PDA

View Full Version : the best troop Gun of WW2 was :



Badsight.
03-10-2006, 10:27 PM
the M1 Gerand , the BAR , Mauser K98 or the Lee Enfield ?!?!

for the commen soldier - they were given rifles , & bolt action sucks , i guess if i had a choice i would have asked for a M1

Badsight.
03-10-2006, 10:27 PM
the M1 Gerand , the BAR , Mauser K98 or the Lee Enfield ?!?!

for the commen soldier - they were given rifles , & bolt action sucks , i guess if i had a choice i would have asked for a M1

M2morris
03-10-2006, 10:41 PM
BAR Thats what I would have liked. (Browning Automatic Rifle) Final answere.

scaredycat1
03-10-2006, 10:54 PM
M1 Garand gets my vote.

PBNA-Boosher
03-10-2006, 11:04 PM
I don't know. Semi-Auto doesn't necessarily mean better. The durability of the KAR-98 is still well renowned. It had a range of 1000 meters. If I had a long range target and was a decent shot, I'd be very happy with a 1 shot kill rather than an 8 shot spray.

Tully__
03-10-2006, 11:06 PM
Of those four... the Garand or the K98. There were a lot of other choices from the period though, among them the world's first assault rifles to see widespread action.

M2morris
03-10-2006, 11:17 PM
I dont know boosher, I think the BAR had a 20 round mag. It was a heavy 20/20. " 20 pounds of life insurance".

MadRuski
03-10-2006, 11:19 PM
one of the best Russian made WWII guns would have to be the P-P SHA i remeber my grandfather showing me one, it was apperently the only weapon in WWII that had a 3% chance of jamming as the german MP 40 jammmed up to a 27%, read that along time ago


http://www.autoweapons.com/photos05/sep/1149ppsha.jpg

dravisar
03-10-2006, 11:34 PM
As someone who owns a Kar98 and a Mosin Nagant (actually, a Finnish rebuilt variant, the M39, that uses a 1914 russian Nagant reciver and a 1941 finn barrel and stock) I say the kar98 if my life depends on it. I have fired (exensively) the BAR (semi auto), PPSh (semi auto), M1 Garand, M1 carbine, and various other WWII era weapons. Even an SVT41 (semi auto, 10 round box mag russian weapon firing the 7.62x54R round)

My reason? The Kar98 I own is a 1938 original mauser. All the parts are mismatched because it was captured by the russians at some point, and all the seperate parts were chucked into bins and covered in cosmoline for 60 years. It has the original swastikas printed on the receiver. The bore (the inside of the barrel) is incredibly rusted. It looks like someone sprayed tar into it.

Yet with 1979 dated 8mm ammunition, it has never failed me. The action is smoother than some remingtons. It shoots less than 2" at 100 yards...at 200 yards, an 8" wide gong is easy to hit 4 out of 5 times as fast as I can move the action and fire. The recoil with 198 grain ammunition is easier to handle than the 147 or 200 grain ammuntion fired out of a mosin nagant.

The sights are incredibly easy to pick up and use (hard to explain, but its an inverted v front sight, V notch rear)

I love it, even if it is my beater truck gun...swastikas and all. The remingtons these days STILL use the same style of bolt mechanism that mauser invented back in the day.

Now dont get me wrong...in a combat situation...id probably go with a Garand...they are incredibly reliable, have very potent and accurate ammunition, and 8 rounds semi-auto...not too heavy, but not too light to reach out and touch someone.

But if its a survival, no chance for an armory in weeks weapon, give me a Kar98 everytime.

Pics on the way.

Tater-SW-
03-10-2006, 11:48 PM
boosher, do you shoot?

M1 is far and away the best standard issue infantry rifle of ww2. No contest. The M1 is not an 8 round spray, it is a very accurate rifle that happens to be semi automatic. Of the bolt actions I'd take the lee enfield any day instead of the 98k (I own both). The enfield is far better in dirty conditions, it is also grossly easier to cycle the bolt---I can fire 10 rounds accurately from the enfield without ever leaving the sight picture.

dravisar, I agree on the 98k vs nagants. Wow, a buddy has 2-3 nagants, and they are awful to shoot compared to my mauser---they have about a 2ft muzzle flash in the broad new mexico daylight, too, yikes.

So combat rifle it's hands down the garand, followed by the No4 (mine is a SMLE (no1 mkiii)), with the 98k below, then all the other bolt actions (the A303 is really a mauser action anyway).

As for the BAR, I've never shot one, but a friend of the family was in the infantry in the ETO and was the BAR man. He said that it was a good gun, but it was a bad gun to be the guy shooting in combat. Why? He said every single patrol took a BAR, and so the BAR guys got stuck on extra patrols.

For SMGs, I've shot the MP-40, Thompson, and Sten. Oddly, the easiest to shoot was by far the sten. Probably the lower ROF. It was like playing a garden hose over the target. Of the tommy gun and mp-40, I prefered the tommy gun because I liked the forstock better, holding the gun by the magazine isn't my style (YMMV, that's a personal fit issue).

tater

M2morris
03-11-2006, 12:05 AM
Not to knock off the subject or to toot my own horn but I carried an M-60 MG in Desert Storm as an infantryman and it wieghs 23 pounds, (compared to the BARs 20 lbs) and uses a 7.62 MM round with a max effective range of 1100 meters so that M60 was packin some reach-out and touch. It didnt feel heavy then, maybe would now, but all this seems to be about an individual preference that goes back to the weapon a guy is trained with from the start. I mean if I started with a sniper rifle, then maybe I would like a sniper rifle, but I started with a hog so I like em. And a BAR is the kind of weapon I would have liked.

dravisar
03-11-2006, 12:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
boosher, do you shoot?

M1 is far and away the best standard issue infantry rifle of ww2. No contest. The M1 is not an 8 round spray, it is a very accurate rifle that happens to be semi automatic. Of the bolt actions I'd take the lee enfield any day instead of the 98k (I own both). The enfield is far better in dirty conditions, it is also grossly easier to cycle the bolt---I can fire 10 rounds accurately from the enfield without ever leaving the sight picture.

dravisar, I agree on the 98k vs nagants. Wow, a buddy has 2-3 nagants, and they are awful to shoot compared to my mauser---they have about a 2ft muzzle flash in the broad new mexico daylight, too, yikes.

So combat rifle it's hands down the garand, followed by the No4 (mine is a SMLE (no1 mkiii)), with the 98k below, then all the other bolt actions (the A303 is really a mauser action anyway).

As for the BAR, I've never shot one, but a friend of the family was in the infantry in the ETO and was the BAR man. He said that it was a good gun, but it was a bad gun to be the guy shooting in combat. Why? He said every single patrol took a BAR, and so the BAR guys got stuck on extra patrols.

For SMGs, I've shot the MP-40, Thompson, and Sten. Oddly, the easiest to shoot was by far the sten. Probably the lower ROF. It was like playing a garden hose over the target. Of the tommy gun and mp-40, I prefered the tommy gun because I liked the forstock better, holding the gun by the magazine isn't my style (YMMV, that's a personal fit issue).

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well...keep in mind...if I REALLLY had to choose, it would be a Swiss K31...without ANY thought in the matter...that is, if I had unlimited ammunition, and had to surivive in the woods all by my lonesome with no face to face fighting.

Mine shoots 1.25" groups at 100 yards all day long. And it still smells fantaaaastic..whatever they cleaned those things with..id wash my clothes with it if my girlfriend would let me get away with it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But yeah the Mosin and 7.62x54R round in general, sucks out of a bolt action. It just plain old hurts. Dont even get me started about M44 (shortened mosin barrel rifle)...those things are HELL...and not very accurate.

I loved watching enemy at the gates and how he would fire a round and nothing would happen. Im sorry, but if your laying prone with dirt all around you and fire a mosin, its like a .50 cal going off...it almost dislocates your shoulder.

I REALLY want to fire and own a .303, but ammo is sooo expensive. I've heard great things about their accuracy and smoothness, especially with the micrometer sight.

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-11-2006, 02:43 AM
P14

ImpStarDuece
03-11-2006, 03:02 AM
I'd prefer the Garand to the K98, and a BAR over both, but I'd prefer a Bren to any of them.

Actually, an FG42 or StG44 would be around the best infantry weapons of the war, along with the PPS-43 or Owen gung for close combat SMGs. The M1 carbine was very effective as a second-line weapon as well.

gates123
03-11-2006, 03:11 AM
stg44 has got my vote

Friendly_flyer
03-11-2006, 03:22 AM
I think Dravisars analysis is spot on. Autoloaders do have an edge in combat, and two more bullets before reloading can make the difference between life and death.

My father used a Garand M-1 in the army and talked highly of it. His comparison was a US-carbine ("only way to hit a man was to poke him in the belly with the barrel and pull the trigger") and a Mauser Kar.98 ("sent me tumbling every time I fired it").

In the Norwegian campaign the common German soldiers was said to be skilled soldiers but bad shots. Their shortcomings as marksmen were blamed on the Mauser firing the over-powerful 7,92 mm round, making the Germans flinch every time they pulled the trigger. The Norwegians used the 6,5 mm Krag-J¸rgensen, which is quite a bit more benign to the shooter. While the Mauser is regarded as the definitive bolt rifle, the ammunition was really better suited to the pre WWI-style of warfare. For bolt-actions I think it would have been a tie between the Lee-Enfield and the Norwegian Krag-J¸rgensen.

The drawback with the Garand is that it can't be topped up easily. If I had free choice of guns in WWII, I think I might have taken the StG.44, the grandfather of all the Worlds modern assault rifles.

Sergio_101
03-11-2006, 03:38 AM
Garand.
It had all the advantages except weight.
Good accuracy, excellent rate of fire,
Did not jam easily.
Was as good as any in a hostile enviorment.

But in a sand storm I would prefer some version
of the British SMLE. Although obsolete
after WWI and it's ammunition was an under performer
the SMLE was legendary in sandy or dirty conditions.

Sergio

OlavFalco
03-11-2006, 03:51 AM
Lee Enfield...(personal preference) we used to use them on range at army cadets... damn fine rifle, actually prefer it to the SA80 on accuracy (which we also would use some weekends) but I cant say that I had anywhere near as much experience as some of you guys have had with weapons.

