PDA

View Full Version : M1 or Kar98k



texhill88
07-25-2007, 10:29 AM
I am having trouble deciding which gun to use in the game call of duty the M1 grand or the Kar98k both guns are great but the kar98k has a slower rate of fire than the M1 but is more powerful and has longer range but on the other hand the M1 has faster rate of fire and a bigger clip so which one should i use? Oh and the Kar98kis a german gun but i can always find ammo for it because it is the main gun for the german army.

texhill88
07-25-2007, 10:29 AM
I am having trouble deciding which gun to use in the game call of duty the M1 grand or the Kar98k both guns are great but the kar98k has a slower rate of fire than the M1 but is more powerful and has longer range but on the other hand the M1 has faster rate of fire and a bigger clip so which one should i use? Oh and the Kar98kis a german gun but i can always find ammo for it because it is the main gun for the german army.

danjama
07-25-2007, 10:31 AM
Just take turns of both, dont choose.

Id take K98 though.

Welcome to the CoD forums http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

MEGILE
07-25-2007, 10:33 AM
Kar98K FO SHO!

You gotta be 1337 like me cuz its 1 shot 1 pwn.

But if you're 1337... then maybe.. just maybe, you can teh win.

BTW. do you like Sub of the day?

AKA_TAGERT
07-25-2007, 10:42 AM
98K lost WWI and lost WWII

Bewolf
07-25-2007, 10:42 AM
You are aware the StG44 is available in this game, yes? Perfect for close combat and and on par with the M1 in single fire mod.

I personally prefer the G43 though. Good punch, darn accurate.

faustnik
07-25-2007, 10:45 AM
Uninsatll COD and download Red Orchestra.

http://www.redorchestragame.com/

Use the Tokarev SVT-40, protect the Motherland.

danjama
07-25-2007, 10:59 AM
RO is amazing i played that for a long time, great game, well worth the low cost!

On a sidenote, i change my original answer also to G43, great weapon!

Bakelit
07-25-2007, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">98K lost WWI and lost WWII </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hardly think the rifle accounted for that...

And... the 98k was not yet around in 14-18. The primary weapons were the Gewehr 98 and the Karabiner 98 A/AZ.

JG52Uther
07-25-2007, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Uninsatll COD and download Red Orchestra.

http://www.redorchestragame.com/

Use the Tokarev SVT-40, protect the Motherland. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
+1 except use G43 ,protect the Fatherland.

Closter
07-25-2007, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Uninsatll COD and download Red Orchestra.

http://www.redorchestragame.com/

Use the Tokarev SVT-40, protect the Motherland. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What Faustnik said! I would still use the K98, though... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

na85
07-25-2007, 12:51 PM
If you're playing the original CoD or the United Offensive expansion, the Kar98k is easily the best weapon. You can pretty much one-hitter anyone with it. Use the aim-down-the-sight mode for precise headshotting.

SidCheshire
07-25-2007, 02:08 PM
What about the Lee Enfield .303?

10 round magazine that be reloaded after 5 have been shot, so more than the M1 and KAR. Long range as per the KAR and also bolt action. Only advantage is the semi-auto on the M1.

These 3 are fine if you have the time to cope with a slower rate of fire. The Stg, Gewehr and SVT are more portable and almost as punchie.

Airmail109
07-25-2007, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SidCheshire:
What about the Lee Enfield .303?

10 round magazine that be reloaded after 5 have been shot, so more than the M1 and KAR. Long range as per the KAR and also bolt action. Only advantage is the semi-auto on the M1.

These 3 are fine if you have the time to cope with a slower rate of fire. The Stg, Gewehr and SVT are more portable and almost as punchie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL all the ranges in COD are to short to effectively utilise the accuracy of a bolt action. Your far better off with a semi auto

MEGILE
07-25-2007, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:


LOL all the ranges in COD are to short to effectively utilise the accuracy of a bolt action. Your far better off with a semi auto </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

disagree 100%

TheCrux
07-25-2007, 03:26 PM
I enjoy recreational shooting, and I own both types, and thoroughly enjoy shooting both types.

The Mauser is original one built in '42 w/nazi eagle markings, and the Garand a Springfield made model. They are both fine shooting guns and very accurate. Very impressive.

As a born and bred civilian, I can't speak from an experienced military viewpoint, but if I were to choose just 1 to have to carry into battle it would probably be the M1 for it's higher rate of fire and slightly lower recoil "kick".

AKA_TAGERT
07-25-2007, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bakelit:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">98K lost WWI and lost WWII </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hardly think the rifle accounted for that... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Than think again

stalkervision
07-25-2007, 04:30 PM
actually almost all soldiers on all sides in ww1 were equiped with similar bolt action weapons. Most in fact were copies of the german mauser that the Kr98 originated from. The American Springfield bolt action rifle was an almost exact copy of the mauser the german's used. The mauser/k98 certainly didn't lose the war for germany! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

also the german's used the machine gun as their primary squad weapon. The solders in the squad with k98's were there to support the machine gun and protect it's flanks. In this the germans were far advanced of the whole world. Read some accounts of all the Russian soldiers the germans mowed down with their mg 34's and 42's with far less troops then the Russians possessed and you will see this was a idea very advanced for it's time. In fact the US army equipes a soldier with a "SAW" Squad automatic weapon for almost this same purpose even though the other soldires in the squad are equiped with M-16's!

The Kr98 didn't lose ww2 for germany that is for sure!

http://tnwcorp.mystarband.net/images/MG34new.gif

http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/imgs/mg42.jpg

check out this video.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wipVRs7r5Wk&mode=related&search=

Rinreiber
07-25-2007, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bakelit:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">98K lost WWI and lost WWII </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hardly think the rifle accounted for that... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Than think again </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

War is over - who cares? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BfHeFwMe
07-25-2007, 05:05 PM
In reality the 98K didn't belong on the WWII battlefield. I've owned both types, and used to shoot competitive. Never heard of anyone using 98's to compete, even in the most informal Sunday buddy shoots using all kinds of relics. Any 98 I've ever seen, that's used for hunting or sporting purposes, has always been highly modified or another type and cal.

The only Mausers that consistently drill holes in bulls at competition levels are the Swedish model 96's in 6.5MM. Some of the Czechoslovakian contract 7MM for export also shoot nicely, especially Brazilian Police models.

The 98K's are basically rushed wartime or rebuilt WW1 stuff. It's very rare to run into an original early pre-war all new manufacture, comparitively not that many were built. Mauser was far to busy making commercial guns for the export market, and there were still tons of guns and parts left over from the last war to remanufacture K's.

But than hardly anyone was prepped with a decent battle rifle. There were many in the works, but the reality of war kind of put a damper on a few. The Belgians were real close with the FN-49 which was already quite well along in R&D as the war broke out. They hid and destroyed what work they had done when the nation collapsed keeping it out of German hands. The weapon was quite a benchmark, the FN-FAL is it's direct decendant, AKA the Arm of the Free World.


As far as power, these rounds are both in the same class, along with the Russian 7.62 and Brit .303s, there's no real edge, differences are minimal. I wouldn't wish to be in any of these rounds path. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

War had become all about how much lead a group can lay down for suppressive fire on the move. The 98 isn't a high volume weapon any way you slice it. The M1 and Enfield were better.

I've always been curious how the Swiss would have fared with their cumbersome and heavy straight pulls. The Austrians basically chucked theirs to back line, way back. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

ElAurens
07-25-2007, 05:25 PM
The 1903 Springfield was actually based on the 1895 7mm Mauser rifles encountered by the US Army during the Spanish American War. Our beautifully made, but obsolescent .30-40 Krag Jorgenson rifles were totally outclassed by the '95 Spanish Mauser.

