not hay.
Tom, read what I wrote, before, a Rifleman is just that, understands his equipment and how to use it, and that is my point, you cannot hit at distance, without training, the M1 can do it, but suffers at 1000 yards, in stock configuration, as my spotter and judge pointed out to me, " that's a long way out there, it is the limit, of a .30 caliber cartridge, " But out to 900 yards I was fine and even cocky.
-
Honestly, whats the chance of you making a 1000 yd shot in combat?( out side of being a sniper) hell whats the chance you can even seeing your target at 1000 yds?
-
"Honestly, whats the chance of you making a 1000 yd shot in combat?( out side of being a sniper) hell whats the chance you can even seeing your target at 1000 yds?"
May lights shine on, and angles sing upon those words!!! BRILIANT!!! Erogance, stupidity, and just plane watching to many movies and doing to little shooting has 99 out of a hundred people reading this thinking they can not only hit a man, but make a lethal hit at that range. Dont police snipers consider lethal hit area to be the size of a post card (3x5)?
Somebody should start a poll asking who on this site can consistantly, and reliably hit a 3x5 card at 1000 yards. I'd guess at least 6 in 10 will say they've done it once. 2 in 10 will say they can pick up an M1 they've never touched before and do it.
I like Tom's point on the bolt rifles being intended for the previous war. If you read anything about their history you see a lot said about "trench", and "front line" fighting. I dont think you see a lot mentioned of either in WWII history. It's become more and more common for the fighting to be random encounters.
-
Somebody should start a poll asking who on this site can consistantly, and reliably hit a 3x5 card at 1000 yards. I'd guess at least 6 in 10 will say they've done it once. 2 in 10 will say they can pick up an M1 they've never touched before and do it.
You mean those sniper shots from Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon probably weren't possible?
-
"Honestly, whats the chance of you making a 1000 yd shot in combat?( out side of being a sniper) hell whats the chance you can even seeing your target at 1000 yds?"
May lights shine on, and angles sing upon those words!!! BRILIANT!!! Erogance, stupidity, and just plane watching to many movies and doing to little shooting has 99 out of a hundred people reading this thinking they can not only hit a man, but make a lethal hit at that range. Dont police snipers consider lethal hit area to be the size of a post card (3x5)?
Somebody should start a poll asking who on this site can consistantly, and reliably hit a 3x5 card at 1000 yards. I'd guess at least 6 in 10 will say they've done it once. 2 in 10 will say they can pick up an M1 they've never touched before and do it.
I like Tom's point on the bolt rifles being intended for the previous war. If you read anything about their history you see a lot said about "trench", and "front line" fighting. I dont think you see a lot mentioned of either in WWII history. It's become more and more common for the fighting to be random encounters.
Yep...things change at long range....a lot.
I knew a 'guy' who years ago, with some friends, thought they would stand a sheet of plywood up with a 9" paper plate in the center and back off to around 800 yards or so and commence to nailing the hell out of that plate. Out of four shooters, each firing five shots apiece, exactly two round actually hit low on the plywood, about a foot below the plate. The only reason those hits happened was because the 'guy' had watched the others bounce rounds off the dirt, and proceeded to 'walk' his shots up to the plywood until he managed to get a couple 'on board' (couldn't resist).
Hitting at long range consistently is not easy for the untrained or unpracticed. I can say that with some remote amount of confidence because the 'guy' mentioned above was ME.
If I started shooting 'cold' at any range over about 400 yards right now, I just be burning a pile of money.
My hat's off to the guys that can do it.........it takes work.
-
"On board" ;D ;D ;D
LMAO!
-
M25, You are right that long range shooting requires special training but that does not change the fact that the US military started out with better material and therefore could afford the training time to better teach longer range shooting.
TAB, You need to go back to the history books.
During WW I The last battle of the Marne the Germans Were marching in full formation across a wheat field because they were "out of range of allied fire" They were stunned when the US Marines of the 2nd US division hammered them with ACCURATE aimed rifle fire at ranges GREATER than 1000 yards. This was with IRON SIGHTS.
Peg Leg, I'm with you, inside 500 yards if I can see it I can probably hit it. Over that, I don't have the training or eye sight.
