PDA

View Full Version : OT: Best infantry weapons of the war.



huggy87
12-19-2004, 12:19 PM
IMHO:

Bolt-Action Rifle: A toss up between the K98 and the Lee-Enfield. I like the smoother action and ten round magazine of the Lee, but I have to give the nod to the Kar. I prefer it's sites and feel. I have never fired the Moisin-Ganant (although I own three).

Automatic Rifle: The M1 Garand. Hands down winner. I have shot thousands of rounds from it. A very solid rifle. I personally prefer the M1 Carbine, but it was not popular and very poorly regarded (especially later in Korea). Not much competition to the American rifles in this category.

Assault-Rifle: MP44. No competition here.

Submachine Gun: I would have to give the nod to the Thompson. Its only drawback was that it was expensive and complicated to manufacture. The Germans and Russians also made some excellent weapons.

Sidearm: I would have to give the nod to Colt 45. The German Luger may have been a superior weapon, but was replaced midway through the war. The Colt soldiered on from WW1 through the 90's.

Light Machine Gun- The Bren. The BAR was probably its nearest contender. A popular weapon throught the vietnam war. Although, my grandfather carried one through the phillipines and thought it was a piece of junk.

Heavy Machine Gun- A tie between the the MG42 and M2 Browning. Both are still around today, and the M2 will probably be around for another 50 years.

PBNA-Boosher
12-19-2004, 01:42 PM
Bolt action I go for the KAR-98 and Mosin

Automatic Rifle: M1, the only one it its class, really.

meh_cd
12-19-2004, 01:58 PM
I've gotta disagree on the SMG, I'd give it to the MP38 or 40. (Why? I have no idea. Just there weren't that many Thompsons.)

Sig.Hirsch
12-19-2004, 02:08 PM
Boltaction : best is Springfield and K98 (accuracy at long range)

SMG : best was Schmeisser (MP40) , Tommy gun was excellent too (but only 20 rounds and less accuracy at distance than MP40)

Semi-Auto rifle : my fav is Gewehr 43 , but M1 Garand is equal if not better

LMG : MG34 , Czech ZB26 or Degtyarev were best

Assault rifle : MP44 easy

berg417448
12-19-2004, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
Boltaction : best is Springfield and K98 (accuracy at long range)

SMG : best was Schmeisser (MP40) , Tommy gun was excellent too (but only 20 rounds and less accuracy at distance than MP40)

Semi-Auto rifle : my fav is Gewehr 43 , but M1 Garand is equal if not better

LMG : MG34 , Czech ZB26 or Degtyarev were best

Assault rifle : MP44 easy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The 1928 Thompson had 50 round drum magazines sometimes available as an option. The M1A1 version also had 30 round magazines...subject to availablility of course.
Having shot both the Thompson and the MP-40 I found little difference in their accuracy.

Gryphonne
12-19-2004, 02:48 PM
Without getting into too many technical details, this is what most books have told me over the years.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by huggy87:
IMHO:

Bolt-Action Rifle: A toss up between the K98 and the Lee-Enfield. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, both were extremely accurate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Automatic Rifle: The M1 Garand. Hands down winner. I have shot thousands of rounds from it. A very solid rifle. I personally prefer the M1 Carbine, but it was not popular and very poorly regarded (especially later in Korea). Not much competition to the American rifles in this category. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't forget the Russian SVT40, an excellent weapon, better than the G43 and perhaps even the M1.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Assault-Rifle: MP44. No competition here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After it was approved by Hitler the MP44 received StG.44 as designation. It was the only assault rifle in WW2.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Submachine Gun: I would have to give the nod to the Thompson. Its only drawback was that it was expensive and complicated to manufacture. The Germans and Russians also made some excellent weapons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The PPSh 41 is regarded to be the best SMG with the MP40 behind.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Light Machine Gun- The Bren. The BAR was probably its nearest contender. A popular weapon throught the vietnam war. Although, my grandfather carried one through the phillipines and thought it was a piece of junk. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MG42, it was also used in the squad LMG role (bipod instead of tripod and some other slight modifications). No other LMG even gets close.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Heavy Machine Gun- A tie between the the MG42 and M2 Browning. Both are still around today, and the M2 will probably be around for another 50 years. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hard to say, in the HMG role both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Gryphon

Aaron_GT
12-19-2004, 02:52 PM
" Its only drawback was that it was expensive and complicated to manufacture."

Troops also complained that it had poor stopping power.

berg417448
12-19-2004, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
" Its only drawback was that it was expensive and complicated to manufacture."

Troops also complained that it had poor stopping power. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HUH? The the 45 ACP round has never been known for lacking stopping power among pistol caliber rounds. Sounds more like you are confusing it with the M-1 or M-2 30 caliber carbines which did receive such complaints from the troops.