By the time WW2 came along however, we did have the best rifle on the field, the M1 Garand.

Just remember, the Model 1898 Mauser, in any of it's variations has never been on the winning side. Hunting rifles make poor military rifles.

Just because it's German does not mean it is always the best.

stalkervision
07-25-2007, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
The 1903 Springfield was actually based on the 1895 7mm Mauser rifles encountered by the US Army during the Spanish American War. Our beautifully made, but obsolescent .30-40 Krag Jorgenson rifles were totally outclassed by the '95 Spanish Mauser.

By the time WW2 came along however, we did have the best rifle on the field, the M1 Garand.

Just remember, the Model 1898 Mauser, in any of it's variations has never been on the winning side. Hunting rifles make poor military rifles.

Just because it's German does not mean it is always the best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Springfield is a mauser copy no matter how you look at it and we were on the winning side weren't we..?

No matter how you slice it germans produced some awesome guns. They were hardly the reason they lost the war.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

TheCrux
07-25-2007, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
The 1903 Springfield was actually based on the 1895 7mm Mauser rifles encountered by the US Army during the Spanish American War. Our beautifully made, but obsolescent .30-40 Krag Jorgenson rifles were totally outclassed by the '95 Spanish Mauser.

By the time WW2 came along however, we did have the best rifle on the field, the M1 Garand.

Just remember, the Model 1898 Mauser, in any of it's variations has never been on the winning side. Hunting rifles make poor military rifles.

Just because it's German does not mean it is always the best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Springfield is a mauser copy no matter how you look at it and we were on the winning side weren't we..?

No matter how you slice it germans produced some awesome guns. They were hardly the reason they lost the war.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 03-A3 Springfield was also quickly phased out in WW2 and received relatively little use as the standard issue US battle rifle, and its mention is therefore irrelevant this discussion.

Bewolf
07-25-2007, 07:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
The 1903 Springfield was actually based on the 1895 7mm Mauser rifles encountered by the US Army during the Spanish American War. Our beautifully made, but obsolescent .30-40 Krag Jorgenson rifles were totally outclassed by the '95 Spanish Mauser.

By the time WW2 came along however, we did have the best rifle on the field, the M1 Garand.

Just remember, the Model 1898 Mauser, in any of it's variations has never been on the winning side. Hunting rifles make poor military rifles.

Just because it's German does not mean it is always the best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sometimes I wished ppl would develop some self esteem and came out of their inferiourity complexes. Then they'd not feel anyhow attacked when somebody likes something not made by their own nation.

Talamir
07-25-2007, 08:51 PM
M1 over the K98 any day.

More accurate (slightly)
More powerful (slightly, they'll both drop you in 1 shot)
Faster rate of fire (as fast as you can pull the trigger)
8 rounds instead of 5 (3 isn't a huge increase but its still better)
Much faster reload (about a second for the M1, 2 or 3 for the K98, big difference in CQC, not so much anywhere else)

I hate how most games treat it like its inferior in power and accuracy. The G43 and SVT-40 suffer from this aswell. Just because its a semi-auto and not a bolt action does not mean its any less powerful or accurate, that has nothing to do with it.

ElAurens
07-25-2007, 08:55 PM
My God you lot are crazier than loons.

The Springfield was a very poor de-improvement of the Model 1895 Mauser that utilized the Krag striker system in the bolt. It was fragile in the field compared to the SMLE, P1917 "American Enfield" and true Mausers. It was however more accurate than all it's contemporarys. Both French and German troops were shocked at the ranges that US Marines engaged at during WW1.

My post has nothing to do with nationalism, I am merely giving historic background to this discussion.

I assure you Bewolf I have plenty of self esteem, and in no way feel "attacked" by any of the uninformed comments in this thread.

I personally own several examples of all the rifles mentioned in this thread and have shot several years in competetion and am far more qualified to evaluate them than you folks in Europe who in most cases cannot even own a firearm, much less shoot them on a regular basis.

So why not take your love of all things National Socialist and take a long walk off a short pier, OK?

stalkervision
07-25-2007, 09:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCrux:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
The 1903 Springfield was actually based on the 1895 7mm Mauser rifles encountered by the US Army during the Spanish American War. Our beautifully made, but obsolescent .30-40 Krag Jorgenson rifles were totally outclassed by the '95 Spanish Mauser.

By the time WW2 came along however, we did have the best rifle on the field, the M1 Garand.

Just remember, the Model 1898 Mauser, in any of it's variations has never been on the winning side. Hunting rifles make poor military rifles.

Just because it's German does not mean it is always the best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Springfield is a mauser copy no matter how you look at it and we were on the winning side weren't we..?

No matter how you slice it germans produced some awesome guns. They were hardly the reason they lost the war.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 03-A3 Springfield was also quickly phased out in WW2 and received relatively little use as the standard issue US battle rifle, and its mention is therefore irrelevant this discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hardly irrelvent (are you nuts btw..?) considering it equiped all of our troops in ww1 and helped to win the war in a major way.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It was also used in the early phases of ww2 in fact and continued to be used as a sniper rifle throughout ww2,korea and even Vietnam. Apparently this mauser design worked very well for a very long time at killing people and helping the usa to win wars..

stalkervision
07-25-2007, 09:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
The 1903 Springfield was actually based on the 1895 7mm Mauser rifles encountered by the US Army during the Spanish American War. Our beautifully made, but obsolescent .30-40 Krag Jorgenson rifles were totally outclassed by the '95 Spanish Mauser.

By the time WW2 came along however, we did have the best rifle on the field, the M1 Garand.

Just remember, the Model 1898 Mauser, in any of it's variations has never been on the winning side. Hunting rifles make poor military rifles.

Just because it's German does not mean it is always the best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sometimes I wished ppl would develop some self esteem and came out of their inferiourity complexes. Then they'd not feel anyhow attacked when somebody likes something not made by their own nation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Btw, major components designs of the "saw automatic rifle" are taken directly from german machine designs and other countries MG designs of ww2 as was in the USA M60..

if the us army has no problem copying a good thing why should some of you be so bothered that it wasn't made in the USA?

ElAurens
07-25-2007, 09:25 PM
75% of US Troops in WW1 were armed with the P1917 American Enfield (manufactured by Remington, Eddystone, and Winchester and based on the British Pattern 1913 Enfield), because the US Arsenal at Springfield could not keep up with demand.

The SAW was designed by FN Herstal.

ElAurens
07-25-2007, 09:32 PM
And I'm not bothered in the least by where a particular rifle was made. I own arms made by manufacturers from all over the world.

But back to the original topic.

The M1 was the best shoulder weapon of WW2.

LW_lcarp
07-25-2007, 09:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h5UZrmyzz4

No one mentioned the Mosin Nagant yet. I own a 1930s Finnish M-27 Mosin myself and really enjoy shooting it. The Finnish Mosin is a reworked Russian capture weapon from both wars. They stripped em down and rebuilt them with a finnish made barrel.

As far as which is the better rifle I would have to say the one that you are using at the moment.

And yes the M-60 machine guns direct decendant is the MG42 just has a slower rate of fire.

MarkSynthesis
07-25-2007, 09:49 PM
The M1 Garand was quite famous and celebrated--but wasn't it's usage pale in comparison to other rifles in the war?

If memory serves, it'd be incorrect to just assume that it was the workhorse of the US Army. When the United States entered the war, most troops in the Pacific Theater were still using Springfield rifles weren't they?

Popular portrayal seems to indicate every GI had one, but I think the Garand really only became widespread around 1944.

