Which Gun Is Better?

I like the M1 Garand. Its my favorite. Probably the best rifle in the war.

 

I like the M1A1 carbine. It was for the paratroopers and it was very affective and one of the best next to the M1 garand.



-Hicks

 

I'd say it all comes down to the use it's being put to. The Garand was the best squad rifleman's weapon, the Bren the best squad machine gun. Overall the grease gun was probably the best SMG, and the Colt 45 the best handgun. Those are all different uses, so it's impossible to say which is the best over all.

 

My overall favorite is the M1.

For house-to-house, close combat I'll take the Thompson.

For picking my targets off, give me a '03 Springfield.

 

By selecting these, you are showing your battle inexperience. You left out the finest weapon. The German Light machine gun, the schmieser (Spelling) I have used one and it was fabulous
Sapper

 

Originally posted by RandyHicks@May 18 2005, 12:02 PM
I like the M1A1 carbine. It was for the paratroopers and it was very affective and one of the best next to the M1 garand.



-Hicks
[post=34565]Quoted post[/post]

The standard issue for US paratroops was the M1 Garand, with Thompsons and BARs also issued on standard infantry scales. The M1 carbine series was far too lightweight and lacking in punch for general issue.

The M1 carbine series was designed as an alternative to carrying a pistol for troops who would not normally be issued with rifle, SMG or LMG. The British General Bill Slim carried one in Burma, which makes me wonder whether he was a poor pistol shot.

 

I've got to mention I've never even heard of a Welrod. I had to do a google search for it. For other ignorant people here is the site I found.

http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Singl...tols/Welrod.htm

Sounds like an interesting gun, but I'd hardly put it in the same class as those others.

 

Horses for courses. You do not have the best horses for the courses.

The Bren was a good section weapon, but not in the desert. The spent cases ejected from the bottom, in front of the pistol grip. This would churn up the sand and dust. In turn the firing mechanism would jam.
The Sten was a good close combat weapon. But for static duties it was nearly as deadly as the Lanchester. If you dropped it on it's butt end, the weight of the breech block compressed the return spring. When this spring reasserted itself, the breech block took a round into the chamber. Then the fixed firing pin discharged a round. Willie Heward from Liverpool did this and creased the back of his head at Buxtehude in Germany at the end of the war. He lived to attend many reunions.
The Lee Enfield configuration with a 7.62mm round and a scope was a good sniper weapon. It was used by myself on the Warminster Ranges in early 90's. I could drop a walking target at 600 Mtrs with the first round.

 

Originally posted by handtohand22@May 18 2005, 06:08 PM
The Lee Enfield configuration with a 7.62mm round and a scope was a good sniper weapon. [post=34582]Quoted post[/post]

But the 7.62mm (.308" Winchester) cartridge was not introduced until well after WWII and was never standard issue for the Lee Enfield. It was the standard NATO round and in British service it was issued for the L1A1 rifle, converted Bren and GPMG.

A relatively small number of Lee Enfields were converted from .303" to 7.62mm for both service and civilian use, but not during WWII. The conversion remains popular among full bore range shooters to this day.

All Lee Enfields issued in WWII, including those fitted with scope sights for sniping, were chambered for .303", which was every bit as good in the sniping role as the 7.62mm.

 

Sorry, I stand corrected, I wrote the answer and forgot the question was about WWII weapons.
I have used both versions of the Lee Enfield between 1962 and 1990. Preferred the 7.62 Lee Enfield because the butt was padded. The 303 had a kick like a mule.

 

Originally posted by angie999+May 18 2005, 05:19 PM-->(angie999 @ May 18 2005, 05:19 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-RandyHicks@May 18 2005, 12:02 PM
I like the M1A1 carbine. It was for the paratroopers and it was very affective and one of the best next to the M1 garand.



-Hicks
[post=34565]Quoted post[/post]

The standard issue for US paratroops was the M1 Garand, with Thompsons and BARs also issued on standard infantry scales. The M1 carbine series was far too lightweight and lacking in punch for general issue.

The M1 carbine series was designed as an alternative to carrying a pistol for troops who would not normally be issued with rifle, SMG or LMG. The British General Bill Slim carried one in Burma, which makes me wonder whether he was a poor pistol shot.
[post=34576]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
not really, i suppose it was on the basis that if the enemy was close enough to shoot at with a pistol, then they were too bloody close!

 

Originally posted by handtohand22@May 19 2005, 02:09 PM
Sorry, I stand corrected, I wrote the answer and forgot the question was about WWII weapons.
I have used both versions of the Lee Enfield between 1962 and 1990. Preferred the 7.62 Lee Enfield because the butt was padded. The 303 had a kick like a mule.
[post=34603]Quoted post[/post]

There was the L42 which was the modified lee-enfield. However, we used to use our berets stuffed into bds, jackets or wooley pulleys as padding!