-
M25, You are right that long range shooting requires special training but that does not change the fact that the US military started out with better material and therefore could afford the training time to better teach longer range shooting.
TAB, You need to go back to the history books.
During WW I The last battle of the Marne the Germans Were marching in full formation across a wheat field because they were "out of range of allied fire" They were stunned when the US Marines of the 2nd US division hammered them with ACCURATE aimed rifle fire at ranges GREATER than 1000 yards. This was with IRON SIGHTS.
Peg Leg, I'm with you, inside 500 yards if I can see it I can probably hit it. Over that, I don't have the training or eye sight.
I still have good eyes.......it's the time and effort required to stay proficient that I lack. At one time several years ago I kept up my long range skills but other things have taken up the time and money.....maybe I'll try my hand again one day. I know a guy with a heavy Remington 700 in .308 he is thinking about selling...........hmmmmm.
Until then, I can provide excellent 'close range' support. ;D
My friend that owns our local range regularly shoots out to 600 yards and goes to long range 1000 yard matches frequently also. He also puts in the time reloading for shooting at said ranges, which also requires more attention than 'regular' load-building.
-
"He also puts in the time reloading for shooting at said ranges, which also requires more attention than 'regular' load-building."
Pegleg, A MEN!!!!
Loading for "REAL" 600 yard+ accuracy will set most people back at least 8 hrs for 20 rounds or less that meet "A batch standards"!!! Depending on their experience level and equipment of course, but your NOT using a turret press, or automatic powder measure on those babies! Case prep alone is HOURS of time.
But again I digress... Seems like an amazing number of posters here can shoot these ranges all day with factory loads. That, or thier loads are so secret they wont share ANY info....
Used 700's can be a GREAT deal at the right price! Good luck.
The heavy barrels really only help after the first round... Cold bore shots will be just as good from a light / skinny barrel. But that's another huge arguement I wont be drawn into.
Tom, any guy making a 1000 yard shot with iron sights is THE MAN! I know they currently have these shooting compentitions every year, and it'll NEVER cease to astound me. I'm guessing a LOT of the WWII shots made this way were not on the first try, but kinda "hail mary", and "why not try?!?!" things.
-
The sights on the 03 Springfield was CALIBRATED to 1200 yards.
As for me, I've never seen a range, including in the Marines that would accommodate 1,000 yard shots.
1978 The Marine snipers for 2nd MarDiv went to the same range I did, they went across the street and shoot between the barracks for a range of 800 yards.
-
You got me curious... I just looked at my 91/30... Hold on to your hats here! 100-2000 yards :o, the AK goes out to 800 yards, Mauser's marked for 2,000 :o, and the SKS is good for 1,000.
WHEW HOO! Optimism! At the least a good sense of humor :)
-
You got me curious... I just looked at my 91/30... Hold on to your hats here! 100-2000 yards :o, the AK goes out to 800 yards, Mauser's marked for 2,000 :o, and the SKS is good for 1,000.
WHEW HOO! Optimism! At the least a good sense of humor :)
Not yards, Arshins, it's a Russian measurement equal to (I think ) 28 inches.
-
Never Knew that! I would have guessed meters actually.
If I'm doing the math right, that'd translate the "20" mark on the sights of Mosin's as 1556 yards. Phwewwwy! LONG SHOT!
The SKS would be 778 yards, the AK would be 622 yards... They shoot better than me!!!
The 20 on the Mauser would be meters wouldnt it?
THANKS FOR THE INFO!!!
-
Tom, although we have never met, I walk the walk and talk the talk, Anyone is welcome to take me to task, Badger, you don't have the experience to comment on long range shooting, 600 and beyond takes skill, and I have trained and applied it, anyone who has not trained, has no idea, We don't do armchair quarterbacks on this forum. If you want to hang around here, get more information, training, and experience, before making hipshot comments. I own ak's, sks's, and less thought of rifles, but take them and try them to larger distances, and they are not bad, My M1A is better and more predictable, however, we need to know what the opposition can do, and if I'm behind the trigger, under 500 yards, LOOK Out with these rifles. Now to my true long range rifles, that is the difference between head shots and body shots. Both work, but head shots are final.