Well, it was probably the best repeating rifle of the war...though repeating rifles didn't exactly have a long historic use compared to the bolt-actions that preceded them or the assault rifles that followed them.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

stalkervision
07-25-2007, 09:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
75% of US Troops in WW1 were armed with the P1917 American Enfield (manufactured by Remington, Eddystone, and Winchester and based on the British Pattern 1913 Enfield), because Bhe US Arsenal at Springfield could not keep up with demand.

The SAW was designed by FN Herstal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

better check out the "saw's" design components as the M60's... Of course you being "an arms expert" you should know what I am getting at.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stalkervision
07-25-2007, 09:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
And I'm not bothered in the least by where a particular rifle was made. I own arms made by manufacturers from all over the world.

But back to the original topic.

The M1 was the best shoulder weapon of WW2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that sounds just a bit "biased" to me... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
07-25-2007, 09:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LW_lcarp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h5UZrmyzz4

No one mentioned the Mosin Nagant yet. I own a 1930s Finnish M-27 Mosin myself and really enjoy shooting it. The Finnish Mosin is a reworked Russian capture weapon from both wars. They stripped em down and rebuilt them with a finnish made barrel.

As far as which is the better rifle I would have to say the one that you are using at the moment.

And yes the M-60 machine guns direct decendant is the MG42 just has a slower rate of fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Mosin Nagant was an excellent gun arming both foot soldiers and the excellent snipers of the Russian army. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Actually in reality it was more responsable for germany downfall then the M1 garand ever was..

Talamir
07-25-2007, 10:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MarkSynthesis:
The M1 Garand was quite famous and celebrated--but wasn't it's usage pale in comparison to other rifles in the war?

If memory serves, it'd be incorrect to just assume that it was the workhorse of the US Army. When the United States entered the war, most troops in the Pacific Theater were still using Springfield rifles weren't they?

Popular portrayal seems to indicate every GI had one, but I think the Garand really only became widespread around 1944.

Well, it was probably the best repeating rifle of the war...though repeating rifles didn't exactly have a long historic use compared to the bolt-actions that preceded them or the assault rifles that followed them.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Pretty sure the only US troops not using the M1 widely were Marines (until about late 42 or so I believe) and US Army troops in the Philippines.

Besides those I don't think a single Army unit went into action without M1's as their primary weapon.

HellToupee
07-25-2007, 11:45 PM
interesting is the russian svt-40, lated dropped production back infavour of mosin nagant as it was easier to produce and more reliable.

waffen-79
07-26-2007, 12:35 AM
I don't know those two are very cool rifles

I'd chose the Mauser K98, but I prefer the G43

tagTaken2
07-26-2007, 12:48 AM
Problem solved:

1. Right click on the Call of Duty Single Player shortcut and select "Properties"
2. In the "Target" field enter(w/o quotes) "+set thereisacow 1337 +set developer 1 +set sv_cheats 1 +set monkeytoy 0" (i.e. "C:\Program Files\Call of Duty\CoDSP.exe" +set thereisacow 1337 +set developer 1 +set sv_cheats 1 +set monkeytoy 0)
3. Start up COD, press the tilde key (~) to enter console.
4. Enter the below for desired effect.

* give "object name" - "object name" is some object in game such as BAR
* give all - give all items
* give ammo - maximum ammunition

Bewolf
07-26-2007, 02:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:

So why not take your love of all things National Socialist and take a long walk off a short pier, OK? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

And there for a moment I was about to take you serious.

joeap
07-26-2007, 03:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LW_lcarp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h5UZrmyzz4

No one mentioned the Mosin Nagant yet. I own a 1930s Finnish M-27 Mosin myself and really enjoy shooting it. The Finnish Mosin is a reworked Russian capture weapon from both wars. They stripped em down and rebuilt them with a finnish made barrel.

As far as which is the better rifle I would have to say the one that you are using at the moment.

And yes the M-60 machine guns direct decendant is the MG42 just has a slower rate of fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Mosin Nagant was an excellent gun arming both foot soldiers and the excellent snipers of the Russian army. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Actually in reality it was more responsable for germany downfall then the M1 garand ever was.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry no rifle "won the war", it really did depend on the soldier carrying it, his support (machine guns and ARTILLERY), armour 9T-34 in this case) and the guys leading (ie. Zhukov, Slim, Manstein and other great generals).

TheCrux
07-26-2007, 03:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCrux:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
The 1903 Springfield was actually based on the 1895 7mm Mauser rifles encountered by the US Army during the Spanish American War. Our beautifully made, but obsolescent .30-40 Krag Jorgenson rifles were totally outclassed by the '95 Spanish Mauser.

By the time WW2 came along however, we did have the best rifle on the field, the M1 Garand.

Just remember, the Model 1898 Mauser, in any of it's variations has never been on the winning side. Hunting rifles make poor military rifles.

Just because it's German does not mean it is always the best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Springfield is a mauser copy no matter how you look at it and we were on the winning side weren't we..?

No matter how you slice it germans produced some awesome guns. They were hardly the reason they lost the war.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 03-A3 Springfield was also quickly phased out in WW2 and received relatively little use as the standard issue US battle rifle, and its mention is therefore irrelevant this discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hardly irrelvent (are you nuts btw..?) considering it equiped all of our troops in ww1 and helped to win the war in a major way.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It was also used in the early phases of ww2 in fact and continued to be used as a sniper rifle throughout ww2,korea and even Vietnam. Apparently this mauser design worked very well for a very long time at killing people and helping the usa to win wars.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, irrelevant. I'm not nuts, but you are a sophist and playing dirty pool debate-wise. You're not paying attention to the topic subject, and thus broadening it as an attempt to legitimize your argument. Actually, you're pulling the classic strawman argumenthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Question: K98 or M1? WW2, NOT WW1. The 03-A3 Springfield was a VERY minor player for the US in WW2 compared to the M1. As I have said ( and what you have studiously ignored ), main battle rifle , not the ancilliary duties like a sniper rifle. Original question? M1 or K98?

What say you?

stalkervision
07-26-2007, 04:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCrux:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCrux:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ElAurens:
The 1903 Springfield was actually based on the 1895 7mm Mauser rifles encountered by the US Army during the Spanish American War. Our beautifully made, but obsolescent .30-40 Krag Jorgenson rifles were totally outclassed by the '95 Spanish Mauser.

By the time WW2 came along however, we did have the best rifle on the field, the M1 Garand.

Just remember, the Model 1898 Mauser, in any of it's variations has never been on the winning side. Hunting rifles make poor military rifles.

Just because it's German does not mean it is always the best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Springfield is a mauser copy no matter how you look at it and we were on the winning side weren't we..?

No matter how you slice it germans produced some awesome guns. They were hardly the reason they lost the war.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 03-A3 Springfield was also quickly phased out in WW2 and received relatively little use as the standard issue US battle rifle, and its mention is therefore irrelevant this discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hardly irrelvent (are you nuts btw..?) considering it equiped all of our troops in ww1 and helped to win the war in a major way.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It was also used in the early phases of ww2 in fact and continued to be used as a sniper rifle throughout ww2,korea and even Vietnam. Apparently this mauser design worked very well for a very long time at killing people and helping the usa to win wars.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Yes, irrelevant. I'm not nuts, but you are a sophist and playing dirty pool debate-wise."

'You're not paying attention to the topic subject, and thus broadening it as an attempt to legitimize your argument. Actually, you're pulling the classic strawman argumenthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif "


&gt; actually if you had been paying attention at all, the topic has moved into further areas of discussion as all our topics tend to do if you haven't noticed by now..&lt;

"Question: K98 or M1? WW2, NOT WW1. The 03-A3 Springfield was a VERY minor player for the US in WW2 compared to the M1. As I have said ( and what you have studiously ignored ), main battle rifle , not the ancilliary duties like a sniper rifle. Original question? M1 or K98?"