Aaron_GT
12-19-2004, 02:58 PM
"Heavy Machine Gun- A tie between the the MG42 and M2 Browning. Both are still around today, and the M2 will probably be around for another 50 years."

The MG42 is more an MMG, not an HMG, unless the MG42 is tripod mounted.

The M2 is due for replacement soon. I can't remember the designation of the likely replacement, X157 or something. I did dig up the web page for it during the 50 cal debate, but it is much lighter and has less dispersion than the M2.

I've fired a BAR and the biggest problem with it was the magazine location, especially given it has only a 20 round magazine. The French created a version that top loaded like the Bren. The BAR was fine for its original mission, though, which was suppressive fire for advancing infantry fired whilst on the move (if you've seen the WW1 ammunition belts with the cup to fit the butt to fire from the hip it makes the intended mode very clear), whereas the Bren is designed to be fired when stationary. The Bren may still be in service in the British Army (if not it was until very recently).

HellToupee
12-19-2004, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
" Its only drawback was that it was expensive and complicated to manufacture."

Troops also complained that it had poor stopping power. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HUH? The the 45 ACP round has never been known for lacking stopping power among pistol caliber rounds. Sounds more like you are confusing it with the M-1 or M-2 30 caliber carbines which did receive such complaints from the troops. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well it had a rather low muzzle velocity.

Bolt-Action Rifle: the lee enfield

Automatic Rifle: dont think anyone used these as much as the americans, tho the russians and germans did have auto rifles. So garand.

submachine gun: sten was cheap and has good stats on paper http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

LMG: mg42

HMG: twin vickers on a jeep http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
12-19-2004, 03:05 PM
The 45 ACP round has good stopping power for a pistol but pistols are only used at very short ranges. The problem was that the Thompson SMG lacked stopping power beyond 50 yards but the likes of the MP40 still had good stopping power at 100 yards as they fired a more aerodynamic round at higher velocity.

The M1 and M2 carbines are rather maligned in terms of stopping power. The US Army rated its stopping power as greater than the M1 SMG (round per round) and nearly as high as the M1 rifle at ranges of around 200 yards (typical engagement ranges, which were farther than the M1 SMG was effective at). Off the top of my head from memory at those ranges the M1 carbine received around a 70% lethality rating, the M1 rifle in the 80-90% range.

Troops did complain about the stopping power of the M1 Carbine, but this was semi automatic and so you were less likely to score multiple hits than with the M1 SMG. The Carbine was originally intended to be selective fire but the problems were not fixed until the M2 at the end of the war.

Aaron_GT
12-19-2004, 03:08 PM
I've not used a Kar 43 (I've had people fire blanks from them AT me though!) but I've used an M1 Garand. Very solid and reliable feeling. We had problems with jams when firing blanks, but that might have been some people not doing enough maintenance (my best friend has meticulous about maintenance and cleaning and never had a single jam) or the blanks. I used an M1903 for reenactment and that has a nicer action than the K98k in my opinion, although the Lee Enfield is nicer still. The M1903 feels delicate compared to an M1, though.

Aaron_GT
12-19-2004, 03:09 PM
Oh, the one entertaining thing about the M1903 - it is very easy to remove the bolt, but the lever is also the safety. Once the lever got knocked onto the 'free bolt setting' and when intending to action the bolt it just came out of the gun in my hands! Most embarassing!

Aaron_GT
12-19-2004, 03:12 PM
"After it was approved by Hitler the MP44 received StG.44 as designation. It was the only assault rifle in WW2."

There was also the FG42. The British dropped development of an assault rifle in the 1930s to concentrate on the Bren. The first assault rifle (or selective fire rifle-type infantry weapon I suppose) was trialed by the Italian Army in 1895!

ElAurens
12-19-2004, 03:45 PM
I have fired all the rifles mentioned here and all are interesting in thier way. The Enfield is the best bolt gun for battlefield use, but the M1 Garand really outclasses any bolt gun.

The 03A3 Springfield is very accurate, but also very fragile. It has the most complex (number of internal parts)bolt ever fitted to a military firearm. An acquantance of mine who worked at the old Frankford Arsenal was fond of calling it a "De-imporved Model 1895 Mauser".

The best shoulder arm ever fielded by the US, in terms of quality of assembly and fit and finish were the 1894 and 1898 .30-40 Krag-Jorgensen rifles. Truely beautiful pieces with the smoothest bolts I have ever encountered in a military arm.

Another ringer I will add to this list, *slips on nomex* is the 6.5mm Type 38 Arisaka. Those made prior to WW2 were well made, had excellent triggers and chrome lined barrels, and were quite accurate.

pourshot
12-19-2004, 03:47 PM
Maybe the best jungle sub machine gun was the Owen. Made in Australia and built to work in the worse possible conditions it was very popular with the blokes who used it.You could trade a crate full of sten guns for a couple of Owens.

sub machine guns (http://www.stormpages.com/garyjkennedy/Weapons/submachineguns/sub_machine_guns.htm)

WTE_Sikshoota
12-19-2004, 04:02 PM
S` Guys

I like them all, have a number of them as well.