-
I love long range shooting and have tremendous respect for those, like M25, who can hit targets out beyond 500 yards. For me, if I can get a biscuit size group at 200 yards I am happy!
Here's a link that some might find enlightening:
http://www.appleseedinfo.org/as_faq.htm
In the first paragraph they mention that shooting at 500 yards was common in the days of the Revolutionary War. And these shots were taken with muskets! With practice and work, shots beyond 500 yards can and have been done with what we would say is antiquated equipment by today's standards. Like any other extreme sport or skill, at a certain point it is God given talent, along with a matching work ethic, that kicks in.....Carlos Hathcock comes to mind.....
M25 I think that's great that you can take long range shots and be very accurate. You're probably in that part of the distribution curve where you are in the sub-five percent category. If you ever video some of your shots, post them as I bet they would be cool to see.
8) 8) 8)
-
I don't recall reading about 500 meters in the revolution but at 500 meters, if it did happen, you were talking volley fire at closed packed infantry marching in formation. Walk'em in. The same with English longbow men shooting 200yds at Crecy (sic). Fire for effect and adjust. As far as practical average grunt rifles, we mostly shot 300 meter pop-ups in the army in the late '80s. I wish it had been five because the sixteens sights will handle it. Now with using optics, I hope we are. The limiting factor is ammo and range time, which are always limited. Now, if someone could convince the Navy and the Airforce that F-18s would be spiffy for both, we'd have a lot of dollars to work on marksmanship. (sigh)
fightingquaker13
-
M25, the rest of what you said isnt worth a comment, but "We don't do armchair quarterbacks on this forum."... Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, NOW THATS A JOKE!!! Funniest thing I've seen "on this forum"!
tom to this point is almost the only one in any of the threads that has shared ANY usefull information!!! The rest of it is boobs spouting off about how they can shoot an ant in the eye at 600 yards with an M1 (only chosen because sentimental value, or because their buddies all think its "the BEST", and want they need to conform")... I wont waste my time commenting on this stuff anymore, if so many of you are that insecure that you need to attack people rather than share info... You go girl! Your just wasting everyones time.
Again tom, thanks for sharing some usefull info on here without having to try to show off doing it!
-
Tom, although we have never met, I walk the walk and talk the talk, Anyone is welcome to take me to task, Badger, you don't have the experience to comment on long range shooting, 600 and beyond takes skill, and I have trained and applied it, anyone who has not trained, has no idea, We don't do armchair quarterbacks on this forum. If you want to hang around here, get more information, training, and experience, before making hipshot comments. I own ak's, sks's, and less thought of rifles, but take them and try them to larger distances, and they are not bad, My M1A is better and more predictable, however, we need to know what the opposition can do, and if I'm behind the trigger, under 500 yards, LOOK Out with these rifles. Now to my true long range rifles, that is the difference between head shots and body shots. Both work, but head shots are final.
I'm not sure what you SEEM to be getting hot about ??? I'm simply saying that because Americans up through the WWII era had far more experience with firearms than their European counterparts OUR armed forces, in a training cycle of the same length , could impart a higher level of training .
Never Knew that! I would have guessed meters actually.
If I'm doing the math right, that'd translate the "20" mark on the sights of Mosin's as 1556 yards. Phwewwwy! LONG SHOT!
The SKS would be 778 yards, the AK would be 622 yards... They shoot better than me!!!
The 20 on the Mauser would be meters wouldnt it?
THANKS FOR THE INFO!!!
The Mosin Nagants were ( prior to WWII) calibrated in Arshins, Since that time the Russians use metric like the rest of Europe.
Fullauto, in the 70's in the Marines we qualified with M-16's between 100 and 500 yards, Our platoon "High shooter" got 10 bullseyes out of 10 shots in the 500 yard prone string (we shot Known distance 3 position, sling supported.)
-
I don't recall reading about 500 meters in the revolution but at 500 meters, if it did happen, you were talking volley fire at closed packed infantry marching in formation. Walk'em in.
Off topic but worth the information..
from Military.com top ten snipers..
"The Battle of Saratoga was a turning point in the Revolutionary War. And one of the major turning points in the battle was when sniper Timothy Murphy shot and killed Gen. Simon Fraser of the British army on Oct. 7, 1777.