What say you?

now we are in the "Old Bailey" HUH? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

original question..

"I am having trouble deciding which gun to use in the game call of duty the M1 grand or the Kar98k both guns are great but the kar98k has a slower rate of fire than the M1 but is more powerful and has longer range but on the other hand the M1 has faster rate of fire and a bigger clip so which one should i use? Oh and the Kar98kis a german gun but i can always find ammo for it because it is the main gun for the german army."

&gt;&gt; well in "call of duty" I always tried to get a Tompson sub machine gun or a mp-34 german submachine gun. This was because it was primaily close in street fighting I did. Where the Kr-98 or a springfield would have been totally excellent is if it was fitted with a sniper scope when one was landing on Omaha beach. A springfield Sniper scope equiped soldiers were an intregal part of many american squad units because of all the german snipers the american's faced. If you knew anything about the 03 and snipers you would quicky realise their importance.

anyway in the "beach part" the american soldier originally has only has a silly tompson or M1 I believe. The key to getting off the beach in that segment is finding a 03 sniper scope equiped rifle and being able to pick off the german machine gunners as they pop their heads up.

hardly a less then useful rifle is it now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


In street fighting where the town is held by snipers the springfield or german sniper rifle is the only choice.

In general street fighting as I said it is the mp-34 or the Tompson. Actually there is another choice here the "Bar" that does quite well too because of it's enoromous fire power.


I never used the KR 98 K except for medium to long range shooting which it was excellent. I didn't much like the Garand either because it didn't seem to be a very good "street fighting gun" Much too slow to handle in fast paced street combat IMO.

I would go with nether of the original posters choices as a general purpose gun.

My picks would be the bar/tompson or the mp-34.. &lt;&lt;


oh and a occasional panzerfaust or mg-42 when I could get them.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"call of duty" requires one to be very flexable with your weapons choices. You pick the weapon that best fits your needs at the time and that you btw have ammo for too.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

flakwagen
07-26-2007, 06:11 AM
Surplus rifles chambered for 7.92x57mm (8mm Mauser) are crippled by the fact that highly accurate bullets suited for the twist rate of a military issue barrel aren't widely available in the USA. Sierra makes an 8mm MatchKing bullet, but it is 200 grains- about three grains heavier than it needs to be.

This 200gr bullet is great for domestic 8mm cartridges like 8mm Remington Magnum, but it's not of much use to those who wish to use an unmodified K98 in a rifle match.

Now and then somebody gets the idea to lobby Sierra for a correctly weighted bullet. I suspect 'milsurp' bolt action rifle matches simply aren't popular enough to warrant a marketing effort by the match ammunition companies.

The supply of cheap surplus 8mm ammunition is only now starting to dry up in the USA. So the market might change soon. When gun owners run out of cheap 8mm to shoot at tin cans, they might turn more to the idea of match shooting with their old rifles.

As for Swedish Mausers, they are chambered in 6.5x55mm. This cartridge has always enjoyed a great reputation for accuracy. Loading match ammo for Swedish Mausers is no great task.

Flak

Friendly_flyer
07-26-2007, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LW_lcarp:
And yes the M-60 machine guns direct decendant is the MG42 just has a slower rate of fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That isn't quite true. The ammo feed mechanism of the M-60 is copied from the MG42, but not the rest. If you have had the chance to hold bout, you'll feel they have very different balance and weight. The M-60 is made to fire from a fixed position or bipod, firing it with any accuracy from a standing position ("Rambo style") is very hard. With the MG42 it's doable, but the gun itself is rather heavier.

stalkervision
07-26-2007, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LW_lcarp:
And yes the M-60 machine guns direct decendant is the MG42 just has a slower rate of fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That isn't quite true. The ammo feed mechanism of the M-60 is copied from the MG42, but not the rest. If you have had the chance to hold bout, you'll feel they have very different balance and weight. The M-60 is made to fire from a fixed position or bipod, firing it with any accuracy from a standing position ("Rambo style") is very hard. With the MG42 it's doable, but the gun itself is rather heavier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well the ammo feed is about the most important part of the gun isn't it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

There is something else they share in common but I can't remember what it is damn it.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Other parts of the gun are from other countries weapons..

Hay we ain't to proud to steal from the best and for that I am proud of our country! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hawgdog
07-26-2007, 09:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:


There is something else they share in common but I can't remember what it is damn it.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah, bullets

BfHeFwMe
07-26-2007, 10:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

hardly irrelvent (are you nuts btw..?) considering it equiped all of our troops in ww1 and helped to win the war in a major way.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very wrong, 80% + of US troops deployed to Europe with the M-1917 rifle, it was the main battle rifle for AEF. Contrary to popular Hollywood hype, Sgt Alvin York carried and used an M-1917 Enfield in his CMH action. He preferred it over the Springfield.

Springfield Armory was incapable of mass producing rifles of the Springfield type at the time. Remington, Edystone, and Winchester were already up and running producing millions of British M-1914 pattern Enfields. They simply converted the 1914 from .303 to 30-06 and named it for the year it was done, M-1917.

stalkervision
07-27-2007, 05:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

hardly irrelvent (are you nuts btw..?) considering it equiped all of our troops in ww1 and helped to win the war in a major way.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Very wrong, 80% + of US troops deployed to Europe with the M-1917 rifle, it was the main battle rifle for AEF. Contrary to popular Hollywood hype, Sgt Alvin York carried and used an M-1917 Enfield in his CMH action. He preferred it over the Springfield.

Springfield Armory was incapable of mass producing rifles of the Springfield type at the time. Remington, Edystone, and Winchester were already up and running producing millions of British M-1914 pattern Enfields. They simply converted the 1914 from .303 to 30-06 and named it for the year it was done, M-1917. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


VerY wrong huh? Read this about the "1917 model"


"Pattern 1914/US M1917
Main Articles: Pattern 1914 Enfield/.30 calibre rifle US Model of 1917

During the Second Boer War the British were faced with accurate long-range fire from the famous Mauser rifles, model 1895, in 7x57mm Mauser calibre. This smaller, high-velocity round prompted the War Department to develop their own "magnum" round in 1910, using a .276 calibre round patterned from that of the Canadian Ross rifle. A modified Mauser-pattern rifle was built to fire it, the Pattern 1913 Enfield, although the outbreak of war and the attendant manufacturing and logistic constraints prevented adoption of the rifle. Enfield then adapted the same rifle pattern to fire the standard .303 round, later called the Pattern 1914 Rifle. The P14 was an accurate, but long and heavy rifle fed from a five-round internal magazine. Britain lacked the spare industrial capacity to manufacture the P14: Vickers, the P14's initial contractor, never produced more than a handful of rifles; almost all P14s were manufactured in the United States by Winchester and Remington (at both the established Ilion plant and at a new factory in Eddystone, Pennsylvania). The need to maintain SMLE production meant that the P14 was never a serious contender for replacing the SMLE, instead being used as a sniper rifle and as a reserve weapon.

When the US entered WWI, the P14 was standardised and modified by the US Ordnance Department and went into production in the US as the .30 calibre rifle US Model of 1917, having been chambered for the standard US 30-06 cartridge, ultimately far surpassing the Springfield in total production. Prior to and during World War II, the P14 was used in Britain as a substitute standard arm, and was issued to the Home Guard. Early in WWII, the US also sent some M1917 rifles to the UK under Lend-Lease, though the .30 calibre ammunition it required severely limited its use.[citation needed]

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;It must be noted that, as derivatives of the Mauser action, the P13, P14 and M1917 rifles are not based on the original Lee action, and as such cannot be considered "Lee-Enfield" rifles.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

very wrong huh?