As to the Best all round (Bolt Action) Battle rifle in terms of respectable accuracy (as good as any of us can shoot it at least) & rugged dependability combined with smoothness of operation therefore speed of repeat shots, none compare to the good ol' 'Smelly'.... yep, the Short Magazine Lee Enfield .303. Speaking from the use of most of these Rifle types in Military Rifle competitive events.

Semi Automatic... Agreed that the Garand takes the lead here (had three of those as well... until the Australian Govt started the Gun Buyback/Banned firearm Sham in '96)!

Can't speak much for the SMG's (might incriminate myself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif) um but the Thompson is veerrry nice to handle & control with a good punch (supposed to be so I'm told of course).

My input http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Sik

LStarosta
12-19-2004, 04:14 PM
Best bolt action rifle, hands down, is the Finnish M39. Those who have had the pleasure to fire one at 100 yards or more know what I am talking about. Enfields, KAR's, Springfields... None come close. FACT. Even after 60+ years with no refurbishing, they rival modern rifles in terms of accuracy.

pourshot
12-19-2004, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
Best bolt action rifle, hands down, is the Finnish M39. Those who have had the pleasure to fire one at 100 yards or more know what I am talking about. Enfields, KAR's, Springfields... None come close. FACT. Even after 60+ years with no refurbishing, they rival modern rifles in terms of accuracy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'am not familiar with the gun you talk about but one thing to remember is accuracy is not much use if a gun will jam or otherwise be a pain in the butt to use.

Also how accurate does a rifle need to be, after all unless I was a snipper I would be more than happy with any rifle that could shoot a 2-2 1/2 inch group at 100m as thats more than enough to make headshots.

In my time as a hunter I can honestly say that benchrest accuracy is of little use in the field.

Korolov
12-19-2004, 05:23 PM
Personally, I'm partial to the K98; simple, reliable, and easily customized. Come to think of it, just about all bolt action rifles based upon the Mauser designs are very easy to get along with.

Although kind of late, the SKS is a interesting semi-automatic rifle; although I might be partial to the M1, I believe the SKS has features that outclass the M1.

SMG, I'd say MP40. But you can't really say much for SMGs as whole, given their accuracy and power limitations.

Browning HP is the mark of a excellent pistol, a more refined (if more complex) example of a M1911. High magazine capacity with reliability and accuracy.

MG42 has to take the top slot for a LMG - easy to produce, high rate of fire, ability to change barrels in a fight quickly and easily.

M2 for a HMG. Perhaps not as good as some other HMGs in it's class, but it's wide usage means it was ready when called for.

SkyChimp
12-19-2004, 06:35 PM
Pistols:

I've owned at least 10 M1911 type pistols, and currently own several. I've owned a 9mm P-38 and still own a 9mm Luger. IMHO, the M1911 is the superior design - simple, reliable, and it punches a big hole. The Luger is a nice pice of work, but far too complex for a military pistol. I can't imagine field stripping a Luger in any sort of combat environment - too many pieces. The P-38 was a far superior design to the Luger, IMO, but retains its single stack magazine. It's open slide made it very reliable - but exposed the frame components to dirt. Although the debate rages, I think the .45ACP is superior to the 9mm in a defensive sidearm. As far as WWII 9mm handguns go, I'd prefer the Browning Hi Power. The design is very similar to that of the M1911, but with a high capacity double stack magazine. Fabrique Nationale in Belgium built thousands of Brownings and they were used by both the allies and axis forces.

No one seems to have given any thought to combat revolvers. Both Webley and Smith & Wesson (among others) made superb revolvers. As purely defense sidearms, they were hard to beat. What they lacked in capacity, they made up for in durability and supreme reliability.

==============================================

SMG:

I'd go with the Thompson over any. Mainly due to my preference for the .45ACP round, the higher rate of fire over the MP40. Although, the MP40 was a fine weapon and certainly wasn't outclassed by the Thompson, except in ROF and (IMO) caliber. In terms of pure simplicity, you can't beat the M3 "Grease Gun." It was full-auto only, but fired slow enough that single shots could be made. It was made out of stamped steal, cost under $10 to make, and served with distinction for decades. The Sten was excellent as well, and influenced heavily the Grease Gun.