..on the other hand my grandad says as much as he liked the Bren gun for accuracy it want much use as a machine gun compared with others as it would put a bullet through the same hole after each shot... wheras a machine gun should have a bit of spray to be effective as a machine gun.

Off topic... i think we can all agree the sten gun is probably the worst of all of them.

Longpo
03-11-2006, 04:26 AM
Suomi KP-31.

Effective, reliable, could use a 70 round drum mag and very accurate considering it was an SMG.

blindpugh
03-11-2006, 04:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gates123:
stg44 has got my vote </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Gimme a bren-gun anytime-deadly accurate that double tap on semi-great!!!

Kocur_
03-11-2006, 05:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
the M1 Gerand , the BAR , Mauser K98 or the Lee Enfield ?!?!

for the commen soldier - they were given rifles , & bolt action sucks , i guess if i had a choice i would have asked for a M1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So we have: two bolt action rifles, a semi-automatic rifle also in individual weapons weight range and a weapon more in class of lmg than individual weapon. So we are left with three truly individual rifles - only one of them is semi automatic, so its pretty obvious M1 wins here.

More generally: in class of WW2 semi-automatic full power ammo rifles M1 wins followed by SVT and G-43 aka K-43.
In class of smgs PPS 43 wins easy.
Of mgs - MG-42 easy too.

But all in all the best WW2 individual weapon was naturally the MP-43 aka MP-44 aka StG-44, mostly due to intermediate ammo, the design itself was nothing special.

Vipez-
03-11-2006, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MadRuski:
one of the best Russian made WWII guns would have to be the P-P SHA i remeber my grandfather showing me one, it was apperently the only weapon in WWII that had a 3% chance of jamming as the german MP 40 jammmed up to a 27%, read that along time ago


http://www.autoweapons.com/photos05/sep/1149ppsha.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

PPSH was a direct copy of Finnish M/31 AKA Suomi-konepistooli. Suomi MP was the first Machine pistol to effectivily show how deadly it was in the right hands (read: Winter War).. though fortunalety was the russians, they learned from the mistakes,and it was one of the weapons that probably saved USSR from operation Barbarossa.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Hmm, but which would you rank better: M1 Garand, German Gewehr 43, or Russian SVT ?

waffen-79
03-11-2006, 09:22 AM
Hmmm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I would have to say

G41/43 that rifle was awesome

second by

KAR98 or the LeeEnfield No4 (theres something bout bolt action rifles, so classy and sexy)

Xiolablu3
03-11-2006, 09:53 AM
I would choose M1 out of those guns.

What makes the M1 a better gun than the SVT40 or K43?

I would have thought that the ability to reload partial clips would hae been a big advantage.

Also no metal 'ping' as you run out of ammo, telling the world you just ran out of rounds.

tigertalon
03-11-2006, 10:06 AM
Easy.

1. Stg44
2. SVT40
3. M1

IV_JG51_Prien
03-11-2006, 10:07 AM
I'd take a Enfield or a K98. My father has 2 Enfields and we both have K98's. Wonderful rifles.

tigertalon
03-11-2006, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:
PPSH was a direct copy of Finnish M/31 AKA Suomi-konepistooli. Suomi MP was the first Machine pistol to effectivily show how deadly it was in the right hands (read: Winter War).. though fortunalety was the russians, they learned from the mistakes,and it was one of the weapons that probably saved USSR from operation Barbarossa.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, let's not forget it was primary infantry weapon of communist forces in Korea, and still used extensively in Vietnam. PP -43 for sure is one of the weapons that won the war, but is forgotten many times.

LStarosta
03-11-2006, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
I don't know. Semi-Auto doesn't necessarily mean better. The durability of the KAR-98 is still well renowned. It had a range of 1000 meters. If I had a long range target and was a decent shot, I'd be very happy with a 1 shot kill rather than an 8 shot spray. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously Boosher doesn't handle guns in real life.

Call of Duty =/= Real Life.

You can't "spray" with an M1.


Out of the original three, I'd choose the M1.

Haigotron
03-11-2006, 10:22 AM
the StG-44 hands down because it was the 1st assault rifle, and it was years in advance than most allied rifles! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

they say the famous AK47 was based on the design

and its fun to mow enemies in DOD:source with that puppy (althought it is not a simulation)

fordfan25
03-11-2006, 10:47 AM
depends on the enviroment you were fighting in. in city and heavey wooded areas id take a tommy gun .45 or the russian PSSH i think it was called. in open feilds ect the 30-06 M1 would be ideal. i have always felt that the M1-A1 30cal carbine was a great all around wepon. in fact i thought so much of them i tracked down and bought one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif . high cap mags a great man stoper easy at 100-300 yards "iv killed BIG north florida hogs with mine at 200 yards" shoots flat,light weight and solid built. plan on finding me a M1 garand next for those 800+ yard deer feilds http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Krizz1972
03-11-2006, 11:20 AM
[x] StG 44

http://files.uzitalk.com/reference/shoots/princeton2004/STG44-2.JPG

LStarosta
03-11-2006, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Haigotron:

they say the famous AK47 was based on the design
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"They" are wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

jds1978
03-11-2006, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
depends on the enviroment you were fighting in. in city and heavey wooded areas id take a tommy gun .45 or the russian PSSH i think it was called. in open feilds ect the 30-06 M1 would be ideal. i have always felt that the M1-A1 30cal carbine was a great all around wepon. in fact i thought so much of them i tracked down and bought one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif . high cap mags a great man stoper easy at 100-300 yards "iv killed BIG north florida hogs with mine at 200 yards" shoots flat,light weight and solid built. plan on finding me a M1 garand next for those 800+ yard deer feilds http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Carbine M1 is a sweet weapon

fordfan25
03-11-2006, 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 LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Haigotron:

they say the famous AK47 was based on the design
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"They" are wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>i dont know. i remember hearing something about that as well

CD_kp84yb
03-11-2006, 01:04 PM
Stg44 (mp43/44) vs Ak47 compare them for yourself and see the differences in those guns.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/mp43_strip.jpg

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/ak47-zerlegt.jpg

Michael Kalashnikov made a dam good weapon, the only one that you need to take the finger of the trigger to choose safe, semi auto or auto.

Kocur_
03-11-2006, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MadRuski:
one of the best Russian made WWII guns would have to be the P-P SHA i remeber my grandfather showing me one, it was apperently the only weapon in WWII that had a 3% chance of jamming as the german MP 40 jammmed up to a 27%, read that along time ago


http://www.autoweapons.com/photos05/sep/1149ppsha.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

PPSH was a direct copy of Finnish M/31 AKA Suomi-konepistooli. Suomi MP was the first Machine pistol to effectivily show how deadly it was in the right hands (read: Winter War).. though fortunalety was the russians, they learned from the mistakes,and it was one of the weapons that probably saved USSR from operation Barbarossa.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

PPSh was not copy of Suomi smg. Soviet smg has not tube receiver, it has no pneuamatic ****** device etc, OTOH PPSh has muzzle break, etc. What soviets did copy from Fins is drum magazine, which is direct copy of Finnish design. Btw: PPSh was nothing spectacular: far too high ROF and REALLY f..ed up the way barre. was mounted in receiver: rear end was fixed naturally, but also muzzle end was attached firmly in front end barrel housing. As soon as barrel got hot, and it did so quickly at 900-1000 rpm, being attached to pieces of metal on both ends, it got bent in middle part. Result was TERRIBLE accuracy. I keep reading accounts of firing long bursts at ranges well below 100m and inability to hit standing man.

Xiolablu3
03-11-2006, 01:27 PM
AK47's outward looks are certainly based on teh STG44, anyone can see that.

But the inards are completely different.

Its like Kalashnicov saw a picture of the STG44 and designed a gun around the design, without actually seeing inside it.

Each gun employs a different system.

Its very unlikely that Kalashnikov came up with the exact same external desin without even seeing a STG44.

AndyHigh
03-11-2006, 01:36 PM
No! It ain't a direct copy. First of all M-31 Suomi has 9mm and ppsh 7.62mm ammunation. Russian smg is simpler design for mass production. What was copied by russians was the design of the 70 round magazin.

M-31's barrels are changable on the fly without extra tools, and it was very accurate and reliable. Experienced hunters could hit a squirrel in the head from 50m distance with it. At 100m it was easy to hit within 30mm circle. You see, it was effectively used as hunting weapon too to get extra food from woods like birds etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:
PPSH was a direct copy of Finnish M/31 AKA Suomi-konepistooli. Suomi MP was the first Machine pistol to effectivily show how deadly it was in the right hands (read: Winter War).. though fortunalety was the russians, they learned from the mistakes,and it was one of the weapons that probably saved USSR from operation Barbarossa.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kocur_
03-11-2006, 01:38 PM
Lets not compare bolt action rifles and semi-automatic ones. If semi-automatic weapon is at good level of reliability it makes troops equipped with it easy winners against troops with bolt action rifles. Practical accuracy of both types is the same, so higher practical ROF will make the winner. Imagine 100 guys with 98k vs. 100 with G43 (or M1903 vs. M1 or M1891 vs. SVT etc.). Each of group A, i.e. each with bolt action rifle can fire 10rpm, each of guys with semi-automatic rifle fires 30rpm. Lets suppose both have 1% accuracy and those who were hit, still fire until end of minute in which they were hit. During first minute A group will fire 1000 shots, of which 10 will hit, thus group B will lose 10 shooters. Group B will fire 3000 shots and eliminate 30 guys with bolt action rifles. So in second minute its 70 in A and 90in B, i.e. A will fire 700 shots, while B 2700...etc... It takes only FOUR minutes for group B to kill everyone of group A, suffering 24 shooters lost. Semi-automatic rifles are different and superior class.

fordfan25
03-11-2006, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">STG44 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

Kocur_
03-11-2006, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
AK47's outward looks are certainly based on teh STG44, anyone can see that.

But the inards are completely different.

Its like Kalashnicov saw a picture of the STG44 and designed a gun around the design, without actually seeing inside it.

Each gun employs a different system.