The 1917 was actually based on the MAUSER DESIGH and not the Enfield's!

It may have said Enfield but it was a Mauser based bolt action design!


More..During the earliest part of the XX century, British army had some doubts about the effectiveness of its newest infantry weapon, the famous Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield, or SMLE in short. Because of that, government arms factory at Enfield Lock was set up to produce Mauser-pattern rifle and new rimless ammunition for it. By the 1912, such rifle was produced in the form of the Enfield P13 (pattern 1913) rifle, alongside with powerful magnum-class .276 Enfield ammunition. Being too powerful, this cartridge produced excessive muzzle flash and recoil, and worn barrels too quickly. The Great war (1st World war) effectively stopped the development of a new cartridge, and also put the British troops into desperate need for more and more rifles. As the British industry had no spare capacity to produce Lee Enfields, in 1915 the British Government decided to order rifles from private US contractors. The P13 rifle was especially suited for rapid mass production, so it was ordered for British troops, rechambered to the standard .303 British ammunition. The .303 caliber P14 rifles were manufactured by the three US arms plants, the Remington, the Winchester and the Eddystone (subsidiary of the Remington). As the USA entered the 1st World War in 1917, it immediately felt a shortage of infantry rifles, and, like the Britain before, government plants were unable to turn out enough Springfield M1903 rifles for US troops. As the .303 caliber P14 rifles were already in production in USA, US government decided to adopt this pattern to US issue .30-06 ammunition. Resulting rifle was adopted as "US Rifle, .30 caliber, Model of 1917", and produced by the same three plants between 1917 and 1918. During that short time, more than two millions of M1917 rifles were delivered to US Army, and most of the American troops in Europe were actually armed with M1917 rifles. Nevertheless, after the end of the war the Army officials decided to keep the Springfield M1903 as a general issue rifle, probably as a matter of a national pride. Many of M1917 rifles were sold as surplus or put into storage. During the early part of the 2nd World war some of M1917 rifles were shipped to Britain, where they were issued to the Home Guard. To distinguish .30 caliber US-made M1917 from very similar .303 caliber P14 rifles, British-issue .30 caliber M1917 rifles were marked with painted red strip on the buttstock. In general, M1917 rifles (also known as US Enfields) are known as a strong and accurate rifles; many of these were latter sporterized and often rechambered for various hunting cartridges.

The P14 and M1917 are manually operated, rotating bolt action rifles. Mauser-type rotating bolt has two frontal lugs which lock into the receiver ring. Integral staggered-row box magazine holds five rounds and can be loaded using M1903-type stripper clips or loose rounds. Bolt handle is bent down for more comfortable carry, and located at the rear of the bolt. Solid rear receiver bridge has guide slots for stripper clips, and serves as a base for rear diopter sight. manual safety is located at the right side of the receiver, above the trigger guard. Adjustable diopter rear sight offered high accuracy, once the proper windage was set by the drifting of the front sight. M1917 rifles were issued with detachable M1917 knife bayonet and scabbard. The easiest way to distinguish British P14 and US M1917 rifles is to look at the buttstock: the British rifles have a brass disk set up into the right side of the butt, which carries the regiment number. US rifles have no such disk.

As I said before, the mauser bolt action design helped win ww1. Stop trying to disprove it,it did.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



Nice research try but you obviously stopped right there when you first read the words "1917..Enfield" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

C+

ElAurens
07-27-2007, 10:50 AM
We were responding to the post that the Springfield was the main rifle used by US troops in WW1.

And yes the P14 and P17 are based on Mauser type actions, but bear no resemblance to any Mauser produced weapon, other than being bolt action with the locking lugs at the front of the bolt, and are far more robust than the '98 Mauser.

It is often said about the WW1 rifles fielded that:

The Germans had the best hunting rifle.

The Americans had the best target rifle.

The British had the best battle rifle.


But, back to the topic at hand, the M1 Garand is demonstrably the best shoulder arm of the Second World War.

Bar none.

stalkervision
07-27-2007, 01:58 PM
well not exactly, your forgeting about this guy. Care to slightly change your statement just a tad..


oh first.."And yes the P14 and P17 are based on Mauser type actions, but bear no resemblance to any Mauser produced weapon, other than being bolt action with the locking lugs at the front of the bolt, and are far more robust than the '98 Mauser.

Uh.. the mauser bolt action is the whole weapon. The Enfield company just changed it a tad is all. It isn't a real ENFIELD!!! It's a mauser copy.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Sturmgewehr_44.jpg/800px-Sturmgewehr_44.jpg

This weapon, known as a worlds first assault rifle, was developed in Hitlers' Germany during the World War Two. Initial development took place under the designation of MKb.42 - MachinenKarabine, 1942. The experimental MKb's were developed by two german companies, Karl Walther (MKb.42(W)) and C.G.Haenel (MKb.42(H)). Both guns were intended as a replacement for submachine guns, bolt action rifles and, partly, light machineguns for front troops. Both guns were designed to fire intermediate (between rifle and pistol) cartridge, and have effective range of 600 meters or so. The 7.92mm Kurz cartridge, developed by Polte company, propelled 8.1 g (125 grains) bullet to rougly 680 meters per second.

After initial trials the MKb.42(H), designed by Hugo Schmeisser, was found superior of two, and further development took place under the name of MP-43 (MachinenPistole, 1943, to avoid Hitlers opposition to made anything but SMGs). Some MP-43s were issued to troops at western front, and field reports were very promising. Final version appeared under the designation of Mp-44, and then Hitler finally approved it, but the new gun received also a new designation - SturmGevehr-44, which stands for no more than "Assult Rifle" in german language. This was pure act of propaganda, but the name stuck not only to that gun, but to the whole new class of automatic weapons, designed to fire intermediate cartridges. Total number of MP-43s, MP-44s and StG.44s produced was about 500 000, and these guns proved itself as wery effective, but not withouth some flaws. After end of the war the direct development of the Stg.44 was stopped, but some remained guns were used by East Germany.

The StG.44 is a gas operated, selective fire weapon. The receiver and trigger housing with pistol grip are made from steel stampings. Trigger housing with pistol grip is hinged to the receiver and folds town for disassembly. Gas drive utilises long piston stroke, and bolt is tipped down to lock into the receiver. Gun is fired from the closed bolt (unlike the early Mkb.42(H) which fired from the open bolt). Also, MP-43 and further versions all were hammer-fired, while MKb.42(H) was striker-fired. Charging handle is attached to the gas piston rod, ejection port has a dust cover. Recoil spring is located inside the wooden butt. Handguard were made of stamping.


The first modern assault rifle. Today every country fields their own version of this revolutionary weapon..

and where is your garand/design? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Hell, the US GI's were getting chased right out of Korea when they still had their garands. Thank god they also had lots of air support and Browning Machine guns!

case closed garand fan boy... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

BfHeFwMe
07-28-2007, 12:56 AM
Uhmm, dude, Enfield is a British design and weapons manufacture firm, not a specific gun design. Whether they copied it or not is irrelevant, any weapon blueprints and specs issued by the original firm, which they are, and contracted to another never changes a designation of the gun.

M1 Garands were still M1 Garands whether they popped out the door of Winchester or International Harvester. They didn't become tractors or cowboy guns. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

So it's a "derivative", as is the K-98 off earlier Paris and Enfield bolts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif The current SA-85 is also an Enfield, and guess what, it has no relationship whatsoever to original SMLE's.

Enfield if you haven't ciphered by now is a generic term same as Winchester, Colt, or Springfield. It means nothing without a specific type and model designator to clarify which gun.