===============================================

Bolt Action:

American shooters liked to say the Mauser is the best hunting rifle, the Springfield the best target rifle, and the Enfield the best battle rifle. (The French Lebel was said to be the best rifle to make a lamp out of, since its tubular magazine hid the electric cord http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

I like the Springfield or the Mauser over the Enfield for a few reasons. 1) Both the Springfield and the Mauser have controlled-feed extractors (the cartridge rises from the magazine and immediately enages the extractor). This is important in the event of a short-stroke bolt throw. If you close the bolt half way then pull it back, you still extract the cartridge. Without it, you get a jam - because the cartidge stays where it was pushed while another cartridge tries to rise beneath it. Not sure if the Enfield had that important feature (I know the Lee-Enfield did not). Maybe someone with on can tell me. 2) The 8mm (7.92) Mauser and the .30-06 (7.62) were superior to the .303 in terms of ballistics. That might not be important up close, but at longer ranges it could be. Besides, the .303 used cordite as a propellant - which stinks and is hard to clean. 3) The Enfield had rear locking lugs which is consider weaker and less positive than the forward locking lugs of the Springfield and Mauser.

On the upside, the Enfield was very easily cycled and IIRC cocked on opening. Speed and reliability is of utmost importance in a combat arm and the Enfield had that in spades.

All in all, I'd feel good with any of them. But as far as a battle rifle goes, I'd have to give it to the Enfield for having the most important attributes - reliability and speed.

BTW, very early Springfields were know to suffer from poor heat treating of the receivers. But that was not an issue in WWII.

I don't own a Mosin Nagant, and never have. I've only shot one now and then. I remember I didn't like the bolt handle and its feel.

========================================

Semi-automatic rifle:

M1 Garand. Simple and reliable, and chambered for the .30-06.

The GEW 41 was supposed to have been a nightmare of reliability problems. The Kar 43 may have made a reasonably good weapon if there had been more of them, although I understand the reliability issue was never really solved.

IMO, the M1 Carbine is underated. It wasn't designed with the intention that it would serve as a front-line battle rifle. It was intended for troops int he rear. Nevertheless, it was handy, reliable, and the .30 carbine round has more than sufficient power at reasonable ranges.

=========================================

Assault rifle:

MP-44.

------

Those are my picks. I'm not ruling out Russian arms as contenders, I just don't know much about them.

LStarosta
12-19-2004, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
Best bolt action rifle, hands down, is the Finnish M39. Those who have had the pleasure to fire one at 100 yards or more know what I am talking about. Enfields, KAR's, Springfields... None come close. FACT. Even after 60+ years with no refurbishing, they rival modern rifles in terms of accuracy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'am not familiar with the gun you talk about but one thing to remember is accuracy is not much use if a gun will jam or otherwise be a pain in the butt to use.

Also how accurate does a rifle need to be, after all unless I was a snipper I would be more than happy with any rifle that could shoot a 2-2 1/2 inch group at 100m as thats more than enough to make headshots.

In my time as a hunter I can honestly say that benchrest accuracy is of little use in the field. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The M39 is reliable and durable, that's for sure. More so than a Kar98K, in my experience (though I will admit, the Mauser bolt is a very nice piece of "technology", I find it impractical to field strip). Overall less parts, less of a chance for something to go wrong. It's an extremely well built rifle. Having both rifles, and having seen and operated other types, the M39 is really not something you'd expect from a Mosin. One thing I don't like about it is the straight bolt handle. If you've been used to bent bolt handles it might be a nuisance at first, but it's decent. The 7.62x54R round, and especially the Lapua rounds in the caliber have superior ballistics to the .303, though, it does give way to the .30-06 (a beast of a rifle round). Depending on the grain and type of ammo, most I've seen are comparable to the 8mm Mauser. The M39 and most Mosins in general lack many of the luxuries of other rifles (read: straight bolt handle) but it's a class above the rest of the Mosins. Take a look at the spliced stock, free floating barrel, pistol grip, sights, etc. If it didn't use the same reciever as a Mosin, you'd swear it was a whole other rifle.

Luftwaffe_109
12-19-2004, 10:30 PM
Infantry Weapons

Bolt-Action Rifle: Mauser KAR 98K rifle or Lee-Enfield
Self-Loading Rifle: Gewehr 43 or M1 Garand
Pistol: Luger

Sub-Machine Gun: MP-40 or PPSh-41
Assualt Rifle: StG 44

Light Machine Gun: MG-34
Heavy Machine Gun: MG-42 with tripod


Anti-Tank Hollow Charge Weapon: Panzerfaust 100
Anti-Tank rifle: PTRS-41

Anti-Tank Gun: PaK 41 75mm Tapered Bore

civildog
12-20-2004, 12:05 AM
The man behind the gun.

(1VB)YAKMAN
12-20-2004, 12:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by huggy87:
IMHO:


Automatic Rifle: The M1 Garand.



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to say but the M1 Garand WASN'T a Automatic Rifle. Its whats called a "Self Loading Rifle" or a "Semi-Auto" rifle.