Its very unlikely that Kalashnikov came up with the exact same external desin without even seeing a STG44. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Internals determine how a gun looks like, not the other way around. Ammo determines lenght of barrel, general arrangement determines how receiver looks like, military requirements determine kind of magazine and type of sights and rest are details. Btw: Kalashnikov weapon was one of competing desingns, one of rejected in first stage of competition was a bull-pup.]
Fact that StG-44 and AK look similarly is nothing but coincidence. Take FN FAL, shorten its barrel as if it was to fire intermediate ammo, attach 30 arched magazine and it will look pretty much like the two too. Btw: if one didnt know about FNs semi automatic M49, which was basis for FAL, he could think the latter is acopy of StG-44: both have tilting bolts, both have the same arrangement of receiver, FAL was initially designed to fire 7,92mm x 33 Kurz ammo... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Haigotron
03-11-2006, 02:02 PM
oh dear god, first thank for that close up of the STG, i likes alotta http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif...second, i did mean esthetically...from the appeareance, i rememebr seeing it on discovery, when they showed an old 80 or 70s or 60s? interview the kalashnikov himself, saying he was "inspired" by it, in what terms i dont know, look?...feel?..

HuninMunin
03-11-2006, 02:03 PM
Kocur, look at the link that Fordfan posted.
He may not have a good taste in cars but click "development" on the page.

The 47 looking like the 44 is NOT coincidence.

CD_kp84yb
03-11-2006, 02:09 PM
The russians used the SKS simonov before they accepted the AK47,

When you look close at the stg44 you see that its a cheap weapon to make, no craftswork, just alot of press work and a barrel, the ak is made very different, the housing was milled out of one piece of metal if i remembercorrectly.

Haigotron
03-11-2006, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:

When you look close at the stg44 you see that its a cheap weapon to make, no craftswork, just alot of press work and a barrel,
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wouldnt that be because towards the end of war, germany's industry was running thin, and easy to build stuff was chosen over harded complex design?

Kocur_
03-11-2006, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I would choose M1 out of those guns.

What makes the M1 a better gun than the SVT40 or K43?

I would have thought that the ability to reload partial clips would hae been a big advantage.

Also no metal 'ping' as you run out of ammo, telling the world you just ran out of rounds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ping is 'overmodelled' I think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I mean there is enough NOOOOOOISE during combat for that 'ping' to be not heard.

M1 CAN BE PARTIALLY REOLADED with single rounds. That 8rds clip makes nothing else than double row magazine practially, when its inside of gun.

M1 rotaing bolt, i.e. design where distance from bottom of case to rear surface of locking stop in receiver is shortest possible makes Garand superior design. The shorter that distance is the lower chance of case rupture - that makes an advantage over tilting bolt designs. Also commonly critised 8rd clip was a good idea. It was way faster than two 5rd stripper clips and WAY lighter than 10rd changeable magazines. Imagine weight of 96rds in those clips vs. 100rds in 10rd magazines... or better 200rds in 8rd clips vs. 200rds in 10rds magazines http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

CD_kp84yb
03-11-2006, 02:21 PM
the first ak47's were made by milling (forgot )

Well in times of war you need to produce fast and cheap, and you need lots so the design is for mass production.

Hehehe you wanna see realy cheap made weapons, search for volksturm gewehre (weapons for the volkssturm) now i wouldnt dare to fire those thing in a remotecontrolles stand , dam they shot those thimngs in war.

Kocur_
03-11-2006, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Kocur, look at the link that Fordfan posted.
He may not have a good taste in cars but click "development" on the page.

The 47 looking like the 44 is NOT coincidence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, so take a while and draw intermediate ammo assault rifle: gas operated, with gas chamber above barrel, operating piece in receiver (unlike say M1 with most of operating rod under the barrel) of classical arrangement (not bull pup), fed from 30rds magazine, with separate pistol grip. IT WILL look similarly to StG-44 too. Its just VERY general arrengement. And none of features of that general arrengement I mentioned above was original in StG-44.

What is possible is that soviets got idea of intermediate ammo gun being not a semi-automatic rifle like SKS, but also capable of firing bursts, like a smg, from MKb-42s of both designs. They were going that direction in fact (APS-44 - from lmg to individual weapon), but perhaps that was influenced by German assault rifles. Anyway that is a tactical requirement, which realisations in metal have to look similarly if similar GENERAL arrangement is used in those designs.

Kocur_
03-11-2006, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
the first ak47's were made by milling (forgot )

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif In the FIRST AKs the lower receiver was stamped sheet metal too. But they used that sheet metal too thin so those receivers proved to be not strong enough in powerful hands of working class soldiers of soviet army http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Those were initial pre-mass production batches, so not so many were produced and are little known. After that they used traditional milling as technology of making lower receiver. It took a while to find combination of proper thickness of sheet metal and reinforcements (not to make the receiver too heavy), so sheet metal receivers didnt re-appear until AKM in 1959.

darkhorizon11
03-11-2006, 02:59 PM
My buddies cousin just came back from Iraq for a two weeks he was telling us a quick story:

He said they were on patrol and confiscated some weapons from what appeared to be an abandoned bombed out bunker. Sure enough they found a Mauser rifle (I'm assuming a 98? If Mausur made those I'm not the biggest gun guy).

So he kept it as a souvenir, he said he had no idea how a German WWII rifle made it there... black market I guess.

Anyways, a week or so later they were outside the base pounded in pylons for a fence when they came under small mortar fire. All they had were handguns and the guys were launching the mortars from pickup almost a mile or so away. They didn't really know what to do but then he remember that he had been showing off his Mauser to some guys in the other company and still had it and remember that it was still loaded (Marines can be crazy like that I guess). So sure enough he ran to the Humvee, wasn't hit, laid down aimed down the sight and up a little to account for the rang.

He fired the shot (while still under mortar fire) and listened. Sure enougha few seconds later he heard a loud PANG! he said he musta whacked the truck since in his words "it tore @ss outta there right quick".

MInd you he had a lot of stories more bad and depressing this was the only funnier one as he took a silly tone of voice. He said the moment he heard that PANG it was one of the defining moments in his life (in a silly way) and he said he owed to 50yr old Kraut engineering. Go Figure, good gun if you ask him (and me too).

jds1978
03-11-2006, 03:13 PM
The Nazis backed all types of anti colonialist/nationalist movements throughout the British Empire...thats probably how the 98 was in modern Iraq

Kocur_
03-11-2006, 03:27 PM
How a 98k made it to Iraq? Pff...
How karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35, or Maroszek anti-tank rifle made it there - now that is a question! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/shakefist/ach

Slipstream_
03-11-2006, 04:08 PM
Maybe the Iraqi answer is the same;
since the Germans backed the Iraqi National movement (sort of) and even sent a few Heinkel bombers there to support them, it's not that hard to imagine a Kar98 staying there. And if the German Foreign Office saw it fit to supply the Iraqis with other weapons acquired somehow by the Wehrmacht, well, that would explain the appearance of that AT rifle too I guess.

And IMHO,I'd stick with the M1, or maybe even the carbine. Full rifle ammo in semiauto has its advantages in combat situations

HOOTCHIE_MAMA
03-11-2006, 04:36 PM
Please all you weapon maniacs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif, post pics on the guns u talke about!

jetsetsam
03-11-2006, 06:14 PM
And maybe some vids out on the range?

That would be cool.

jetsetsam
03-11-2006, 06:18 PM
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/m1carbin.htm (http://www.rt66.com/%7Ekorteng/SmallArms/m1carbin.htm)

jetsetsam
03-11-2006, 06:20 PM
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl08-e.htm

jetsetsam
03-11-2006, 06:21 PM
http://www.surplusrifle.com/m1carbine/index.asp

jetsetsam
03-11-2006, 06:26 PM
http://www.sproe.com/c/carbine-m1.html

BfHeFwMe
03-11-2006, 07:01 PM
Best battle rifle of the WWII era, that's easy, one which never saw action. http://world.guns.ru/rifle/ag42b.jpg

The Swedish Ljungman AG-42, was well ahead of the competetion packing a cartridge the rest were still looking for. World class quality and accuracy par none. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-11-2006, 07:22 PM
Ii's ironic that non-belligerents produced some of the most superlative weapons - other examples of course being the Oerlikon and Bofors guns

jarink
03-11-2006, 10:44 PM
Given the original choices, I would take the Garand. Semi-auto, reliable, accurate.

Freestylin' it, how about a M1903 with a Pedersen device? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
http://www.remingtonsociety.com/photos/Pedersen01.jpg

14 years too late (it was adopted in 1959), but how about a Beretta BM-59 (Beretta copy of the M-1 with a 20-rd detachable magazine and shortened barrel. Some versions also had a folding stock.)
http://www.army.lt/guns/gallery/B014.jpg

scaredycat1
03-11-2006, 11:46 PM
jarinc, that top pic of the Beretta looks like a shortened M-14. Wich one was first? I dont remember.

Tater-SW-
03-12-2006, 12:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Best battle rifle of the WWII era, that's easy, one which never saw action. http://world.guns.ru/rifle/ag42b.jpg

The Swedish Ljungman AG-42, was well ahead of the competetion packing a cartridge the rest were still looking for. World class quality and accuracy par none. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A battle rifle requires the willingness to actually do battle with it. If WW2 wasn't enough to get a country to take sides, they might has well have spent the money on rifles on white flags (or the flags of the aggressor powers they tacitly supported by failing to fight them).

tater

Tully__
03-12-2006, 12:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jds1978:
The Nazis backed all types of anti colonialist/nationalist movements throughout the British Empire...thats probably how the 98 was in modern Iraq </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bull... I've fired 98's belonging to half a dozen friends and aquaintances over the years, there's no suggestion that Australia was supplied that way. Millions of the things were shipped all over the world as war souvenirs and scrap metal after WW2 and probably 100's of thousands more before WW2 as legitimate exports. It's no surprise to find the things anywhere. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif.

Edit: fixed wording for the smarty pants http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Edit 2: On further thought, had the weapon in question been supplied in the clandestine manner you suggest I think it very unlikely that there would be wehrmacht markings on the receiver.

scaredycat1
03-12-2006, 12:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tully__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jds1978:
The Nazis backed all types of anti colonialist/nationalist movements throughout the British Empire...thats probably how the 98 was in modern Iraq </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bull... I've fired 98's at the homes of half a dozen friends and aquaintances over the years, there's no suggestion that Australia was supplied that way. Millions of the things were shipped all over the world as war souvenirs and scrap metal after WW2 and probably 100's of thousands more before WW2 as legitimate exports. It's no surprise to find the things anywhere. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In the 60's you could buy a really nice one for $25.00. My first deer rifle.