And the P-14/P-17 series were Enfields by blueprint, patent, and licence. And there were MAJOR deviations from the Mauser, such as using a rimmed cartridge, and a recessed short extractor, bolt **** on lock, and receiver based rear peep sights. So besides having a bolt, what exactly did they copy? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

joeap
07-28-2007, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
case closed garand fan boy... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many of those were used compared to the Garands? That's like comparing the Arado to the B-17. Oh sure it was "better" but most of the time it was garands vs. mausers...oh and MG-42s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Kurfurst__
07-28-2007, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
And the P-14/P-17 series were Enfields by blueprint, patent, and licence. And there were MAJOR deviations from the Mauser, such as using a rimmed cartridge, and a recessed short extractor, bolt **** on lock, and receiver based rear peep sights. So besides having a bolt, what exactly did they copy? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's quite commonly ackknowledged the P-14/P-17 is just another basic Mauser 98 system. Do you know how ridiculus it sounds when you write that the soul of the operating principle is taken from the Mauser 98, but it's not a Mauser copy actually? Uhm, the sights are different. Yeah and if I put an ACOG on an old long Gewehr 98 from WW1 it suddenly becomes an M-4 carbine, following the logic. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Major devitions, bullocks. If I look down, I see the unmistakeable shape of the by far most popular bolt-action system. P-14/17s rifles are just some of thos 100 million+ bolt action rifles that took the simpliest way, and copied the best system that is around ever since.

http://world.guns.ru/rifle/enfield_p14_fs.jpg

During the earliest part of the XX century, British army had some doubts about the effectiveness of its newest infantry weapon, the famous Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield, or SMLE in short. Because of that, government arms factory at Enfield Lock was set up to produce Mauser-pattern rifle and new rimless ammunition for it. By the 1912, such rifle was produced in the form of the Enfield P13 (pattern 1913) rifle, alongside with powerful magnum-class .276 Enfield ammunition. Being too powerful, this cartridge produced excessive muzzle flash and recoil, and worn barrels too quickly. The Great war (1st World war) effectively stopped the development of a new cartridge, and also put the British troops into desperate need for more and more rifles. As the British industry had no spare capacity to produce Lee Enfields, in 1915 the British Government decided to order rifles from private US contractors. The P13 rifle was especially suited for rapid mass production, so it was ordered for British troops, rechambered to the standard .303 British ammunition.

Fact is the British wanted basically a Mauser rifle for themselves, with the rimless ammunition the Mauser fired. They basically wanted a Mauser, tailored for the British army's taste. Fact is the British only stood with the SMLE because WW1 intervened, and they needed rifles fast, and in the caliber they had already, and stuck with the old fashioned rimmed cartridges that was the standard in the British army at the time.

Kurfurst__
07-28-2007, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
case closed garand fan boy... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many of those were used compared to the Garands? That's like comparing the Arado to the B-17. Oh sure it was "better" but most of the time it was garands vs. mausers...oh and MG-42s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The German infantry squad`s guns certainly compromised more than just Mausers and MG-42s, even if that's the common picture. In fact, it was rather mixed array of submachineguns, semi-auto rifles, bolt action rifles, GPMGs, and assault rifles. The main type was the Mauser of course, but from 1943 onwards much more automatic firepower was available.

Ie. gun production, not counting the lesser produced ones like G 41(M), FG 42 etc, and ommitting SMGs :
(figures vary a bit up and down from source to source, but are generally in the same ballpark)

Semi-auto rifles :
Gewehr 41(W): 122 907 were made.
Gewehr 43(W): 402,713 were made.

Assualt rifles :

Mkb 42 11,833 were made.
MP 44 425,977 were made.

That's about a million guns with heavy automatic firepower in trigger happy hands.

Back to the original question, in an 1944 enviroment you'd probably find 9 guys with Garands, one with a Thompson SMG, and one with a BAR rifle.

On the other side you'd probably find six with Mausers and/or G-43 semi-autos, 2 or 3 with Sturmgewehrs or MP-40s. Some of them probably grabbed a Panzerfaust, and those who couldn't have one stick 'potato smashers' in their boots. They have a pshyco buddy with them carrying an MG-42 with a big grin on his fce, figuring the faster he shoots ammo the less he has to carry. Two such psychos quickly made buddies in Panzergranadier squads. Those who couldn't get either accessory for the beauty contest probably running around with an extra ammunition belts and boxes around their neck and in their hand. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Last, but not least, the NCO`s got a Luger, too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I seriously doubt WH infantry ever complained about their lack of firepower.

BfHeFwMe
07-28-2007, 03:29 PM
In your dreams kurfy, besides having a bolt, which every bolt action rifle has since the original needle gun, long before any 98 existed, tell us what part or system is cloned directly off the mauser.

There is one minor piece, but I'd wager you don't know it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Xiolablu3
07-28-2007, 06:09 PM
Funny, I always thought htat the British (and everyone else who ever used one) loved the Lee Enfield. The SMLE and the KAR usually come joint top in any bolt action rifle tests.

The original question has to be the M1 as long as you are not a sniper, thats just common sense. However the STG44 also has to be a common sense choice over the M1.

The comparisons are bascially against a gun of a different generation.

KAR98&lt;M1&lt;STG44

The GErman Amry doctrine was focussed around the Mg42. The US and British army focused on the Rifle.

A gun I have always wanted to own and have loved for its coolness value is the FG42.

http://www.fg42.net/fg42a.jpg

Gets very bad reports and write ups for a few reasons

*Very small and fires a full size rifle cartridge.= Heavy recoil
*Fires a full size rifle cartridge on full auto = uncontrollable in your hands
*Massive muzzle flash.
*SIde magazine with heavy rounds makes it awkward to aim and control, wants to fall to the left.

HOWEVER.

FOr a multi purpose rifle for a PAratrooper, who has a limiterd amount of equipment he can carry, I can see the logical thinking. It had a bipod enabling full auto 'Bren style' MG fire from prone position. Can be used as a single shot, semi auto rifle from the standing position. Therefore the uncontrollable full auto problem is removed if its used in this way.

I'd love one, they are so rare nowdays.

Blutarski2004
07-28-2007, 07:14 PM
Sorry folks, but there is no possible basis upon which to dispute the fact that the M1 Garand was the finest infantry rifle of WW2.

BTW, talk all you like about the MP43/StG44 family, which was certainly an innovative and interesting weapon design. But the first real assault rifle was the US M1/M2/M3 family of carbines. Over 6 million were delivered between June 1942 and August 1945. It was an excellent weapon which has never IMO received proper credit.

Xiolablu3
07-28-2007, 07:27 PM
SOrry, Blutarski, I dont agree that he M1 carbine was the first assault rifle.

The M1 carbine never even had a full auto option. It was more of a 'small rifle' than an assault rifle. Full auto was added in the M2 in early 1945 which was long after the Mp43/44 had been in service.

It didnt, in my opinion, combine the full auto, close quarters capability of the submachine gun with near the power of a rifle, which is the definition of an assault rifle.

It filled another niche which was a 'light semi-auto rifle', sort of a 'mini garand'.

Certainly a great gun, but IMO not really anything like an 'assault rifle' until its M2 version.