Eagle_361st
12-20-2004, 01:39 AM
My picks

Bolt action rifle: Springfield '03
Semi-auto rifle: Garand M1
SMG: Thompson
LMG: MG42
Assualt rifle: MP 44
Pistol: 1911 Colt

Friendly_flyer
12-20-2004, 03:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by huggy87:

Light Machine Gun- The Bren. The BAR was probably its nearest contender. A popular weapon throught the vietnam war. Although, my grandfather carried one through the phillipines and thought it was a piece of junk.

Heavy Machine Gun- A tie between the the MG42 and M2 Browning. Both are still around today, and the M2 will probably be around for another 50 years. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A note on MGs:

Though I agree that the BREN (Brno-Enfield) was the best LMG in use in WWII, I think it is a bit unfair to denounce the Browning Automatic Rifle. After all, it€s not really a LMG in the conventional sense of the word. Dating back to the Great War, I would say it is better classed as an early assault rifle rather than as a machine gun. Comparing it to the BREN is a bit like comparing the MP-18 Bergmann to MP-44 Sturmgewehr.

Comparing MG42 and the M2 is also a bit of an apple-and-oranges situation. Having fired bout I€d say these two do not belong in the same class. I€ve fired the MG-42 from the heavy tripod. It works, but with the 8mm Mauser round (or the 7,62x51 NATO round that Norwegian MGs are rechambered for), the MG-42 lacks the necessary punch as heavy MG. I€ve also helped drag the M2 into positions on military exercises (on skis, it was fairly unpleasant), and can safely say it has nothing to do as a medium or all round MG. Bout are excellent designs, bout are still used around the world. Personally, I would have nominated them for best gun in the medium MG class and heavy MG class respectively.

Tully__
12-20-2004, 03:54 AM
Bolt action: Swedish 6.5x55mm Mauser action.

Self loading rifle: Given that the convention seems to be WW2 or earlier, I'll stick with what I know, the Garand.

Assault rifle: Same time constraints, the MP44. Allow a couple of years extra and it would have been the AK-47.

Submachine gun: MP40 or PPSh41.

Sidearm: Walther P-38 or Browning Hi-Power in 9mm.

LMG: MG42

HMG: Browing M2

Aaron_GT
12-20-2004, 04:01 AM
Korolov wrote:
"Come to think of it, just about all bolt action rifles based upon the Mauser designs are very easy to get along with."

Try an Enfield P.14 or a US M1917 and say that :-) . The M1917 (I had one of the ones that was rebuilt from selected parts post WW1 when it was declared limited standard) is a solidly built and reliable weapon (more resistant to grit than the M1903 I would imagine, although I never had a jam with either when reenacting, even after crawling through ditches). However the action is rather clunky. It was reputed to be more accurate than the M1903, however. It was actually the more common US service rifle in WW1, more common than the M1903. Those who have seen Dad's Army may recognise that the P.14 was the one carried (or they might have had M1917s - hard to tell - one received a red band on the stock to distinguish the ammunition type, but I can't remember which).

Skychimp:
The M1903 ***** on opening the bolt too. When reenacting sometimes I would decock my M1903 as an additional safety feature then simply lift and lower the bolt handle to recock it. Interestingly although the M1917 is a Mauser derivative it doesn't have this behaviour.

Bizzarely the M1903 I had was manufactured about 6 months after M1903 production had officially ended in 1942 (A3 production ended a few months later in 1943). You could tell that it had not been used much, though. The action had no scratches on it. Also the magazine base plate was stamped steel and I had to file out an additional 1mm in the slot for the trigger before it would reliably fire on every trigger pull.

One advantage of the No. 1 and No. 4 British rifles is that the magazine followers are generally more stable than the M1903. This wouldn't be a problem when live firing but blanks are typically shorter and it was possible on my M1903 to load a stripper clip in, close the bolt and have the first round not load as the follower had wobbled a bit and bolt hadn't caught the rear of the round. With a full (deactivated) round in it would straighten everything out, as would pushing the bolt over a magazine of blanks. It might have been that the M1903 I had was just such late production with some stamped parts, though.

(1VB)YAKMAN
12-20-2004, 08:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tully__:



Sidearm: Browning Hi-Power in 9mm.



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't agree more. I carried the HP for 8 1/2 yrs of my 13 1/2 yrs in the Army. I still carry one now when I'm working. Best **** 9mm pistol. I shoot 2 1/2 inch groups @ 50mtrs with this baby, & 1 inch @ 25 mtrs.

huggy87
12-20-2004, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by (1VB)YAKMAN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by huggy87:
IMHO:


Automatic Rifle: The M1 Garand.



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to say but the M1 Garand WASN'T a Automatic Rifle. Its whats called a "Self Loading Rifle" or a "Semi-Auto" rifle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you are correct, and I certainly know the difference between auto and semi-auto. However, the M1 was referred to as an automatic rifle- at least during WW2.