Xiolablu3
03-12-2006, 02:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tully__:
I've fired 98's at the homes of half a dozen friends and aquaintances over the years </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Eeeek, with friends like you who needs enemies? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

HotelBushranger
03-12-2006, 08:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MadRuski:
one of the best Russian made WWII guns would have to be the P-P SHA i remeber my grandfather showing me one, it was apperently the only weapon in WWII that had a 3% chance of jamming as the german MP 40 jammmed up to a 27%, read that along time ago


http://www.autoweapons.com/photos05/sep/1149ppsha.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

PPSH was a direct copy of Finnish M/31 AKA Suomi-konepistooli. Suomi MP was the first Machine pistol to effectivily show how deadly it was in the right hands (read: Winter War).. though fortunalety was the russians, they learned from the mistakes,and it was one of the weapons that probably saved USSR from operation Barbarossa.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

PPSh was not copy of Suomi smg. Soviet smg has not tube receiver, it has no pneuamatic ****** device etc, OTOH PPSh has muzzle break, etc. What soviets did copy from Fins is drum magazine, which is direct copy of Finnish design. Btw: PPSh was nothing spectacular: far too high ROF and REALLY f..ed up the way barre. was mounted in receiver: rear end was fixed naturally, but also muzzle end was attached firmly in front end barrel housing. As soon as barrel got hot, and it did so quickly at 900-1000 rpm, being attached to pieces of metal on both ends, it got bent in middle part. Result was TERRIBLE accuracy. I keep reading accounts of firing long bursts at ranges well below 100m and inability to hit standing man. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"The most interesting weapon in the Finnish arsenal, however, was the famed "Suomi" submachine gun, or "machine pistol" (koonipistolit in Finnish). The Suomi was one of the least-known submachine gun designs of its day, but it was actually rather influential. So effective was it in the Winter War that the Soviets paid it the ultimate complimate of copying it for their famous PPsh "buro gun" design, which would be the mainstay of Communist Bloc armies until the advent of the AK-47."

Additionally,
"The light machine gun - equivalent in its role to the American Browning Automatic rifle of that day - was the 7.62mm Lahti/Soloranta, considered by firearms experts to be one of the first really practical "light" automatics to enter service after World War 1...It was a fairly heavy weapon for its day - twenty-three pounds with loaded magazine - but it could be fired from a bipod or from the shoulder, using either a twenty-round box magazine or a seventy-five-round drum. The Lahti was air cooled and recoil operated, and was one of the first few automatics in service anywhere at that time that permitted its gunner to switch from single shot to full automatic. In the latter mode it had a cyclic fire rate of 500 rounds per minute. It was a powerful weapon, with a muzzle velocity of 2,625 feet per second, comparable to some of today's streamlined assault rifles."

From Frozen Hell, by William R Trotter.

Lahti:
Lahti (http://personal.inet.fi/private/hovi.pages/sa-int/m26lahtisaloranta.gif)

Personally, my fave is the beautiful Bren gun:
Bren (http://www.members.shaw.ca/junobeach/images/juno-7%20bren%20gun%20tn.jpg)

zugfuhrer
03-12-2006, 09:24 AM
MP 43 the origin of the AK-47 was the best I think.

I have never used it, but I have shot some rounds with the M1 and the Nagant 7.62 Finnish Mosin-Nagant.

Friendly Fire some more details about the biggest German units in Norway.

3 Gebirgsjaeger-divion (Regular Austrian Unit by some stated as an elite-force) took Narvik and Trondheim. 7.92 mm Karabiner 98k and 7.92 mm Gewehr 33/40
69 Infantry div quality 2 wave established 29/8 1939. It got fully trained conscripts with standard Germany infantry division equipment.

214 Infantry Div established September 1939. It was considered as the 3:rd wave. The soldiers where over aged, most of them around 40 years old with experience from WWI. Equipped mostly with overtaken polish equipment.

163, 181 196 Infantry Div established between 27/11 and 1/12 1939. It was considered as the 7:th wave quality. That was not good. They consisted overage soldiers with experience from WWI. Equipped with a variety of uniforms, rifles and other things taken from the polish army.

Far from "Sturm-truppen"

Krizz1972
03-12-2006, 09:44 AM
MG-42

http://user.chollian.net/~korosiya/knife/MG42a.jpg

AndyHigh
03-12-2006, 10:20 AM
Well, Trotter is wrong. They're different weapons although russian smg's were propably inspired by the success of M/31, being simpler (but lower quality) and more suitable for mass production. There was also a spying case in the beginning of 30's where a drawings of the early experimental model M/22 were left in purpose in hands of a finnish captain who was suspected of spying for USSR, to catch him. What was really copied was the 70 round magazin M/-37.

This is the real thing, original SMG M/31 Suomi:
http://guns.connect.fi/gow/stripped.jpg

Quite different when compared to PPSh. More in here: http://guns.connect.fi/gow/suomikp1.html
It's in finnish but there's also shorter english version.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
(koonipistolit in Finnish). The Suomi was one of the least-known submachine gun designs of its day, but it was actually rather influential. So effective was it in the Winter War that the Soviets paid it the ultimate complimate of copying it for their famous PPsh "buro gun" design, which would be the mainstay of Communist Bloc armies until the advent of the AK-47."
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

jarink
03-12-2006, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by scaredycat1:
jarinc, that top pic of the Beretta looks like a shortened M-14. Wich one was first? I dont remember. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The M-14 was introduced first, in 1957. However, there were several differences between it and the BM-59. The Bm-59 is a little smaller and handier, especially in close terrain like woods or jungle. The ammunition was different; the BM-59 used the same .30-06 M-1 ammo as the Garand while the M-14 used the newer 7.62x51 ammo. (Pretty much a wash performace-wise as the 7.62x51 is basically the same round with a shorter case and better powder) M-14s have had a history of little problems like splitting stocks and indifferent accuracy which were really only solved when it was reworked as a sniper weapon.

BaronUnderpants
03-12-2006, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:



A battle rifle requires the willingness to actually do battle with it. If WW2 wasn't enough to get a country to take sides, they might has well have spent the money on rifles on white flags (or the flags of the aggressor powers they tacitly supported by failing to fight them).

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Im gonna let that one slide...im in a good mood, u *******!

LW_lcarp
03-12-2006, 12:22 PM
As far as what rifle id take a M-14. 7.62mm so it has long range and knockdown power. Have a K98 so I enjoy firing it and has plenty of reach out and touch someone (use it for deer hunting in the brush). Use a 7mm Mag for taking long shots while in the stand.

As far as a machine gun been there done that was a 60 gunner in the Army myself and when in a training or a combat situation they tend to go for the MGs to get them out of action.

luftluuver
03-12-2006, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tully__:
Bull... I've fired 98's at the homes of half a dozen friends and aquaintances over the years, there's no suggestion that Australia was supplied that way. Millions of the things were shipped all over the world as war souvenirs and scrap metal after WW2 and probably 100's of thousands more before WW2 as legitimate exports. It's no surprise to find the things anywhere. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Tully, why are you shooting at the homes of your friends? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif With a friend like you you, who needs enemies. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

anasteksi
03-12-2006, 01:06 PM
suomi-konepistooli M/31 was the best...

luftluuver
03-12-2006, 01:14 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:
As far as what rifle id take a M-14. 7.62mm so it has long range and knockdown power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Would take a FNC1 over the M-14. Even with a left sprained thumb, easily qualified with it. Many soldiers of fortune preferred it as well.

Kocur_
03-12-2006, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Would take a FNC1 over the M-14. Even with a left sprained thumb, easily qualified with it. Many soldiers of fortune preferred it as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FNC fires 5,56mm x 45 NATO intermediate cartridge, unlike M-14, which is fed with 7,62mm x 51 NATO full power ammo. Those weapons are in different classes. You definately would preffer M-14 if you were to fight in Afghanistan http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Exactly like Mujaheddins who picked one by one Russian platoons or even companies with AK-74/RPK-74 (5,45mm x 39 inetermediate ammo), shooting them out with good old SMLEs...
Contractors use either what company provides or what they were trained and are used to from military service. Not that FN FNC is a bad weapon - how could be modern receiver arrengement with AK-47 internals be bad http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Funny that FN's MK.16/17 SCAR uses Johnson bolt (known widely from M16), not two lugs bolt from AK-47...

luftluuver
03-12-2006, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Would take a FNC1 over the M-14. Even with a left sprained thumb, easily qualified with it. Many soldiers of fortune preferred it as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FNC fires 5,56mm x 45 NATO intermediate cartridge, unlike M-14, which is fed with 7,62mm x 51 NATO full power ammo. Those weapons are in different classes. You definately would preffer M-14 if you were to fight in Afghanistan http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Exactly like Mujaheddins who picked one by one Russian platoons or even companies with AK-74/RPK-74 (5,45mm x 39 inetermediate ammo), shooting them out with good old SMLEs...
Contractors use either what company provides or what they were trained and are used to from military service. Not that FN FNC is a bad weapon - how could be modern receiver arrengement with AK-47 internals be bad http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Funny that FN's MK.16/17 SCAR uses Johnson bolt (known widely from M16), not two lugs bolt from AK-47... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The FN I fired was 7.62mm NATO. Canada FNC1 = FNFAL The C2 was the heavy barrel.

dravisar
03-12-2006, 10:48 PM
LOL you guys and your tangents...he did ask about World War 2 after all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Its funny, id completely forgotten about the MG34 and 42...which our M60 is a direct copy of. Good call! Very useful, mass produced, and 1200 rpm firing 8mm/7.92 mauser! whew!

LEBillfish
03-12-2006, 11:00 PM
I'd take a set of BagPipes and a soccer ball, stand on a hill, sound the pipes, and can assure you as everyone tried to run their ears covered I'd nail the back of their noggins with the ball......