STG/MP43/44 gets my vote over the GArand or Carbine. ALthough the numbers used of each cannot compare of course.

stalkervision
07-28-2007, 08:03 PM
The m1 carbine.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


The M1 Carbine was designed primarily to offer non-combat and line-of-communications troops a better defensive weapon than a pistol or submachine gun, with greater accuracy and range, but without the recoil, cost, or weight of a full-power infantry rifle. The carbine was also easier for less experienced soldiers and smaller-framed people to fire than the .30 caliber infantry rifles of the day. The carbine was more convenient to carry for officers, NCOs, or specialists encumbered with weapons, field glasses, radios, or other gear. Tankers, drivers, artillery crews, mortar crews, and other personnel were also issued the M1 Carbine in lieu of the larger, heavier M1 Garand. Belatedly, a folding-stock version of the M1 Carbine was developed, after a request was made for a compact and light infantry arm for airborne troops. The first M1 Carbines were delivered in mid-1942, with initial priority given to troops in the European theatre of war.

The M1 Carbine and its reduced-power .30 Carbine cartridge was never intended to serve as a primary infantry weapon, nor was it comparable to more powerful assault rifles developed late in the war. Nevertheless, the carbine was soon issued to infantry officers, machine-gun crews, paratroopers, and other frontline soldiers. Its reputation in combat was mixed. Some infantrymen and Marines, especially those who did not use a rifle as their primary weapon, preferred the carbine over the M1 Garand because of the weapon's small size and light weight. The carbine also gained generally high praise from airborne troops who were issued the folding-stock M1A1. The carbine's exclusive use of non-corrosive primered ammunition was found to be a godsend by troops and ordnance personnel serving in the Pacific, where barrel corrosion was a significant issue, though not to the same extent in Europe, where some soldiers reported misfires attributed to bad primers.

In the Pacific theatre, soldiers and guerrilla forces operating in heavy jungle with only occasional enemy contact generally praised the carbine for its light weight and accuracy. Other soldiers and Marines engaged in frequent daily combat (particularly those serving in the Philippines) found the weapon to have insufficient stopping power and penetration. Reports of Japanese soldiers being shot multiple times in chest and body without immediate effect began to surface. Like the .45 Thompson, some troops found the .30 Carbine cartridge incapable of penetrating small trees and other light jungle cover. Aware of these shortcomings, the U.S. Army, its Pacific Command Ordnance staff and the Aberdeen small arms facility continued to work on shortened versions of the M1 Garand throughout the war, though none were ever officially adopted.

Initially, the M1 Carbine was intended to have a selective-fire capability, but the decision was made to put the M1 into production without this feature. Fully-automatic fire capability was later incorporated into the design of the M2 (an improved, selective-fire version of the M1), introduced in 1944.

The M2 Carbine continued in use during the Korean War. As noted, the M2 featured a selective-fire switch allowing optional fully-automatic fire at a rather high rate (850-900 rpm) and a 30-round magazine. In Korea, all versions of the M1/M2 carbine soon acquired a poor reputation for jamming in extreme cold weather conditions, eventually traced to inadequate recoil impulse and weak recoil springs. A 1951 official U.S. Army evaluation noted the weapon's cold-weather shortcomings, and recorded complaints by troops for failure to stop heavily-clothed North Korean and Chinese troops at close range after multiple hits.

The M2 carbine was again issued to some U.S. troops in Vietnam, particularly reconnaissance units (LRRP) and advisors as a substitute standard weapon. Reports of stopping ineffectiveness in close combat continued to dog the carbine until it was finally withdrawn from U.S. service. These weapons began to be replaced by the M16 in the late 1960s, and many M1, M2, and M3 Carbines were given to the South Vietnamese.


The gun could hardly stop an medium-sized squirrel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/93/Common_Squirrel.jpg/250px-Common_Squirrel.jpg

There are tons and tons of reports of american Gi's shooting charging Japanese,Chinese and Vietnamese soldiers over and over again with that pea-shooter and they still came right on and it only made then more angry.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
07-28-2007, 08:25 PM
Was the M1 Carbine round comparable to the 'Kurz' (short) round used in the Mp44? Or was it much less powerful?

SUrely it would at least be more powerful than a 9mm pistol or Submachine gun round?

Questions...questions....http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BfHeFwMe
07-28-2007, 09:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The GErman Amry doctrine was focussed around the Mg42. The US and British army focused on the Rifle.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd modify that to Artillery for the US. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
We spent half the budget, $34 billion plus, on ord. The lionshare went to medium artillery. No one fired of even near the rounds. The German army learned to fear US Artillery beginning in the African deserts.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q150/Biffy_06/Ord.jpg

As one can see, top priority was with the artillery corp from the beginning. It was the first to reach production quota's, and was never lacking from 42 on.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q150/Biffy_06/ord2.jpg

Let em have their fancy over engineered machine guns, we'll just blast em out. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

stalkervision
07-28-2007, 09:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Was the M1 Carbine round comparable to the 'Kurz' (short) round used in the Mp44? Or was it much less powerful?

SUrely it would at least be more powerful than a 9mm pistol or Submachine gun round?

Questions...questions....http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really don't believe so. I am pretty sure the short round Kurtz was more powerful. I believe the carbine round was esentially a pistol round. All I know was it couldn't stop anything that really didn't want to be stopped... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
07-28-2007, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The GErman Amry doctrine was focussed around the Mg42. The US and British army focused on the Rifle.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd modify that to Artillery for the US. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
We spent half the budget, $34 billion plus, on ord. The lionshare went to medium artillery. No one fired of even near the rounds. The German army learned to fear US Artillery beginning in the African deserts.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q150/Biffy_06/Ord.jpg

As one can see, top priority was with the artillery corp from the beginning. It was the first to reach production quota's, and was never lacking from 42 on.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q150/Biffy_06/ord2.jpg

Let em have their fancy over engineered machine guns, we'll just blast em out. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what I have heard was our air force F/B's and artillary was what really helped us to defeat the germans..

Oh and maybe just "a littlr help" from our Russian friends.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
07-28-2007, 09:40 PM
Yes the Russians for sure helped a lot.

ANd dont forget a bit of help from the USA too Stalker...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


It wouldnt do for us Brits/NZ/Aus/Canadians to forget the help the US gave us later in the war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Without help from these two Allies, it would have taken a lot longer for Britain/Commonwealth to win WW2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

stalkervision
07-28-2007, 10:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Yes the Russians for sure helped a lot.

ANd dont forget a bit of help from the USA too Stalker...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


It wouldnt do for us Brits/NZ/Aus/Canadians to forget the help the US gave us later in the war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Without help from these two Allies, it would have taken a lot longer for Britain/Commonwealth to win WW2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ahh the american's were there just for window dressing is all.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

and putting in lots and lots of money. Can't have the Queen going around in rags now can we? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Skoshi Tiger
07-29-2007, 02:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Yes the Russians for sure helped a lot.

ANd dont forget a bit of help from the USA too Stalker...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


It wouldnt do for us Brits/NZ/Aus/Canadians to forget the help the US gave us later in the war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Without help from these two Allies, it would have taken a lot longer for Britain/Commonwealth to win WW2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ahh the american's were there just for window dressing is all.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

and putting in lots and lots of money. Can't have the Queen going around in rags now can we? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think anyone can undersestimate the US's contribution to WWII, but the Ozzies bigest gripe with the us was that they sent MacArthur over here.

It's as if they said "Now where can we put him to keep him out of trouble??? Australia!!!!!"

btt. If your looking at durability in a rifle you can't go past the Lee-Endfields. Recently a rifle at a british cadet range blew up and yes it was a SMLE. When the looked into it the breach had shattered and exploded injuring the cadet shooting it.

Then they did a few sums. In the sixty years that the rifle had been in use, it had fired in excess of 200,000 rounds ( through the same barrel!!!!!) Now I don't think Mr Paris Lee or the engineers at Endfield would have expected that many rounds through one of their rifles!