Murphy, a rifleman in Morgan's Kentucky Riflemen, hit Gen. Fraser at a distance of about 500 yards using one of the famous long-barreled Kentucky rifles."
-
Off topic but worth the information..
from Military.com top ten snipers..
"The Battle of Saratoga was a turning point in the Revolutionary War. And one of the major turning points in the battle was when sniper Timothy Murphy shot and killed Gen. Simon Fraser of the British army on Oct. 7, 1777.
Murphy, a rifleman in Morgan's Kentucky Riflemen, hit Gen. Fraser at a distance of about 500 yards using one of the famous long-barreled Kentucky rifles."
I stand corrected.
Fightingquaker13
-
Fullauto, in the 70's in the Marines we qualified with M-16's between 100 and 500 yards, Our platoon "High shooter" got 10 bullseyes out of 10 shots in the 500 yard prone string (we shot Known distance 3 position, sling supported.)
That's what I have always heard about the Marines- they pride themselves on their marksmanship. I don't know if the rest will agree but I believe in our modern era there isn't the emphasis on marksmanship like it used to be. The Appleseed Project, which I referred to earlier, is trying to bring back that tradition. I want to go to one of their week long seminars as I understand they are really good.
-
That's what I have always heard about the Marines- they pride themselves on their marksmanship. I don't know if the rest will agree but I believe in our modern era there isn't the emphasis on marksmanship like it used to be. The Appleseed Project, which I referred to earlier, is trying to bring back that tradition. I want to go to one of their week long seminars as I understand they are really good.
I agree completely.
-
I have never met a marine that left the marins a good shot, unless they went in as one. All of those have come out much better shooters then when they went in as.
-
Well TAB, here is one Marine that came out a better shot than when I joined. My experience prior to joining was 22's at rabbits. Qualified Expert with M1 Garand, went down to Marksman with M14 and back to Expert with M16. Never got to know the M14 that well, hated it with full-auto. Carried a Garand with Marine Infantry for three years, so know the rilfe. Once you got your sight settings you could go to them and hit at 500 yds pretty easy. As far as Maines in WWI making kills with 03's up to 1000 yds, been documented. That is where Marines got the name of "Devil Dogs" from the Germans.
As far as training for military, not sure what they are doing now but have heard shooting having been cut back. Saw some National Guard here qualifing with M16. Range was 50 yds with reduced targets.
-
DM, That's TAB, he's a dipsh!t on many subjects. He's from Ca. what can you expect.
As to NG Marksmanship training, after they get their basic training, which I can not speak of ( I didn't have to going having already been to PI) it sucked in the 90's. I had several Sgt's with 18+ years who could not hit the paper at 25 yards.
I hope they get better training now.
-
You guys give TAB a break. He/she is entitled to get hormonal once a month.
-
You guys give TAB a break. He/she is entitled to get hormonal once a month.thread
-
Ok, I'll be nice.
-
I wasn't expecting a poll. Thought this was a rhetorical question.
-
I wasn't expecting a poll. Thought this was a rhetorical question.
It is really because the only listed choice's that were designed after 1900 were the Garand and the Arisaka.
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl22-e.htm
-
The M1 Garand is the the gun that the infantry man had when he went to all these countries in Europe when WWII broke out and that is the, in my onion, that won the war for America.
-
That one was a bit before my time, and I can't say from experience. My father was there, though. He was already in the Army when the war began, and by the time he got into the fight (Sicily) he was battalion first sergeant. He was issued an M-1 Carbine and after his first battle, got rid of it and had the quartermaster issue him an M-1 Garand. He said the Carbine's loads were not powerful enough. When he hit Nazi's and Black Shirts, they didn't go down right away, but kept fighting. The Garand didn't have that problem.
-
I picked the SMLE because it was the best bolt-action rifle of WWI and WWII.....
...but the best semi-auto by far was the M1941 Johnson rifle....ten rounds, could be topped off w/ Springfield clips or single rounds...easy to take down....and no "ping"....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1941_Johnson_rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1941_Johnson_rifle)
-
I picked the SMLE because it was the best bolt-action rifle of WWI and WWII.....