Tactics boys tactics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Vipez-
03-13-2006, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MadRuski:
one of the best Russian made WWII guns would have to be the P-P SHA i remeber my grandfather showing me one, it was apperently the only weapon in WWII that had a 3% chance of jamming as the german MP 40 jammmed up to a 27%, read that along time ago


http://www.autoweapons.com/photos05/sep/1149ppsha.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

PPSH was a direct copy of Finnish M/31 AKA Suomi-konepistooli. Suomi MP was the first Machine pistol to effectivily show how deadly it was in the right hands (read: Winter War).. though fortunalety was the russians, they learned from the mistakes,and it was one of the weapons that probably saved USSR from operation Barbarossa.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

PPSh was not copy of Suomi smg. Soviet smg has not tube receiver, it has no pneuamatic ****** device etc, OTOH PPSh has muzzle break, etc. What soviets did copy from Fins is drum magazine, which is direct copy of Finnish design. Btw: PPSh was nothing spectacular: far too high ROF and REALLY f..ed up the way barre. was mounted in receiver: rear end was fixed naturally, but also muzzle end was attached firmly in front end barrel housing. As soon as barrel got hot, and it did so quickly at 900-1000 rpm, being attached to pieces of metal on both ends, it got bent in middle part. Result was TERRIBLE accuracy. I keep reading accounts of firing long bursts at ranges well below 100m and inability to hit standing man. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I merely meant the whole concept of sub-machine gun beeing copied by the russians, and that is what counts. And submachine guns did prove to be deadly in ww2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif Just like the concept of assault rifle was copied by Kalashnikov..

BTW. I've fired the Suomi KP, and I was actually surprised how accurate it was (shooting at 200 meters at marks).

Friendly_flyer
03-13-2006, 01:07 AM
Since one of our members very sensible called for pictures, here's the Krag-J¸rgensen mechanism. The bolt action was nothing special (it worked nicely), but the magazine could be opened and topped up, without opening the bolt. This is very practical in a fire fight.

The calibre was 6,5 mm. By WWII standard it was relatively small (.30 is roughly 7,6 mm), and fairly benign. The Krag-J¸rgensen was nice to shoot and very accurate. It has been the main stay of Norwegian marksmen ever since it's it was phased out after the war.


http://www.exordinanza.net/foto/krag_scatolaaperta.jpg

Esel1964
03-13-2006, 01:17 AM
Rifle to rifle comparisons shouldn't be the focus,it should be which power had the best 'arsenal',to fit multiple 'combat situations',i.e. clearing rooms in a house vs. shooting 500yd.,are 2 different things.There are situations that a Colt 1911 would be the perfect weapon vs. situations in which an MG-42 would be ideal.
Hence,maybe the comparisons should be "arsenal v. arsenal'.

How about sidearm v. sidearm,subMG v.subMG,sniper v. sniper,main battle rifle v.MBR,squad MG v.sq. MG.

Sidearm-1911 .45 ACP
SubMG-Thompson .45 ACP(ya gotta love the "trench broom".)
Sniper-scoped '03 Springfield,or scoped K31
Main battle rifle-Garand
squad MG- MG-42

Esel1964
03-13-2006, 01:35 AM
Friendly Flyer-If you're the owner of the Krag/Jorg. in the photo I am truly envious of you.
My father tortures me with stories of passing up a nice Krag-Jorg in the mid 50's, at a small country store in the Texas Hill Country-the price was $15.The BAD part is,he was more worried about food for the trip,and walked away from that masterpiece.
Somebody PLEASE invent a time machine...
But I get first dibs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

HotelBushranger
03-13-2006, 03:15 AM
How many people here have fired a weapon? How many have fired them at living targets, i.e. animals etc?
I have my qualifications on the F88 Austeyr, got them in January. The Flight-Sergeant who taught us said that the F88 round has, so far, had a 100% success rate: every Australian serviceman who has been hit by one has died. The round has a copper head, so when the round hits, the copper explodes in the body and spreads, cutting arteries and other blood vessels. The victim dies a slow, agonising death. (Those were his exact words) Now that got me in the gut pretty well. I think I really realised then the danger of the gun I was holding, and for a coupla days was pretty hesistant to point it in the direction of anyone, unloaded and all. Then when I sat that MG 42 pic, it brought up those feelings again.

So my question is, what do you people feel about the shooting of others? Would you do it yourself? If you don't need guns (i.e. farmers), why do you have them? Would you ever use them on someone?
Sorry for all this, but there's a 15 yr old bloke who would like some advice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And I'll make a new topic if it gets too large.

Steyr Aug (F88 is very similar)
http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/2240/steyraug5eh.jpg

Cheers

Friendly_flyer
03-13-2006, 07:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Esel1964:
Friendly Flyer-If you're the owner of the Krag/Jorg. in the photo I am truly envious of you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That makes two of us, I guess. No, unfortunately it's not mine, I have handled one though, and they are nice guns indeed.

HotelBushRanger: I thought that the full copper jacket did prevent the round from breaking up on impact? I used a G-3 with the 7,62x51 full powered round in the army. The bullets where quite whole when we dug for them out of sand bags as souvenirs after firing exercises, but that did not stop them from doing massive damage. The sergeant filled a 40 L (about 10 gallons I think) plastic can with water and put a round through it. The whole tank burst. It taught us a healthy respect for the weapons we where handling.

Kocur_
03-13-2006, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:

Well I merely meant the whole concept of sub-machine gun beeing copied by the russians, and that is what counts. And submachine guns did prove to be deadly in ww2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif Just like the concept of assault rifle was copied by Kalashnikov..

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im affraid I have to disagree again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The first smg was Italian Villar-Perosa (http://img202.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscn01753il.jpg) of 1915. But it was designed as cheap, short-range lmg to be used with bipod. So the first smg designed to be used and used as smg, i.e. highly portable great firepower short ranged individual weapon was German MP-18I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Machinenpistole_18.jpg) designed by Hugo Schmeisser. Also soviets had smgs before PPSh, i.e. PPD-34, PPD-34/38 and PPD-40 (http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg01-e.htm).

Idea of assault rifle wasnt "copied by Kalashnikov". The idea is quite older than StG-44. First German weapons of that class (http://www.cruffler.com/historic-february00.html)were produced in mid-1930s, but idea itself is even older and in fact its.. Russian (or at least was realised pracically in Russia for the first time). Russian designer named Fedorov developed an automatic weapon initially to fire intermediate cartridge of his own design, but finally chambered for Japanese 6,5mm x 50SR ammo. It was produced and used in WW1 and civil war in Russia - ladies and gentelmen:Avtomat Fedorova model 1916 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federov_Avtomat), (hmm AF-16? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)

Kocur_
03-13-2006, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Since one of our members very sensible called for pictures, here's the Krag-J¸rgensen mechanism. The bolt action was nothing special (it worked nicely), but the magazine could be opened and topped up, without opening the bolt. This is very practical in a fire fight.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, bolt of that one is special! But not in positive meaning... K-J had SINGLE locking lug right behind bolt face plus second locking surface in the rear - asymmetric locking - baaad idea.
Reloading system has no advantages over more known designs, i.e. Mannlicher clip inserted into rifle and Mauser stripper clip, from which rounds are pushed into magazine. It was developed quite early, so its less perfect: its mounted on the side of gun, it takes extra manipulations, unnecessary in other systems and its slow - shooter has to open cover and either insert rounds one by one of use five round box and toss them into magazine. OTOH K-Js had smooth action, were accurate and produced in very high quality. They are 'strangely' popular in the US - its less strange after we learn that K-J was the first modern US bolt action rifle. It was adopted in 1892 and later after adoption of Springfield 1903 they were available for civilians.

Worf101
03-13-2006, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MadRuski:
one of the best Russian made WWII guns would have to be the P-P SHA i remeber my grandfather showing me one, it was apperently the only weapon in WWII that had a 3% chance of jamming as the german MP 40 jammmed up to a 27%, read that along time ago


http://www.autoweapons.com/photos05/sep/1149ppsha.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1 I agree totally. Most combat in WWII ETO was house to house and short range killing. While the M1 might have been a good compromise, gimme this Ruski Tommygun for my insurance policy. When Hanz pops his head around the corner, I want to be able to send mucho lead in his direction as fast as possible and as often as possible. And I dare say this weapon probably put more Nazis on ice than any other firearm and I thank god for it.

Da Worfster

Kocur_
03-13-2006, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dravisar:

Its funny, id completely forgotten about the MG34 and 42...which our M60 is a direct copy of. Good call! Very useful, mass produced, and 1200 rpm firing 8mm/7.92 mauser! whew! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M60 IS NOT A COPY OF MG-42. How can it be since MG-42 was RECOIL operated and M60 - GAS operated?
M60 is result of a US fascination with FG-42 and attempt to convert it for belt feed. It had started with T44 (http://www.cruffler.com/historic-november00.html) prototype (scroll to bottom of page). In result M60 is FG-42 bolt/operating rod, MG-42 belt feed mech (used in many post-WW2 mgs) in new receiver with new gas mech, trigger group and barrel.

Kocur_
03-13-2006, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Worf101:

http://www.autoweapons.com/photos05/sep/1149ppsha.jpg

+1 I agree totally. Most combat in WWII ETO was house to house and short range killing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Especially in the steppes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Worf101:While the M1 might have been a good compromise, gimme this Ruski Tommygun for my insurance policy. When Hanz pops his head around the corner, I want to be able to send mucho lead in his direction as fast as possible and as often as possible.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, you will be able to "send mucho lead in his direction", but that, i.e. "his direction" is it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif While PPSh had many pros, like (relative) ease of production or both positions bolt safety, it was stabbed in the back in production by the way they mounted barrel in it, i.e. fixing it at both ends, with baaad results for accuracy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Not to mention FAR too high ROF (900-1100).

Xiolablu3
03-13-2006, 09:18 AM
In other words its a copy of both of them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Kocur_
03-13-2006, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
The Flight-Sergeant who taught us said that the F88 round has, so far, had a 100% success rate: every Australian serviceman who has been hit by one has died. The round has a copper head, so when the round hits, the copper explodes in the body and spreads, cutting arteries and other blood vessels. The victim dies a slow, agonising death. (Those were his exact words) Now that got me in the gut pretty well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that seregant was trying really hard to impress you guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Military small arms projectiles are NOT SUPPOSED to deform of fragment - its just illegal. F88 fires common 5,56mm x 45 NATO. What is special about is is high MV of light projectile (~950m/s, 4g in case of SS 109 projectile). If a projectile of high speed hits human body it produces very large temporal cavity in soft tissues, due to hydrodynamic shock - our bodies are full of water. That speed loweres naturally over trajectory, but at close distances, under 200m that ammo is highly efective against human targets. Velocity is crucial here. Recently US M4 carbine, basically a M16 with shorter barrel proved to be disappointing in that area. Shorter barrel compared to M16 means lower MV, so range in which projectiles are still fast enough to cause hydrodynamic shock got really shortened.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
Steyr Aug (F88 is very similar)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

F88 is licenced AUG, produced in Lithgow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Btw: Australian gov spent more money on testing rifles to replace L1A1 (FN FAL derivative)/F1 smg, than Steyr to develop AUG - and those money were well spent!