Kurfurst__
07-29-2007, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
A gun I have always wanted to own and have loved for its coolness value is the FG42.

http://www.fg42.net/fg42a.jpg

Gets very bad reports and write ups for a few reasons

*Very small and fires a full size rifle cartridge.= Heavy recoil
*Fires a full size rifle cartridge on full auto = uncontrollable in your hands
*Massive muzzle flash.
*SIde magazine with heavy rounds makes it awkward to aim and control, wants to fall to the left.

HOWEVER.

FOr a multi purpose rifle for a PAratrooper, who has a limiterd amount of equipment he can carry, I can see the logical thinking. It had a bipod enabling full auto 'Bren style' MG fire from prone position. Can be used as a single shot, semi auto rifle from the standing position. Therefore the uncontrollable full auto problem is removed if its used in this way.

I'd love one, they are so rare nowdays. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Essentially the FG 42 is very comparable in weight, size, munition, and it has the same problems as the 'assault rifles' for full sized rifle rounds like the 7.62x51 NATO the West employed in the '50s and '60, in fact most of them until very recently. Speaking of the three main types of cold war battle rifles, the FN FAL, and HK G3 and the M-14 (which is essentially a full-auto capable Garand with a 20 round magazine).

All of these are only practical at semi auto fire, being too light for this kind of powerful rifle rounds.

There's a great video showin the scale of problems that arise when you try to fire a rifle firing a full sized rifle round on full auto... a HK G3 here : http://www.hkpro.com/video/G3.mov

The East Block was lightyears ahead in terms of assault rifles with the AK 47 for some decades... Soviet small arms are traditionally very good, simple and rugged.

Blutarski2004
07-29-2007, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
SOrry, Blutarski, I dont agree that he M1 carbine was the first assault rifle.

The M1 carbine never even had a full auto option. It was more of a 'small rifle' than an assault rifle. Full auto was added in the M2 in early 1945 which was long after the Mp43/44 had been in service.

It didnt, in my opinion, combine the full auto, close quarters capability of the submachine gun with near the power of a rifle, which is the definition of an assault rifle.

It filled another niche which was a 'light semi-auto rifle', sort of a 'mini garand'.

Certainly a great gun, but IMO not really anything like an 'assault rifle' until its M2 version.

STG/MP43/44 gets my vote over the GArand or Carbine. ALthough the numbers used of each cannot compare of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Oh, I agree that only the selective-fire M2 can be directly compared to the StG44. It is true that the carbine was orginally intend as a specialty arm, but very large numbers of them were issued to infantry as the war progressed (6+ million produced). In terms of pure battlefield functionality the M2 was an assault rifle - handy, light weight (only 5.2 lbs empty!), intermediate power cartridge, full-auto capability.

BTW the cartridges of the two weapons stack up[ as follows -

StG44 - 7.92mm x 33mm / 2120 ft/sec
M1/M2 - 7.62mm x 33mm / 1990 ft/sec

I'm estimating the StG44 cartridge as having about 25 pct greater muzzle energy.

HuninMunin
07-29-2007, 09:36 AM
Just a cent:
Those 0.3mm's can make a drastic difference in stopping power under the right circumstances.

Kurfurst__
07-29-2007, 10:03 AM
The .30 round itself is about 1100 Joules at the muzzle.. about as punchy as my .357 Hirtenberger Magnum revolver rounds. In comparison the 7.92mmx33 Kurz is slightly more powerful at about 1500 Joules.. at the muzzle.

What is conviniently forgotten is the blunter shape of the bullet of .30 will make it loose speed very fast with distance. It's obviously not meant for higher effective range compared to the tradiational military 'spitzer' rounds with a pointy head. It's just dead obvious by looking at the round to see what it was designed for...

Result : quickly dropping energy at distance, significant bullet drop and ****ty ballistics. In short, poor effective range far beneath that of true intermediate rounds for true assault rifles. Assault rifles are designed for 3-400 meter effective range. The M2 carbine is lucky to half of that, and it's killing power is marginal at those ranges.

M2 Carbine as an assault rifle... best joke for a long time, even on these forums. The M1/M2 Carbine had a clear tactical role which it filled veryt nicely, a handy weapon for 2nd line troops. It takes a fair amount of wishful thinking to make a lightweight carbine into an 'assualt rifle.'. It just doesn't have the range and killing power at distance for that. I also have serious doubts about the reliabilty of rifles which were designed for semi-auto fire, and made full auto as an afterthought. Around 600 000 were produced of the M2, starting in 1945 AFAIk.

stalkervision
07-29-2007, 11:07 AM
Kurfurst<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">M2 Carbine as an assault rifle... best joke for a long time, even on these forums. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You said it. It gave me a real good laugh..

Some of you guys are really quite funny and you don't even know it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AKA_TAGERT
07-29-2007, 11:11 AM
stalkervision and Kurfust sittin in a tree..

stalkervision
07-29-2007, 11:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
stalkervision and Kurfust sittin in a tree.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and you should be very familiar with trees Tagert because that's where all the nuts are.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ElAurens
07-29-2007, 11:41 AM
I have to agree with Kurfy on this. The M1 Carbine is essentially no more powerful than a very light .357 Magnum handgun load.

A very good choice for vehicle crews etc... as it is better than a sidearm alone, but to go against high powered rifle armed troops on a battlefield, not so good.

stalkervision
07-29-2007, 11:44 AM
Hay doesn't anyone want to suggest that the browning 45 caliber pistol was the first assault rifle/pistol next? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I hear if you pull the trigger quick enough it becomes a miniature machine gun too! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

ElAurens
07-29-2007, 12:57 PM
Calm down stalkervision.

One flame thread is enough for now.

But the Model 1911 was undoubtedly the best sidearm of the war.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

HuninMunin
07-29-2007, 01:06 PM
How dare you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Blutarski2004
07-29-2007, 04:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
M2 Carbine as an assault rifle... best joke for a long time, even on these forums. The M1/M2 Carbine had a clear tactical role which it filled veryt nicely, a handy weapon for 2nd line troops. It takes a fair amount of wishful thinking to make a lightweight carbine into an 'assualt rifle.'. It just doesn't have the range and killing power at distance for that. I also have serious doubts about the reliabilty of rifles which were designed for semi-auto fire, and made full auto as an afterthought. Around 600 000 were produced of the M2, starting in 1945 AFAIk. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The 7.62x33 was certainly inferior in performance to the 7.92x33 "Kurz" cartridge, but I did not say that the M2 was the BEST assault rifle, I said that the M1/M2 family represented the FIRST real assault rifle. I do agree that only the M2, with selective fire, is the only version really comparable to the StG44. I consider the M2 inferior to the StG44, largely on account of its inferior cartidge. I concede that the M1/M2 family was not purposely designed as an assault weapon, but on the strength of physical characteristics -

&gt; light weight (about 2.5kg empty)
&gt; compact dimensions
&gt; intermediate power cartidge
&gt; selective fire
&gt; large magazine capacity

- it certainly met the criteria, in the M2 version at least.

About 6 million M1/M2 carbines were produced during WW2 (compared to 4 million Garand rifles), of which about 600,000 were M2 versions. Surviving examples of the M2 show manufacturing codes dated as early as October 1943, but the M2 did not see widespread action until late in the war, principally in the Pacific theater.

BTW, the M1 carbine featured selective fire as part of its original design. It was disabled before offical adoption on the grounds of being unnecessary to the anticipated task of the weapon.

Blutarski2004
07-29-2007, 04:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
I have to agree with Kurfy on this. The M1 Carbine is essentially no more powerful than a very light .357 Magnum handgun load. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Actually, in terms of muzzle energy, the carbine cartridge was somewhat more powerful than the .357 Magnum cartridge, although not dramatically so.