...but the best semi-auto by far was the M1941 Johnson rifle....ten rounds, could be topped off w/ Springfield clips or single rounds...easy to take down....and no "ping"....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1941_Johnson_rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1941_Johnson_rifle)
The first "weapons system" as the same action was used for a light machine gun used by USMC Raiders and the 1st Special service Force.
-
The first "weapons system" as the same action was used for a light machine gun used by USMC Raiders and the 1st Special service Force.
You talkin' 'bout The Devil's Brigade? ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_Brigade
Just watched the movie, with William Holden about two hours ago on TCM.
-
Absolutely
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1941_Johnson_machine_gun
This Wiki entry says the ParaMarines (short lived Marine airborne unit) used them which is true, but when then ParaMarines were done away with the personnel went to the Raider Battalions and took their weaponry with them including the Johnsons
-
Absolutely
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1941_Johnson_machine_gun
This Wiki entry says the ParaMarines (short lived Marine airborne unit) used them which is true, but when then ParaMarines were done away with the personnel went to the Raider Battalions and took their weaponry with them including the Johnsons
Tom, want to 'splain to me how you could go anywhere without yer johnson?
;D
-
Tom, want to 'splain to me how you could go anywhere without yer johnson?
;D
Do we get the choice of exchanging it for a BAR? ;D
FQ13
-
Tom, want to 'splain to me how you could go anywhere without yer johnson?
;D
Piss off the Hookers in TJ ;D
-
Tom, did you have fun in TJ? I did.
-
Tom, did you have fun in TJ? I did.
Never served on the West Coast, (Dad did and told stories of the old "Barbary Coast" ) I did all that stuff in Italy and Spain ;D
-
I miss those Italian girls!!! ;D
-
When I was in ROTC the fraternization rules were blatantly violated by us and ignored by the officers, as long as there were no PDAs in uniform. The one time I heard any one getting reamed was when a couple was caught "praticing combat first aid sir!" during an FTX. Captain Brown was not visibly amused, but even he ended the ass chewing by uttering the immortal words "Goddamn it Cadet, you're a gentleman as well as an officer. At least take your combat boots off first"! ;D ;D
FQ13
-
... I know the Mosin's been around since at least 1930!!!
The Nagants seen in WWII had been virtually unchanged since its introduction in 1891 updated in 1930 hence the designation Mosin Nagant model 91/30.
-
All but one of the WWII vets I've ever spoke with told me they often dumped they're garands for .30 carbines because handleing, rate of fire, and several other reasons...
If I were to be so bold as to dump personal opinions. Wouldnt the most accurate way to determine which rifle was "best" be determined by how many were made of that model, how many were used in service, and how long they were used in service?
I think the Mosin Nagant takes the nod in all those catagories... But "Best in WWII"? Arent we comparing bolt guns to a semi-auto here? Like comparing pick-up trucks to corvette's?.
I also believe if we ask the opinions of what piece of hardware "won the war", and asked Generals, historians, or others who saw the "bigger picture", the Spitfire was hands down what saved England, and turned the tide against the Nazi's. Nazi's wooped butt and moved as quick as they did because the Luftwaffe cleaned house before ground troops ever stepped foot into unoccupied teritory. Hitler held off the invasions until he "had complete air superiority". He never achieved that over England, and when the ground troops moved in without it they were defeated, and the tide of the war turned. Garands werent even there for the show. The US entered the war after Hitlers push was all but stopped. Among other things, we prevented him from regrouping, & reenforced, resupplied the other allied Countries as they had already used up nearly all their personel & resources. The US definately contributed to the win. My belief (and it is just that) is we waited until it was late enough in the European war that we thought we could "Walk in, save the day, and walk out big heroes". It just didnt go as easy as our politicians thought it would, and we actually had to stay & fight.. If Japan hadent attacked us and left us trying to stay out of things. Could Hitler have won it all before we got off our butts to do anything???????? Probably.
Most worthless turds of the war? France and Italy. They should both have been absorbed by other governments after the war. Turds. >:(
-
I agree wth you. On lest point there's a Great Churchill story, sort like LBJ, every Churchill story is great.