About the springfield- I have read that the sites on it were terrible. Do any of you who actually fired it share that opinion?

Vipez-
12-20-2004, 11:21 AM
To be honest, i'd say trophy goes for the chinese guys, who invented black powder http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

assault rifle: Stg44, simply no competition here.. stg44 had the potential to be the wonder weapon, but it arrived too late, and in too few numbers to have any influence..

SMG: Suomi KP model 1931: it was Suomi KP in the Winterwar, that showed rest of the world how devastating SMGs could be in right hands.. also the design of SUOMI had great impact on Russians.. after all, they did copy it and produced it AS PPSh-41 and also SUOMI SMGs 71 round drum was directly copied by russians and used in those PPSh-41s..

Machine guns: Maxim, which were available in big numbers in many numbers on early war.. MG34 and Mg44 were also excelent for their time.. if Kalasnikov's rifles has killed most people in the world, I believe Maxim's MG's have a nice second place here...

Automatic rifle: M-1 garand.. allthough Svt-40 and even Gewehr were equal (or SVT40 even better in some ways..) they were not available nearly in same numbers..

Pistol: Tokarev TT / L-35 "Lahti" Pistol

Anti-tank equipment: Panzerschrecks (truly revolutionary, had direct influence for post WW-2 antitank weapons..)

oldschool1992
12-20-2004, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
Boltaction : best is Springfield and K98 (accuracy at long range)

SMG : best was Schmeisser (MP40) , Tommy gun was excellent too (but only 20 rounds and less accuracy at distance than MP40)
Plus its .45 cal
Semi-Auto rifle : my fav is Gewehr 43 , but M1 Garand is equal if not better

LMG : MG34 , Czech ZB26 or Degtyarev were best

Assault rifle : MP44 easy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The 1928 Thompson had 50 round drum magazines sometimes available as an option. The M1A1 version also had 30 round magazines...subject to availablility of course.
Having shot both the Thompson and the MP-40 I found little difference in their accuracy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And its a .45 cal over 9mm I think

Aaron_GT
12-20-2004, 02:36 PM
"And its a .45 cal over 9mm I think"

The MP40 and Sten had 10-15% more muzzle energy than the Thompson, and a slightly more aerodnamic round and a longer effective range. The reputation of the 45 ACP round is from its use in pistols at ranges of circa 30 yards where it is excellent but an SMG needs to be effective also in the 50-100 yard range. Also there were complaints of 30 round magazines being too heavy for the catch on the M1A1.

I think the M2 carbine is being overlooked as a contender in the assault rifle stakes. the round wasn't as powerful as the 7.92mm Kurz, but it wasn't too bad. Alternatively perhaps the M2 could be seen as a contender in the SMG stakes (even though it fired from a closed bolt). The muzzle energy of the M1 and M2 carbines was about 2.5 times that of the M1A1 SMG. Special 'banana clips' were issued to duplex M2 carbine magazines, along with rubber plugs to fit on the exposed magazine end.

rugame
12-20-2004, 03:09 PM
Rifle - K98
SMG - PPsH41
Pistol - Browning HP
Semi Auto - SVT40
LMG - MG34
HMG (Sustained fire support) - MG42
Real HMG - Browning .50

Karaya_69th
12-20-2004, 03:51 PM
As far as the rifles go I can say with experience because I own one of all the following. M1, K98, #4Mk1 enfield, 1903 springfield. As far as the mauser and springfield go you guys need to remember that most bolt action rifles are in some for a dirivitive of the mauser, even the push feed ones of today take some features of it. I can say that the springfield I have is not delicate. The action bolt and bolt release/magazine cuttoff is for the most part the same, both use controlled round feed fixed ramp ejector and so forth. The M1 hands down the best semi-auto of the war. The enfield I have while a good weapon and fairly accurate has only the flip up fixed rear site and it sucks. One with the adjustable sites would be much prefered but the one I have was made in 1944. As to say what is the best between the springfield and the 98, I would say base your comparison on the cartridge. I'm sure there will be a huge disagreement over this but owning them and shooting them alot I think I can state this opinion a little more openly than someone who has only read about them.

Red_Russian13
12-20-2004, 05:00 PM
I own an SVT, it's a good weapon.

SkyChimp
12-20-2004, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The MP40 and Sten had 10-15% more muzzle energy than the Thompson, and a slightly more aerodnamic round and a longer effective range. The reputation of the 45 ACP round is from its use in pistols at ranges of circa 30 yards where it is excellent but an SMG needs to be effective also in the 50-100 yard range.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


If you're using an SMG at the 100 yard range, you're wasting bullets. It doesn't matter if it's a 9mm or a .45ACP. Both fire short, inefficient rounds with poor sectional densities. Neither gun is a 100 yard firearm.

