The Best Service rifles ever (argument starter)

[Watcher]

I'm a fan of the No.4 myself. Accurate to long range, robust, simple to maintain, equipped a war-winning army. Simple!

I love the No. 4 myself (and the SMLE) but how long to train someone to use it properly?

[PaulR]

I'm a fan of the No.4 myself. Accurate to long range, robust, simple to maintain, equipped a war-winning army. Simple!

I love the No. 4 myself (and the SMLE) but how long to train someone to use it properly?

I have and shoot a No4 but I have to say I'm not particularly a fan. In my opinion it has one of the worst rear sights for CQB imaginable - it's a bit like peering through a Knott Hole in a Fence Panel. You have to peer around the side or over the top of it to acquire the target then move your head slightly to actually take aim. The bigger picture is obscured by the fence panel. I know you've got the battle sight but.......

The sight picture on the M1 Carbine, M1903 Springfield, M1917 and particularly the Garand are much much better allowing you to aim at one target without losing sight of what's going on in its vicinity.

The other thing about the British Service Rifles was the rimmed .303 round. In the heat of the moment, it's so easy to load a rim behind another rim so it won't feed - who on here that shoots .303 hasn’t done that

Not very patriotic but just my opinion.

I still vote the M1 Garand as being the best in the late 30s to late 40s period, only criticism would be the capacity.

Cheers

PaulR

[Watcher]

Paul,

I think I'd disagree with you as well because of the full size cartridge for the M1. I've never fired a .30-06 in a rifle but I understand it to be of the same ilk as the .303 and the .308 in terms of recoil. If we are talking about an effective service rifle (and round) then something like the 7.62 x 39 with its lighter recoil, effective range (300 yards) and smaller size is surely better?

W

[jjvc]

It would have to be an L1A1 for me. A good all round service weapon.

Joe

[PaulR]

Paul,

I think I'd disagree with you as well because of the full size cartridge for the M1. I've never fired a .30-06 in a rifle but I understand it to be of the same ilk as the .303 and the .308 in terms of recoil. If we are talking about an effective service rifle (and round) then something like the 7.62 x 39 with its lighter recoil, effective range (300 yards) and smaller size is surely better?

W

Watcher, I agree with what you say entirely but again, I'm talking really about rifles that take the standard service rounds of that period.

The Americans, then the Germans quickly realised during WW2 that most battle in Europe was taking place in built up areas and in Jungle conditions. Rifles with longer ranges still had their part but something else was needed. The Americans sort of started the ball rolling with the M1 Carbine. Fires a 110gn bullet at 1800fps from a round so small and a rifle so light that you could carry hundreds of rounds on your person without a problem.

From that came the first true Assault Rifle, the Stg44 which used he first true intermediate round, the 7.92x33. Like the Carbine, it was only really effective out to 600yds but most accurate up to 300. Very effective in places like Stalingrad although we all know how that finished. The A47 was a direct result of the Stg44 - the first of many.

Cheers

PaulR

[1886lebel]

If you were to ask this question on a USA based forum, you would get all the American weapons as BEST ... ask on a French forum, you get those weapons and so on it goes. Each nation is partial to its own made weapons which is normal, who does not support thier national weapons.
Me, personally, say ... a soldier was trained to use a weapon and that one weapon so he used it to great effect as it was all he knew and used, we on the other hand have the luxury of getting all of them to try and evaluate but beware of the person who has only one or weapons and he will be deadly with it :)

Patrick

[saddler]

Swedish M96 Mauser.
...in use from adoption in the 19th century until replaced by a H&K type assault rifle in the mid-60's; but still in use as dedicated target rifle & the sniper version was still in use by both opposing sides in Kosovo and was only recently replaced by the AI L96 in Swedish service.

WELL over a century of continued service isn't too bad!


Prefer a self-loader?
No contest = The British issued Rifle, No.9
...but fell foul of post-war political sabre rattling by the Yanks who refused the calibre - forced NATO into 7.62x51, then binned it themselves wthin a decade to go with the 5.56mm instead!

[R.G.C]

Paul,

I think I'd disagree with you as well because of the full size cartridge for the M1. I've never fired a .30-06 in a rifle but I understand it to be of the same ilk as the .303 and the .308 in terms of recoil. If we are talking about an effective service rifle (and round) then something like the 7.62 x 39 with its lighter recoil, effective range (300 yards) and smaller size is surely better?

W

Watcher, I agree with what you say entirely but again, I'm talking really about rifles that take the standard service rounds of that period.

The Americans, then the Germans quickly realised during WW2 that most battle in Europe was taking place in built up areas and in Jungle conditions. Rifles with longer ranges still had their part but something else was needed. The Americans sort of started the ball rolling with the M1 Carbine. Fires a 110gn bullet at 1800fps from a round so small and a rifle so light that you could carry hundreds of rounds on your person without a problem.

From that came the first true Assault Rifle, the Stg44 which used he first true intermediate round, the 7.92x33. Like the Carbine, it was only really effective out to 600yds but most accurate up to 300. Very effective in places like Stalingrad although we all know how that finished. The A47 was a direct result of the Stg44 - the first of many.

Cheers

PaulR

Paul, I do not think the MKB 43 was already born at Stalingrad era? It was even still confidential in Normandy...Only seen a few here.

From what I understand, the M1 carbine was not intended initially as a primary weapon, but to replace the sidearm...

As service rifles of the time, I have some favour for the Gew43 and Tokarev SVT 40. At least they were not designed and built to hold a bayonette and launch grenades. and had decent sights, optical or not.

R.G.C

[PaulR]

Paul, I do not think the MKB 43 was already born at Stalingrad era? It was even still confidential in Normandy...Only seen a few here.

From what I understand, the M1 carbine was not intended initially as a primary weapon, but to replace the sidearm...

As service rifles of the time, I have some favour for the Gew43 and Tokarev SVT 40. At least they were not designed and built to hold a bayonette and launch grenades. and had decent sights, optical or not.

R.G.C

I should have said the eastern front not Stalingrad, I just used that battle as an illustration of the type of fighting the STG44 was ideal for and that made the German commanders request more when Hitler famously asked what more did they need.

The M1 Carbine was meant to replace the .45 pistols with something that gave the rear echelon troops more reach should it be needed but very quickly got roped into front line service. Of course both the M1 carbine and .45 ended up in service together. The advantages that weight of fire held over long range highpowered ammo' was quickly appreciated, especially in street fighting.

Somebody learn't from someone else's experiences and I think the M1 Carbine was probably instrumental in the appreciation of the intermediate rounds that subsequently accelerated the development of firearms like the MP43 where the round existed before the gun did.

Just my opinion.

PaulR

[1886lebel]

SVT's are tempremantal ... they always shoot high the first round as it warms up about round #3 it then starts to shoot at point of aim but let it cool and then it goes high on that dang first shot.

Patrick