Churchill is speking to German ambassador and is warnd that if war comes "This time the Italians will be on or Side".
Churchill responds, "Its only fair, we were stuck them the last time".
FQ13
-
I just stumbled upon this so howdy everybody.
Badgersmilk: Its a bit off topic as far as the rifles concerned, but the idea that one specific piece of equipment did this or that is a bit short sighted. Spitfires: great airplane, but it wouldn't be worth a crap without the radar used to direct them. They were highly outnumbered, but the radar stations allowed the Brits to better position what little assets they did have.
Hitler essentially screwed himself by double-crossing the Russkies, but it was the Germans we were racing to get the atomic bomb.
While Pearl Harbor pissed America off, even the Admiral Yamoto knew that they had "awakened a sleeping giant". More effort and material were pushed toward the European Theater because that was perceived as the greatest threat.
If there is one word to attribute to an Allied victory; it would be attrition. The Allies had more stuff.
With that being said, I voted M1 'cause Grampa would whoop my behind if I said otherwise. That and the M1 was semi-auto.
Everyone can save all the hoopla about this action and that round and those sights. John Hinckley, Jr. fired 6 shots from a .22 "Saturday Night Special" that hit Four targets: Two men doing their jobs, a president and the husband of the present anti-gunner nemesis. Within 2 seconds a lunatic with a bit of motivation nearly killed a president, paralyzed one and wounded two others. I haven't looked, but I don't believe anyone has ever asked Mr. Hinckley about sight pictures, maintenance of the weapon, trigger pull, etc. A lot of it depended on providence or luck, if you wish.
-
I said it before and I'll say it again.
Soldier, what's that weapon you're carrying?
Sir, U.S. rifle, M1, caliber 30, gas operated, air cooled, semi automatic, shoulder weapon, Sir.
AKA, the best in the poll.
-
To expand on Broso's post, Equipment doesn't matter as long as it is functional.
In the Spanish American War we beat the Spanish troops with obsolete second rate rifles. We used the 30/40 Krag Jorgenson rifle with black powder cartridges that gave off a cloud of smoke marking the shooters position, they were out ranged by the Spanish Mausers using SMOKELESS powder, It wasn't experience that made the difference, the Spanish had been fighting Cuban revolutionaries for years. The difference was HEART and Leadership. Our troops were volunteers who wanted to kick some ass, led by LEADERS against Spanish troops who while they put up a good fight, wanted to live through it, commanded by Officers who commanded from the rear.
What beat Germany in BOTH World wars was American Production and American numbers.
As to the Spitfire, P 38's, P 47's and P51's got into the war neither the British or Germans had a first rate aircraft. Ours could do everything theirs could with 2 or 3 (maybe more ) times the range. German aircraft from flying from France could cover South Eastern England with a loiter time of 20 minutes, American planes flying from England flew to BERLIN with about the same loiter time.
-
If I remember right, there were around 600 Americans on Teddy's attacking a force of about 200 Spainards. Which is about the most common ratio of attackers vs defenders that is most commonly recommended. Now, if they had been Marines probably a company and half would have done the job.
-
Could not quickly find a break down of forces actually engaged, but here are the Casualty numbers
Commanders
Flag of the United States Flag of Spain
Casualties and losses
205 dead
1,180 wounded 58 dead
170 wounded
39 captured
Wiki is wrong when it says that Spanish defenses were badly sited so I question all the rest of their info as well
-
If I remember right, there were around 600 Americans on Teddy's attacking a force of about 200 Spainards. Which is about the most common ratio of attackers vs defenders that is most commonly recommended. Now, if they had been Marines probably a company and half would have done the job.
Here's a OK site for some info on the Spanish American War.
http://www.spanamwar.com/index.htm
http://www.spanamwar.com/tr2.htm
-
M1 Garand, I'd have shot the first German toting an Mp40 or a GEW 43 or an FG42 or an MP44; I'd ditch the Garand afterwards.
Rate of fire wins fights.
-
M1 Garand, I'd have shot the first German toting an Mp40 or a GEW 43 or an FG42 or an MP44; I'd ditch the Garand afterwards.
Rate of fire wins fights.