Both fired nonexpanding bullets. Up close, any difference in muzzle energies was negligible. Both were fully capable for shooting completely through a person at appropriate ranges. But the .45 fired the fatter bullet, making the bigger hole. Caliber has its advantages under such circumstances. The .45 makes a bigger permanent cavity, and a bigger temporary cavity. This is borne out by modern day statisitics compiled by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies that show .45 ball has the edge over 9mm ball in "stopping power." Those loads were the same as were used in WWII, they haven't changed much.

stanner1935
12-20-2004, 08:42 PM
To Poor Shot;
At 110 yds, more or less 100 meters, you had to be blind not to hit your target with an M1 rifle. We set combat sites on the M1 for 300 yds. At 100 yds. it is absolutely deadly.
As for the carbine, it was mostly carried by mostly by officers, it was very light. (The M1 weighed 9 1/2 lbs without bayonet). The carbine fired a small round, had no hitting punch, and as such had a short range.
It was good for tight quarters, such as in town,
because of its rapid fire. We had a model with a full automatic lever that fired the weapon as if it were a machine gun. Rifle squads carried M1's.

LStarosta
12-20-2004, 09:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stanner1935:
To Poor Shot;
At 110 yds, more or less 100 meters, you had to be blind not to hit your target with an M1 rifle. We set combat sites on the M1 for 300 yds. At 100 yds. it is absolutely deadly.
As for the carbine, it was mostly carried by mostly by officers, it was very light. (The M1 weighed 9 1/2 lbs without bayonet). The carbine fired a small round, had no hitting punch, and as such had a short range.
It was good for tight quarters, such as in town,
because of its rapid fire. We had a model with a full automatic lever that fired the weapon as if it were a machine gun. Rifle squads carried M1's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is the automatic carbine designated M2 or was it a manually altered carbine?

Aaron_GT
12-21-2004, 06:14 AM
Skychimp wrote:
"But the .45 fired the fatter bullet, making the bigger hole"

According to the FBI statistics 9mm and 45 ACP rounds penetrate to the same depth and produce the same wound size to within a suprisingly small tolerance. The FBI reports better stopping power with the 45 ACP based on field reports only, not on tests of wound size.

At close range the muzzle energy of an MP40 is 10 to 15% greater than that of the M1A1 SMG. The mass per unit area favours the 45 ACP, though. Being subsonic the 45 ACP round was ideal for the De Lisle Carbine, though.

The other factor to consider is recoil. The ability of a round to damage the enemy is related to its energy (and how much is transferred) although not directly proportional to it. Recoil is via F=ma, or in other words proportional to to the momentum of the round fired, and inversely proportional to the mass of the gun. The M1A1 and MP40 give almost identical figures for recoil per round based purely on momentum (it is harder to calculate for bolt dynamics). However the MP40 and its ammunition are a lighter load for a soldier to carry.

Interesting snippet on the Sumoi (which was trialled as a replacement for the Thompson in US Army use) is that the 1940 handbook states that it is effective up to 300m. Mind you it has a longer barrel than most SMGs, with bullets being lethal to 500m, and sights graduated up to 500m.

Aaron_GT
12-21-2004, 06:15 AM
How about another contender in the semi auto rifle stakes - the Johnson. It could be topped up at any time from 5 round stripper clips and reputedly had a softer recoil than the M1. However the army had already adopted the M1 so it made more sense for the Marines to adopt it too.

ploughman
12-21-2004, 03:25 PM
Yeah, but. Wouldn't want to be going around shooting folk with your Johnson would you? No battlefield credibility.

This is my Johnson, this is my gun, this is...

Next.

SkyChimp
12-21-2004, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
According to the FBI statistics 9mm and 45 ACP rounds penetrate to the same depth and produce the same wound size to within a suprisingly small tolerance. The FBI reports better stopping power with the 45 ACP based on field reports only, not on tests of wound size.

At close range the muzzle energy of an MP40 is 10 to 15% greater than that of the M1A1 SMG. The mass per unit area favours the 45 ACP, though. Being subsonic the 45 ACP round was ideal for the De Lisle Carbine, though.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only practical measure of stopping ability are statistics garnered from actual shootings. You can't judge stopping power by plastering a side of pork. The only source of reliable information are statisitcs from actual shootings. Statistics for ball ammo give the advantage to the .45 (over the 9mm).

What you can do with a side of pork, or preferrably ballistic gellatin, is study the dynamics of the passage of the projectile through the body, and the transfer of its energy.