Kocur_
03-13-2006, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
In other words its a copy of both of them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if you are direct copy of both your mom and dad http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Vipez-
03-13-2006, 12:01 PM
Wow, Kocur you sure like to "file" the "dot" .. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Anyways, again I meant SMG as in massproduction for war industry, and STG 44 beeing the first assault rifle as in mass production for war industry..

anyway need my coffey now (preferably with alcohol ) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

AndyHigh
03-13-2006, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Also soviets had smgs before PPSh, i.e. PPD-34, PPD-34/38 and PPD-40 (http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg01-e.htm).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point is that they didn't use smgs in 1939-40 war, at least not in any significant numbers. Although numerically superior in about every other area of weaponry, soviet infantry troops didn't have SMGs before Winter War.

For the defending side, the M/31 was essential tool for clearing encirclements and stopping attacking masses. Unfortunately there was only about 4000 available during that time.

Kocur_
03-13-2006, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Also soviets had smgs before PPSh, i.e. PPD-34, PPD-34/38 and PPD-40 (http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg01-e.htm).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point is that they didn't use smgs in 1939-40 war, at least not in any significant numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyHigh:
For the defending side, the M/31 was essential tool for clearing encirclements and stopping attacking masses. Unfortunately there was only about 4000 available during that time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In which M/31 with large capacity drum and quick changeable, quite long barrel and good controlability due to considerable weight was highly effective!

Friendly_flyer
03-13-2006, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Oh, bolt of that one is special! But not in positive meaning... K-J had SINGLE locking lug right behind bolt face plus second locking surface in the rear - asymmetric locking - baaad idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yes, mechanically the K-J is an oddball, handling wise it€s just another bolt, though. I know it have had some bad press in the US. Over in Norway the rifle has performed (still is, actually) very well as a long range target arm. The US version had a different round, the .30/40 which was a tad slower and had a less flat trajectory than the Norwegian one. It may have something to do with it.

Norway has never fought an extended war with the rifle, so there are no real data on how it would perform under prolonged field conditions. Perhaps the single lug would cause trouble in the long run, but the thousands upon thousands of rounds having passed through target range K-J€s indicate otherwise.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Reloading system has no advantages over more known designs, i.e. Mannlicher clip inserted into rifle and Mauser stripper clip, from which rounds are pushed into magazine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Norwegian version could be clip loaded just as a Mauser also. I don€t know about the American model. The idea of topping up the magazine without rendering the rifle monetarily unfireable (i-e- opening the bolt) seem very attractive to me.

Then again, I guess I€d rather have an autoloader.

Just for the sake of it, here€s a SMLE, a rifle renown for its smooth action:

http://www.geocities.com/smlemk3/smle1.jpg

(No, it€s not mine eighter€¦)

Kocur_
03-13-2006, 02:30 PM
Any asymetric locking is less perfect than symetic. Also the shorter distance between case bottom and locking stop in receiver the better. Both are reasons why rotating bolts with two or more locking lugs in front of bolt made all other locking systems disappear.

Bad press in US for K-J might be remote reflection of a 'scandal' back in 1892, when foreign design was chosen - 'Buy American' isnt modern invention http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif OTOH I know that K-J is, or used to be at least, quite popular sporting rifle, for its accuracy, smooth operation and very good manufacturing.

ImpStarDuece
03-13-2006, 03:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Military small arms projectiles are NOT SUPPOSED to deform of fragment - its just illegal. F88 fires common 5,56mm x 45 NATO. What is special about is is high MV of light projectile (~950m/s, 4g in case of SS 109 projectile). If a projectile of high speed hits human body it produces very large temporal cavity in soft tissues, due to hydrodynamic shock - our bodies are full of water. That speed loweres naturally over trajectory, but at close distances, under 200m that ammo is highly efective against human targets. Velocity is crucial here. Recently US M4 carbine, basically a M16 with shorter barrel proved to be disappointing in that area. Shorter barrel compared to M16 means lower MV, so range in which projectiles are still fast enough to cause hydrodynamic shock got really shortened. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Modern military .223/5.56mm ammunition is specifically designed to fragment and does so at relatively short ranges.

M193 FMJ and M855 FMJ both fragment massively if they strike a target at anywhere above 2700 fps, converting about 30-50% of their mass into fragments, depending on the ammunition. With a full length barrel, fragmentation occurs out to around 185-200m

Fragmentation of M193 Ball ammunition at different speeds

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9061/m193fragmentationspeeds8rc.jpg

Fackler (don't cringe) test of M193 in Ballistic gelatin

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/5061/m193fragmentation7fv.jpg

Fackler again, M855 in ballistic gelatin

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/1627/m855fragmentation1ib.jpg

WWMaxGunz
03-13-2006, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:
Wow, Kocur you sure like to "file" the "dot" .. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Anyways, again I meant SMG as in massproduction for war industry, and STG 44 beeing the first assault rifle as in mass production for war industry..

anyway need my coffey now (preferably with alcohol ) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Trench Broom. But really wasn't the BAR and other likes assault rifles? Just not so
good at close work.

UZI is also mostly stamped sheet metal with receiver and barrel. Doesn't make it a bad
weapon.

I'd like to know more about the Simonov SKS which some note is still extremely popular
semi-auto rifle. Many Soviet troops had them by late war even if not any majority.

I note the Thompson SMG first came out in 1920 and were heavily produced for Allieds.
It was very effective at close ranges.

Truth is as one post pointed out that it's the mix that counts. You want mainly semi-auto
for the line troops back then and fire rates could get up to 60+ shots per minute with the
carbines. A squad of those can hit and kill beyond individual fire range if trained to it.
Figure more like 20 shots per minute for well trained bolt-rifle shooters not going for the
long or super-accurate shots like when you're being attacked by maneuver as well as fire.
Throw in a few SMG's for close-in security, some MG's for both long range and sustained
mass kill and attacking other MG's and lastly the snipers a bit back to get MG's, control
as much as possible enemy initial moves and just to keep em guessing.

How about rifle grenade capability? From the old SPI game Sniper! on, the first side to
grenade is often the winner. One bang is often enough to stop a whole unit in its tracks
and from there they have lost half their strength in many situations.

That Marine in Iraq... why he didn't fire a few shots? And why oh why didn't those guys
have some armed security backing them up? But then I guess they'd need a TOW or an M2 at
least to deal with a pickup at a mile. Still, our guys should have those if not a Bradley.

Kocur_
03-13-2006, 03:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Military small arms projectiles are NOT SUPPOSED to deform of fragment - its just illegal. F88 fires common 5,56mm x 45 NATO. What is special about is is high MV of light projectile (~950m/s, 4g in case of SS 109 projectile). If a projectile of high speed hits human body it produces very large temporal cavity in soft tissues, due to hydrodynamic shock - our bodies are full of water. That speed loweres naturally over trajectory, but at close distances, under 200m that ammo is highly efective against human targets. Velocity is crucial here. Recently US M4 carbine, basically a M16 with shorter barrel proved to be disappointing in that area. Shorter barrel compared to M16 means lower MV, so range in which projectiles are still fast enough to cause hydrodynamic shock got really shortened. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Modern military .223/5.56mm ammunition is specifically designed to fragment and does so at relatively short ranges.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stand corrected (confused fragmenting with lead/cut top deformation, known from police and hunting ammo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif)

ElAurens
03-13-2006, 04:54 PM
My M1 Garand is more accurate than any of the bolt action weapons I own, with the exception of my 03A3 Springfield. That includes, SMLEs, No 4 Mk 1s, Swedish M96/38 Mausers, Type 38 Arisaka, A host of Moisin Nagants, and a Martini-Henry or two.

But... If I was going into a combat zone and could not have the M1 Garand, I would take the No. 4 Mk 1 in a heartbeat. Accurate enough, and far more tolerant of dirt/abuse than any of the other bolt actions.

jarink
03-13-2006, 05:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
How many people here have fired a weapon? How many have fired them at living targets, i.e. animals etc? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have fired all sorts of stuff, from the usual US Army M-16A1 and A2, M60, M249, M2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif , M1911, M9, yadda yadda... to some really cool full autos owned by the late friend of a friend in high school. The MP-44 is heavy at over 11 pounds empty, but that actually helps contrallability in full-auto. Most oddball weapon I've fired? A Reising SMG with a 2x scope http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
http://www.olive-drab.com/images/firearms_smg_reising_bougainville_1943dec.jpg
http://www.military-collections.com/Weapons/Reising.jpg

.45 cal with not too bad of kick and used early on by the USMC, but the cocking handle is buried in the underside of the forestock and is a b**ch to work. The Thompson M1 (not the M1928 'gangster' version) is a much better sub-gun.

The M-60 was partly copied from the MG-42. It borrowed the belt feed mechanism and cover. Also, the US Army was so impressed with the MG-42 they tried to reverse-engineer it and convert it to standard .30-06 ammo. Apparently, a small mathematical mistake doomed the effort.

LUFT11_Hoflich
03-13-2006, 06:01 PM
Is this some "modern" MG42? That pic was taken in iraq i think or in Afghanistan, the soldier isn't american, look at the flag in his arm.
If it'san MG42 reincarnation.. well.. I guess 1940's German gun technology still kicks arse, Iraqi or afghany arse lol...

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f351/luft11_hoflich/mg62.jpg

H¶f... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Balkenkreuz
03-13-2006, 06:36 PM
I'd like Gewehr 43 and SVT 40 form Russia. They could provide a good accurate shoot for soldior. Especially,the scope G43 and SVT 40 were most favorite weapon of sinpers.

Balkenkreuz
03-13-2006, 06:38 PM
I'd like Gewehr 43 and SVT 40 from Russia.They could provide very accurate shoot for soldior.Espesially the scope G43 and SVT40 were the most favorite weapons of two countries sinpers.

Balkenkreuz
03-13-2006, 06:41 PM
Oh, the game "Call of Duty" which developed by Activiton is a good way to enjoy the weapons in WWII.