Ever handled the FG 42 or StG44(MP44) They are HEAVY. If you have ever been on a 10 or 20 mile march with pack you will understand.
-
Ever handled the FG 42 or StG44(MP44) They are HEAVY. If you have ever been on a 10 or 20 mile march with pack you will understand.
the M1 is not exactly a light wieght either...
-
the M1 is not exactly a light wieght either...
Thompson weighed a ton to, that's what made the M-1 and M-2 Carbines so popular ;D
-
you know its funny, my grandfather was a BAR man... after the 1st fire fight, he never complained about the wieght ;D
-
BAR's draw A LOT of attention durring a fire fight. Make the shooter an obvious, slow moving target. Who would you shoot at first in a group of guys with Garands, Carbines, Thompsons, and a BAR?? THINGS ARE LOUD.
Carbines handle so well you nearly forget your carrying them until you need it, much quicker on target, controlable in full auto (aim for his right knee cap), and you dont need an extra guy just to carry your ammo... May not kill on the first shot everytime, but follow up shots are quick, and with one round in the guy he's more of a liability than if he'd just croaked right away anyhow. Unlike .223, .30 cal will rarely fail to take a person out of the combat scene. .45ACP has done a fine job proving you dont need a ton of muzzle velocity over the ages, and "most rifle combat takes place under 70 yards".
BAR's are sure handy if the other guy is in a vehicle, building, or behind cover!
-
Thompson weighed a ton to, that's what made the M-1 and M-2 Carbines so popular ;D
Thats the classic dilemna. If given your choice as to whether you would rather engage the enemy with an M-14 or an M-4, an easy answer. Now add in the question of which you want to hump 20 miles a day up and down hills with 200 rounds, it gets a little less easy. :-\
FQ13
-
Thompson's needed a little heft. Pretty good recoil going on there! Probably why you didnt see a lot of troops toteing those.
From most of the WWII vets I've talked to they carried anything they wanted most of the time "battlefield pickups", unless they were going on a small scouting mission or something, then the first sergant told them each what to take and leave behind. And while they ALL told stories about the Garand, the more you talk to them the more you hear slip about them not actually likeing anything about them... But that was what they were given. And it was a lot easier to shoot than the enemy's bolt actions.
I sure wish we could have issued them AK's!
-
Thompson's needed a little heft. Pretty good recoil going on there! Probably why you didnt see a lot of troops toteing those.
From most of the WWII vets I've talked to they carried anything they wanted most of the time "battlefield pickups", unless they were going on a small scouting mission or something, then the first sergant told them each what to take and leave behind. And while they ALL told stories about the Garand, the more you talk to them the more you hear slip about them not actually likeing anything about them... But that was what they were given. And it was a lot easier to shoot than the enemy's bolt actions.
I sure wish we could have issued them AK's!
It's a PISTOL round, were do you get this recoil crap ? It was heavy because it was made from all MACHINED parts. The stamped sheet metal M-3 grease gun was much lighter and no more difficult to control, Try them some time.
-
It's a PISTOL round, were do you get this recoil crap ? It was heavy because it was made from all MACHINED parts. The stamped sheet metal M-3 grease gun was much lighter and no more difficult to control, Try them some time.
having fired both FA, the grease gun is alot harder to control. not to mention the sites are pretty much junk... but min of man at 50 yds is fine when your shooting a sub gun. ;D
there is no doubt about it, you put 3+ 45 acp in some one, they are going to have a very bad day.
-
.45 full auto... "Pretty good recoil!". It's GONNA climb. Well, unless you've got a drum on it... Dont think military used those. Might be wrong.
-
.45 full auto... "Pretty good recoil!". It's GONNA climb. Well, unless you've got a drum on it... Dont think military used those. Might be wrong.
No, they used a thirty round mag. The drums tended to jam. Better (and cheaper) to change mags when number thirty one went click, than say, "Oh Crap"! when number 15 jammed.