Tests with ballistic gellatin show that the .45 ACP FMJ not only produces a larger permanent wound cavity than the 9mm, it produces a larger temporary wound cavity - both of which are needed for reliable kills. But it's important to understand that neither the .45 ACP nor the 9mm (both firing ball ammo) were optimal rounds for killing people. FMJ projectiles don't expand and don't transfer energy as efficiently as soft-nose or hollow point projectiles. But somehow, someway, the .45 combination proved/proves to be better than the 9mm at stopping someone with one shot.

Just a note: It doesn't mean much that the 9mm had more energy than the .45 at the muzzle if it is not performing better inside the body. Stopping power is not a function of just caliber, or just bullet-type/weight, or just velocity, or even just energy. Stopping power is a function of all these things.

If "stopping-power" were a function of just caliber, or bullet, or velocity, or energy, then the .44 magnum (or some other cartridge in its class) would be the "best stopper." As it turns out, the .44 magnum is not the best stopper. In fact, it's not much better than the .45 ACP loaded with a good hollow point bullet - even though the .44 cleans the .45's clock in terms of energy in all of its loadings.

Evan-Sanow statisitcs would indicate that a medium-weight-for-caliber bullet driven at high velocity outperforms other combinations. For instance, a .45ACP 185 grain HP driven at high velocity is a better stopper than a .45ACP firing a 230 grain FMJ at moderate velocity. A .357 magnum firing a 125 grain bullet at high velocity is a better stopper than a .357 magnum firing a 158 grain bullet at high velocity. A 9mm 124 grain HP at a higher velocity is a better stopper than a 9mm firing a 147 grain bullet at a lower velocity.

I love the .45 ACP and own several, both M1911 types and more contemporary double-action guns. If I carry one when I travel or when I visit my hunting property (not used for hunting), I've usually got a magazine of Remington 185 grain +P hollow points to go with it. I also sometimes carry a Ruger SP101 .357 magnun that is loaded with 125 (or 110) grain semi-jacketed hollow points. My favorite, however, is my Colt Combat Commander in .38 Super loaded with Winchester 125 grain silver-tip hollow points. Whatever I carry for self defense, be it a 9mm, a .380 ACP, or any of the guns above, the round carried must meet the medium-weight-for-caliber-bullet-fired-at-high-speed criteria.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The other factor to consider is recoil. The ability of a round to damage the enemy is related to its energy (and how much is transferred) although not directly proportional to it. Recoil is via F=ma, or in other words proportional to to the momentum of the round fired, and inversely proportional to the mass of the gun. The M1A1 and MP40 give almost identical figures for recoil per round based purely on momentum (it is harder to calculate for bolt dynamics). However the MP40 and its ammunition are a lighter load for a soldier to carry.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Recoil was a negligible issue with both the MP40 and the Thompson. Both were heavy guns firing rather weak handgun rounds. Both were very manageable even in full auto fire - although accuracy suffered. As far as weight goes, its a trade off. Smaller round in a lighter gun with a slower ROF - or a heavier round, in a heavier gun with a higher rate of fire.



And about energy: The ability of a round to damage its target is related to its energy. Specifically, its ability to expend and transfer its energy inside the body. But more energy isn't always the answer. And more energy doesn't equate to a better killing round. If pure energy were the answer, we'd simply carry the most powerful round in the biggest gun.

As stated above, there has to be a good combination of caliber, projectile type and weight, and velocity. A good combination of these will help ensure appropriate energy transfer to the target.

A round with less energy can actually be better at killing a human than a round with more energy. Statistics suggest the most effective handgun round for producing one-shot stops is the .357 magnum firing the 125 grain semi-jacketed hollow point. It's about as optimal as it gets for transferring energy to the body and creating large permanent and temporary wound cavities. It's even better than the .44 magnum, which as a tendancy to send its heavy solidly constructed bullet through the human body without expanding.

It's all extremely complex. But, in short, energy isn't the answer - just part of it.

MO_JOJO
12-21-2004, 11:57 PM
Seems like we've narrowed it down to a couple of preferences per catagory, but most of what I see are stats on ballistics. Did any of these popular choices have drawbacks such as problems with ammo, mechanical malfunctions, or complicated field maintenance? Then there is the whole supply issue.

I only know of the US models in most categories, and have to say that the M2 .50 cal is a great weapon as long as you don't have to disassemble the thing. I guess one of its greatest characteristics is that it didn't (and still doesn't) require a lot of maintenance and had few malfunctions on average. Ammo and spare parts have never been a problem because of its exclusive use in the system.

From what I've heard, the Thompson SMG was the same way. Very reliable, and it shared the same .45 round as the M1911 - another finalist in its category.

The M1 Garand is a legend. The only drawbacks that I'm aware of are its size, weight, and small magazine capacity, which were typical of service rifles being issued to troops of all countries in the era. Someone mentioned the M1 carbine, but a carbine is a different category of rifle and a totally different round. Try to take the helmet off a Nazi at 500M with an M1 Carbine.

That's my 2 cents.