DIRTY-MAC
03-13-2006, 06:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LUFT11_Hoflich:
Is this some "modern" MG42? That pic was taken in iraq i think or in Afghanistan, the soldier isn't american, look at the flag in his arm.


Thats a Danish soldier

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f351/luft11_hoflich/mg62.jpg

H¶f... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yog_Shoggoth
03-13-2006, 07:10 PM
Garand. And the only rifle mentioned by the OP that I haven't fired was the BAR.

I have shot a Thompson though, you'd be surprised how accurite it is on semi.

BfHeFwMe
03-13-2006, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Any asymetric locking is less perfect than symetic. Also the shorter distance between case bottom and locking stop in receiver the better. Both are reasons why rotating bolts with two or more locking lugs in front of bolt made all other locking systems disappear.

Bad press in US for K-J might be remote reflection of a 'scandal' back in 1892, when foreign design was chosen - 'Buy American' isnt modern invention http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif OTOH I know that K-J is, or used to be at least, quite popular sporting rifle, for its accuracy, smooth operation and very good manufacturing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bad press was from guys loading what was originally designed as a black powder load with modern high pressure powder. Size of the 30/40 cartridge case would do the rest when lit off. The bolts blow up and back with disasterous results.

So long as you keep them clean and use original spec ammo you'll more than likely be OK, that is if your 100+ year old weapon is OK. I'd never completely trust any firearm, even new, there are many I've walked away or hung on a wall.

Kocur_
03-13-2006, 11:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LUFT11_Hoflich:
Is this some "modern" MG42?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most probably its MG-3, i.e. very slightly modified MG-42 chambered for 7,62 x 51 NATO round. Quite popular weapon (Germany naturally plus Chile, Dennmark, Italy, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Norway, Austria, Portuguese, Turkey and Poland since recently - mounted on Leo 2s).

Friendly_flyer
03-13-2006, 11:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LUFT11_Hoflich:
Is this some "modern" MG42?
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f351/luft11_hoflich/mg62.jpg
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's what is today known as an MG-3. Danes (like the guy in the picture), Germans, Norwegians and a number of other European nations uses them. Most are new productions, but when I was in the army, a lot of the older MGs I came across had eagle-and-swastikas stamped on the receiver. The guns have new barrels to take the standard 7,62x51 NATO round, same as the M-60, otherwise they're straight forward MG-42's.

I used to drag one around with me as a recruit. Rate of fire is around 20 shots/sec, double the rate of the M-60. They use a very neat belt system allowing you to link as many 50 round belts as you like. They€re also nice and very precise guns. Loading them one round at a time and firing them with a scope (as the Dane in the picture) is not a bad idea at all.

****ur:
As BfHeFwMe mentioned, it could be a matter of ammunition. The Norwegian guns are a generation later than the American ones, and were designed and build to take the smokeless, but rather benign, 6,5mm round. I can imagine a powerful round could cause problems with the asymmetric bolt.

Xiolablu3
03-14-2006, 01:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The Trench Broom. But really wasn't the BAR and other likes assault rifles? Just not so
good at close work.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the BAR was an automatic rifle, it fired full size rifle caliber ammunition which meant it was heavy and had a LOT of recoil, you cant compare it to an STG44 that used smaller kurz ammunition.

The BAR is much more like a light MG like the Bren rather than a Assault Rifle by STG44/M16/AK47 standards.

HotelBushranger
03-14-2006, 03:26 AM
Thanks everyone, especially ImpStarDuece for the charts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Wouldn't wanna mess with one of those rounds.

DoubleTap2005A
03-14-2006, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
As for the BAR, I've never shot one, but a friend of the family was in the infantry in the ETO and was the BAR man. He said that it was a good gun, but it was a bad gun to be the guy shooting in combat. Why? He said every single patrol took a BAR, and so the BAR guys got stuck on extra patrols.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also remember seeing or reading a American vet's recollection that guys did not like having to carry the bar because the enemy would try to kill them before anyone. From what I remember, the Germans knew the firepower of the BAR, and wanted to take it out first.

Anyone recall hearing something similar?

Blutarski2004
03-14-2006, 06:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LUFT11_Hoflich:
Is this some "modern" MG42?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most probably its MG-3, i.e. very slightly modified MG-42 chambered for 7,62 x 51 NATO round. Quite popular weapon (Germany naturally plus Chile, Dennmark, Italy, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Norway, Austria, Portuguese, Turkey and Poland since recently - mounted on Leo 2s). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Ironically the original MG42 design came not from either of the big German arms manufacturers (Mauser, Rheinmetall) but from a small firm (originally a sheet-metal lantern manufacturer), P K J Grossfuss Metall- und Lackier-warenfabrik. The designer, a Dr, Gruner, allegedly had no previous weapon design experience.

Interesting if all true.

Krizz1972
03-14-2006, 06:54 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/4/4a/WaltherP38.jpg

Walther P38 (standard pistol of the Wehrmacht)

Lordbutter4
03-14-2006, 07:34 AM
Depends on the situation at hand. If im sitting with my target 1000 yds away i would go for a k98. If im walking through the streets of stalingrad however i would have to take a ppsh.

Snow_Wolf_
03-14-2006, 08:04 AM
http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/fg42-02.jpg

suprise no one brought this up

Kocur_
03-14-2006, 08:08 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">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Any asymetric locking is less perfect than symetic. Also the shorter distance between case bottom and locking stop in receiver the better. Both are reasons why rotating bolts with two or more locking lugs in front of bolt made all other locking systems disappear.

Bad press in US for K-J might be remote reflection of a 'scandal' back in 1892, when foreign design was chosen - 'Buy American' isnt modern invention http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif OTOH I know that K-J is, or used to be at least, quite popular sporting rifle, for its accuracy, smooth operation and very good manufacturing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bad press was from guys loading what was originally designed as a black powder load with modern high pressure powder. Size of the 30/40 cartridge case would do the rest when lit off. The bolts blow up and back with disasterous results.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ammo for US K-Js, the .30-40 was the first US smokeless ammo. 40 grains or 2,59g of propellant is less than in .30-06 or 7,62NATO, but more than in say, Mannlicher-Carcano and about equal to 7,69 x 56R Lee-Enfield. What must have made the difference was propellant characteristics, modern 7,5mm+ cartridges produce top pressures of 280 - 300MPa.

Kocur_
03-14-2006, 08:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> From what I remember, the Germans knew the firepower of the BAR, and wanted to take it out first.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite natural to take out of action the enemy weapon of greatest firepower first - no matter if it was BAR, Bren, MG-42 or anything elese.

Kocur_
03-14-2006, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Snow_Wolf_:
http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/fg42-02.jpg

suprise no one brought this up </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, what an interesting failure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DjTeD
03-14-2006, 10:12 AM
Not WW2, but still one of my favorites :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Fass57-p1000727.jpg/800px-Fass57-p1000727.jpg

or

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Fass57-p1000720.jpg/800px-Fass57-p1000720.jpg

and in action :

http://www.fortlitroz.ch/pics/fass5705s.jpg

http://www.fortlitroz.ch/pics/fass5704s.jpg

A damn good weapon I shoot with a long time ago when I was in the army...

Kocur_
03-14-2006, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DjTeD:
Not WW2, but still one of my favorites
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not of WW2 but connected to it, as Swiss Stgw-57 aka SIG-510 roller delayed blow back bolt was, khem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, inspired by German late WW2 experimental StG-45 (http://jczs.sina.com.cn/pc/2003-08-04/29/90.html) (which goes to CETME Model A and G-3 naturally too).

crazyivan1970
03-14-2006, 10:45 AM
PPSh

marc_hawkins
03-14-2006, 11:04 AM
for what my opinion is worth..and its not worth much... i'd have to go for the PPSH as well.. seeing a regiment of russians clinging onto T34's waving those about'd give anybody the willies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

dravisar
03-15-2006, 02:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
The Flight-Sergeant who taught us said that the F88 round has, so far, had a 100% success rate: every Australian serviceman who has been hit by one has died. The round has a copper head, so when the round hits, the copper explodes in the body and spreads, cutting arteries and other blood vessels. The victim dies a slow, agonising death. (Those were his exact words) Now that got me in the gut pretty well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that seregant was trying really hard to impress you guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Military small arms projectiles are NOT SUPPOSED to deform of fragment - its just illegal. F88 fires common 5,56mm x 45 NATO. What is special about is is high MV of light projectile (~950m/s, 4g in case of SS 109 projectile). If a projectile of high speed hits human body it produces very large temporal cavity in soft tissues, due to hydrodynamic shock - our bodies are full of water. That speed loweres naturally over trajectory, but at close distances, under 200m that ammo is highly efective against human targets. Velocity is crucial here. Recently US M4 carbine, basically a M16 with shorter barrel proved to be disappointing in that area. Shorter barrel compared to M16 means lower MV, so range in which projectiles are still fast enough to cause hydrodynamic shock got really shortened.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
Steyr Aug (F88 is very similar)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

F88 is licenced AUG, produced in Lithgow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Btw: Australian gov spent more money on testing rifles to replace L1A1 (FN FAL derivative)/F1 smg, than Steyr to develop AUG - and those money were well spent! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To put what he said in plain english (and its EXACTLY what I woulda said)

The 5.56 round out of a 14.5" barrel fragments at a range of about 50-75 yards. Past that, it just punches holes.

It has serious shortcomings overall. Your flight SGT wanted to impress you, and the round CAN be impressive, but its envelope for being that impressive is...well not impressive.

I know, because I own one, and ive done the ballistics tests to prove it.

BTW Kocur_ , you in the states? member of AR15.com?

dravisar
03-15-2006, 02:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dravisar:

Its funny, id completely forgotten about the MG34 and 42...which our M60 is a direct copy of. Good call! Very useful, mass produced, and 1200 rpm firing 8mm/7.92 mauser! whew! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M60 IS NOT A COPY OF MG-42. How can it be since MG-42 was RECOIL operated and M60 - GAS operated?
M60 is result of a US fascination with FG-42 and attempt to convert it for belt feed. It had started with T44 (http://www.cruffler.com/historic-november00.html) prototype (scroll to bottom of page). In result M60 is FG-42 bolt/operating rod, MG-42 belt feed mech (used in many post-WW2 mgs) in new receiver with new gas mech, trigger group and barrel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The locking arrangements are from the FG-42 and the feed and belt are from the MG-42.