FQ13
-
In my life as infrantryman and Recon, I carried the M1 Garand, M14 and M16. Pretty knowledgable on the BAR. I'll take the Garand and the BAR. The BAR weighs 19 lbs but in a firefight it is worth it's weight in gold. The smallest guys were always designated as BAR men, they were tough. It was accurate and if you were good enough, you could fire single aimed shots. The Garand weighs 9.5 lbs but you got used to it and it was nice to be able to reach out and touch someone. 500 yd shots were easy once you got sighted in. The ping of the clip coming out, how noticeable would it be with the noise of firefight in progress, not much if any. M16, love it, but prefer the Garand.
Never cared much for the M14, I could not hit with it as well as the Garand. Lot's of guys loved it. Full-auto fire, forget it, after 1st round, every shot was in the air.
Grease gun, shot it a bit and it was ok, recoil not bad, but yes it climbed but then so does the M16 but you learn to control.
-
My vote is teh M1903A4
-
this was a very difficult vote for me.
each rifle has it's pros & cons.
personally have always felt comparing an M-1 garande to the bolt action battle rifles is like comparing apples to oranges.
doing so sets the comparsion up for failure. everyone knows the other rifles can't hold up to the M-1's fire rate and ruggedness.
maybe the m-1 should be compared to the german and russian semi auto battle rifles.
my vote for the bolt action rifle goes to the SMLE.
fast action, easy on field repairs, accurate and fairly lite on the carrier.
ya know the tommies were trained to do this forefinger thumb movement from the hip that allowed the rifleman to lay down an extremely high rate of fire on the charge.
the arisaka(sp) post war tested by the U.S. Army ordinance dept proclaimed this rifle to have the strongest action of the grouping!
later, liftstationman
-
this was a very difficult vote for me.
each rifle has it's pros & cons.
personally have always felt comparing an M-1 garande to the bolt action battle rifles is like comparing apples to oranges.
doing so sets the comparsion up for failure. everyone knows the other rifles can't hold up to the M-1's fire rate and ruggedness.
maybe the m-1 should be compared to the german and russian semi auto battle rifles.
my vote for the bolt action rifle goes to the SMLE.
fast action, easy on field repairs, accurate and fairly lite on the carrier.
ya know the tommies were trained to do this forefinger thumb movement from the hip that allowed the rifleman to lay down an extremely high rate of fire on the charge.
the arisaka(sp) post war tested by the U.S. Army ordinance dept proclaimed this rifle to have the strongest action of the grouping!
later, liftstationman
Wanted to take a minute to welcome you again. You should mosey on down to the Down Range Cafe and look for the New Members thread. That's the place where you can tell us a bit about yourself and get a proper welcome in return.
See ya there,
Kid
-
This is my first post here and of the 5, I pick the M1 Garand. I have also owned all the above and other WWII rifles. (G43, M1903A3, M44 Nagants, M1 Carbine) The US was the only country prior to WWII adopt a semi auto rifle, all others continued to equip with WWI rifles.
However, the M1 is not the best rifle to come out of the war. That goes to the MP44/STG44 series rifles that still define rifles today.
(http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/9809Blacked_out_George_MP44_sighting_down2.JPG)
This is me shooting a MP44 in Iraq in 03' with some East German 7.92x33mm ammo. On my hip is another WWII relic (M1911A1 Remington-Rand dated 1944) and at my feet a preWWII Czech BRNO 98/29 7.92x57mm built for Iran.
The task of any infantry soldier is to close with the enemy and destroy him with the most violence in the quickest amount of time to take and hold ground. Most infantry engagements are less then 300m. Squads use fire and manuever to close with the enemy and usually have other weapons(ie machince guns, rifled grenades, etc)/combined arms to back them up. This hasn't changed and the MP44 characterics (AK47, M16/M4 sereis) are still being used in Iraq and Afganistan today.
I base this observation and option based on 24 yrs of active Special Forces duty (recently retired), paratrooper, combat diver, M1 tank qualified, sniper, All Army Match competietor (M16 and M4 to 600yds and M14 to 1000yds, all iron sights) and combat vetren from Iraq in 91, 03,04,05,06,08 and 09'.
Just my .02
-
Welcome in Combat Diver. And thank you for your long service to our country. :)
-
COOL, Another fan of the MP/StG 44.
There is a New member intro thread you can drop by and introduce your self, check out the other threads and forums here, I think you'll enjoy it. Welcome aboard .