So wheres the argument?

HotelBushranger
03-15-2006, 02:49 AM
Thanks for the info dravisar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

We should start 'the best tank of WW2 was:'

Not the best, but my fave is the:
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/803/matildaii0wo.jpg

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/5149/matildafrogjw40pd.jpg

dravisar
03-15-2006, 03:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
Thanks for the info dravisar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

We should start 'the best tank of WW2 was:'
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh man...your gonna have to start a new thread and get ready for 10+ pages from panther et al about the best tank of WWII...or maybe we've already done this.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HotelBushranger
03-15-2006, 03:59 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif We should hey....but then again we'd get heaps of

"Tiger won the war!"

"No, Tiger got killed by .50 rounds!"

Ad nuseaum...

ImpStarDuece
03-15-2006, 04:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dravisar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
The Flight-Sergeant who taught us said that the F88 round has, so far, had a 100% success rate: every Australian serviceman who has been hit by one has died. The round has a copper head, so when the round hits, the copper explodes in the body and spreads, cutting arteries and other blood vessels. The victim dies a slow, agonising death. (Those were his exact words) Now that got me in the gut pretty well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that seregant was trying really hard to impress you guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Military small arms projectiles are NOT SUPPOSED to deform of fragment - its just illegal. F88 fires common 5,56mm x 45 NATO. What is special about is is high MV of light projectile (~950m/s, 4g in case of SS 109 projectile). If a projectile of high speed hits human body it produces very large temporal cavity in soft tissues, due to hydrodynamic shock - our bodies are full of water. That speed loweres naturally over trajectory, but at close distances, under 200m that ammo is highly efective against human targets. Velocity is crucial here. Recently US M4 carbine, basically a M16 with shorter barrel proved to be disappointing in that area. Shorter barrel compared to M16 means lower MV, so range in which projectiles are still fast enough to cause hydrodynamic shock got really shortened.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
Steyr Aug (F88 is very similar)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

F88 is licenced AUG, produced in Lithgow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Btw: Australian gov spent more money on testing rifles to replace L1A1 (FN FAL derivative)/F1 smg, than Steyr to develop AUG - and those money were well spent! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To put what he said in plain english (and its EXACTLY what I woulda said)

The 5.56 round out of a 14.5" barrel fragments at a range of about 50-75 yards. Past that, it just punches holes.

It has serious shortcomings overall. Your flight SGT wanted to impress you, and the round CAN be impressive, but its envelope for being that impressive is...well not impressive.

I know, because I own one, and ive done the ballistics tests to prove it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basically, NATO standard 5.56 ball FMJ will fragment effectively at around 2,650-2,700 fps and above.

A rough guide to this is:

Distance to 2700 fps

Ammo 20" Barrel 16" Barrel 14.5" Barrel 11.5" Barrel

M193 -- 190-200m -- 140-150m -- 95-100m --- 40-45m

M855 -- 140-150m -- 90-95m ---- 45-50m --- 12-15m

I don't know what ammunition the cadets use (I assume its cadets Bushie, that or you go to the Kings School http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ), but if its similar to M193 or M855 then the round will fragement well out beyond a hundred meters.

A standard Stg. 77 Steyr AUG has a 508mm barrel, which is about 19.5". The carbine has a 16" barrel and the PDW/compact version has a 13.8" barrel. The F88 looks like it had the standard 19.5 inch barrel, just going from the pictures on the manufacturers website.

I don't own a 5.56 but I have fired some .223 Remingtons and Winchester 70s in my time, mostly roo and pig hunting.

Tipo_Man
03-15-2006, 04:34 AM
Found these and couldn't resist...


http://www.strelok.kiev.ua/img/images/PPSh-night_big.jpg


http://www.strelok.kiev.ua/img/images/ppsh-45_big.jpg


PPSh

and why nobody mentioned PPS-43? I think russions consider it was better than PPSh?

ImpStarDuece
03-15-2006, 05:05 AM
I mentioned the PPS-43 all the way back on the first page http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HotelBushranger
03-15-2006, 05:16 AM
Righto ImpStar, I'm getting conflicting reports http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

The Australian F88 fires a 5.56 round, dunno wether its M193 or M855 sorry.

And yep, Air Force Cadets http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

panther3485
03-15-2006, 08:20 AM
Hi dravisar,

Quote:
"Oh man...your gonna have to start a new thread and get ready for 10+ pages from panther et al about the best tank of WWII...or maybe we've already done this...."

I haven't seen a 'Best Tank of WW2' thread on this forum (but there could have been one and I just missed it).

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

I love the subject, bit I try to remember this is essentially a forum for air enthusiasts. On the other hand, if some 'pucker-ring' starts up about WW2 armour, I must confess I do find it difficult to restrain myself sometimes!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

This thread has been interesting, but some of you guys know craploads more about small-arms than I do, so I more or less shut up and learn (this despite the fact that I've had 9 yrs Army service, mostly in front-line/special forces employment).

I learned what I needed to do my job - and was an above-average shot to boot - but that was about it. I never became a firearms enthusiast of any sort. Interesting sometimes, where our preferences take us.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

Xiolablu3
03-15-2006, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Snow_Wolf_:
http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/fg42-02.jpg

suprise no one brought this up </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I love that gun and would kill to own one.

Although it was a poor gun , I am fascinated with it.

(Massive recoil thanks to using full size round in a a tiny automatic gun, Massive muzzle flash showing th location of the shooter insantly, Side mounted Mag meant it was unbalanced, Very expensive, plus other faults I cant remember right now)

marc_hawkins
03-15-2006, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I love that gun and would kill to own one </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But what would you kill them with? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Xiolablu3
03-15-2006, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I love that gun and would kill to own one </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But what would you kill them with? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, just a figure of speech, we are not allowed to own auto guns in ENgland. My cousin has an old bolt action rifle but he has a firearms certificate for it.

Kocur_
03-15-2006, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dravisar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dravisar:

Its funny, id completely forgotten about the MG34 and 42...which our M60 is a direct copy of. Good call! Very useful, mass produced, and 1200 rpm firing 8mm/7.92 mauser! whew! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M60 IS NOT A COPY OF MG-42. How can it be since MG-42 was RECOIL operated and M60 - GAS operated?
M60 is result of a US fascination with FG-42 and attempt to convert it for belt feed. It had started with T44 (http://www.cruffler.com/historic-november00.html) prototype (scroll to bottom of page). In result M60 is FG-42 bolt/operating rod, MG-42 belt feed mech (used in many post-WW2 mgs) in new receiver with new gas mech, trigger group and barrel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The locking arrangements are from the FG-42 and the feed and belt are from the MG-42.

So wheres the argument? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is here:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
(MG-) 42...which our M60 is a direct copy of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Belt feed mech doesnt make entire weapon, does it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kocur_
03-15-2006, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dravisar:
BTW Kocur_ , you in the states? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately not!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dravisar:
member of AR15.com? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, considering above Im not interested in miriads of commercial AR-15s, accesories etc. But if M16 family internal design was to be discussed I wouldnt make any popular among AR-15 fans http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Kocur_
03-15-2006, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Basically, NATO standard 5.56 ball FMJ (...)

M193

M855 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the sake of clarity: those designations are US cartridges designations, but since the only difference between them is the projectile, they are referred to projectiles - and fine.

M193 never was NATO standard ammo. Some European countries adopted it in 1970s (most notably: France with FA MAS, but France is out of NATO military structures). In the early 1980 US Army was looking for a weapon to become Squad Automatic Weapon, lighter than full power lmgs, capable of effective fire up to 800m (its a famous "up to" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). THIRD after 7,62mm x 51NATO and 5,56mm x 45 kind of ammo was considered for a while, but logistics... And then Belgian FN proposed Minimi lmg and new projectile for 5,56mm round. The SS 109 was heavier (4g vs. 3,56g), longer (23mm vs. 19,3mm) and generally of better ballistics than M193. It was adopted in the US as M855, and both M249SAW (version of Minimi) and new M16A2 were chambered for it. Also that new round was standarised by NATO as 5,56mm x 45NATO.

Rifling twist for M193 was 305mm but twist for M855 (aka SS 109) is shorter - 178mm. In some countries "compromise" twist is used, 250mm in Steyr AUG for example, so the weapon can be fed with both ammo types. I dont know what twist is used in F88, but Australia uses also Minimi as F89 we can be quite sure, that both weapons fire 5,56mm x 45 NATO aka M855.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A standard Stg. 77 Steyr AUG has a 508mm barrel, which is about 19.5". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

20" is 508mm exactlyhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Btw its is 508mm instead of 'round' 500mm because of measuring barrel lenght in inches originally.

Kocur_
03-15-2006, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
I mentioned the PPS-43 all the way back on the first page http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heck! I did too - as WW2 best smg btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

dravisar
03-15-2006, 03:07 PM
Im just going to say this: reading stuff on the internet is one thing, putting it into practice is another.

I owned an M4 for about 3 years, firing a myriad of rounds out of it in the 5.56 caliber, ranging from 55gr M193 to Swiss GP90...to 77gr Nosler...etc etc etc etc...

Done and seen multiple tests done in person, heard a ton of direct testimonies from friends that are in Iraq, afhanistan, and just recently, special forces.

The 62gr 5.56 round out of a 14.5 inch barrel, can not be relied upon to fragment out past 75 or so yards. Facklers tests were great and good, but im talking word of mouth. You dont have to beleive me, I was just trying to relate my experience.

And im with you on the shortcomings of the round and the design of the weapon. I'm a 7.62 and up kinda guy myself.

Sergio_101
03-15-2006, 06:15 PM
Personaly I like the Sweedish service rifles.
6.5x55 is an excellent cartridge and every
Sweedish rifle I have messed with is capable
of amazing accuracy.

But the Sweeds were officially NOT combatants in WWII.

I'll take a MI Garand.
Recoil is not bad for a high powered .30 cal.
Accuracy is very good, it's a top loader allowing
for excellent servicability in a trench.
The 8 round magazine seems clumsy, but the
stripper clip is ejected when you run empty
and you just push in a new 8 round clip.

One draw back is it is nearly impossible to top off.
If you are nearly empty it's simple to cycle
the slide to empty the magazine and pop in a
new one, keeping the live rounds to load up a
new clip.

Sergio