 

The Solider of fortune mag carried an article about soviet body armour used in afghanistan. They tried stnadard 5.65 ammo which dented it. rounds from a Lee-enfield went through both sides!

Also from Afghanistan, they used to claim that a reble with a 303 could bring down a Hind with the right shot!

 

The M1 Garand has got to be the best rifle though in the US Army. It was so effective. My grandfater was in world war 2. He had to fight his way out of a situation. The only gun he used was an M1 Garand when he was in a tight situation. But an M1 is so effective.

 

Mauser K98 and the PPSch-41.

 

From the list I'd prefer the Lee Enfield, but the Garand would be a very close second choice.

That's if we're talking purely Allied weapons.
If I had overall choice, I'd choose the STG 44.

 

Originally posted by Pte1643@May 22 2005, 10:13 AM
From the list I'd prefer the Lee Enfield, but the Garand would be a very close second choice.
[post=34681]Quoted post[/post]

The M1 Garand was not really suitable as a sniper's rifle, whereas the Lee Enfield was. This is why the US adopted several other models of bolt action rifles for sniping.

Apart from this, I wonder why the preference for the Lee Enfield, which was rather dated by WWII (as was the German K98k and the M1903 which the US started the war with in the main). In practical terms, there was little to choose between the performance of .30-06 and the .303 cartridge and if I had to choose then my vote would have to go to the .30-06 as a rimless case design.

The things which had previously made the Lee Enfield superior in my opinion were:

1. the 10 round magazine when 5 shots was the standard in most countries.

2. the Lee bolt, which with practice was exceptionally quick to operate, giving a high rate of fire.

The M1 Garand used an 8 round clip, not far short of the Lee Enfield, but the main thing was the higher rate of fire obtainable from the semi-automatic action. This to me made it superior as a standard infantry rifle.

 

Originally posted by angie999@May 22 2005, 12:35 PM
2. the Lee bolt, which with practice was exceptionally quick to operate, giving a high rate of fire.

The M1 Garand used an 8 round clip, not far short of the Lee Enfield, but the main thing was the higher rate of fire obtainable from the semi-automatic action. This to me made it superior as a standard infantry rifle.
[post=34683]Quoted post[/post]

Absolutely on both accounts.
But may I quote myself from a previous thread...

It's been said that (in WW1 especially) the British "Tommy" was trained to fire 15 "Aimed" shots in a 60 second period, using his issued SMLE.

During the first "Contact", between British and Germans at Mons 1914, the Germans were reportedly "Startled" by the accuracy and rate of the British fire directed at them.

And that's not bad at all from a bolt action rifle.

But quite how they managed this, with only a 10 round mag' is a mystery.
(Maybe an equivalent rate of 15 in 60 secs.)

Mark.

 

US Rifle, cal .30, M1 (the official nomenclature):

I will refer to this rifle as "Garand" (after the inventor, John C. Garand) hereafter as a matter of convenience for that was a term of endearment and convenience employed by so many GI's.

I have shot tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition through Garands -- the great majority of which was in rifle competition -- I was an NRA high power rifle (and pistol/small bore rifle) competitive shooter for many years. It was indeed a superb rifle. In addition to its superior rate of aimed fire, it had the best issue sights I have encountered on an infantry weapon (positive click adjustments for elevation and windage), was extremely accurate and very reliable.

They made up into excellent target rifles and accurized versions were produced by Military Marksmanship Centers -- with polished sears/hammer hooks, crisply adjusted trigger pulls and carefully bedded barrelled actions in the stocks -- I have scored several possibles (100x100) at 600 yds on the "B" (National Match course) target using two such rifles which I was issued and fired in competitive matches continuously for three years with occasional tune-ups.

I have also fired Springfield bolt action rifles (US Rifle, cal.30, Model 1903, A1 and A3) extensively. This was also a fine Infantry weapon although the rate of aimed fire was naturally not on a par with the Garand and the sights were inferior by comparison (although the "peep" rear sight on the A3 model was a big improvement over the open sight models).

Both the Garand and Springfield 1903 rifles used the 30/06 rimless cartridge -- a very powerful and accurate round. The commonest cartridge configuration issued in WWII used the 150 grain flat based cupro-nickle bullet at muzzle velocity of approx. 2800 fps -- tracer, incendiary and armor-piercing versions were issued in lesser quantities. Some long range cartridges (AKA competition cartridges) using a 172 grain boat-tail cupro-nickle bullet at a muzzle velocity of approx 2650 fps were issued, mainly for use in sniper rifles (equipped with leather cheek pieces and telescopic scope sights).

Both rifles were equipped with leather (older pre-war) or web adjustable slings and the Springfield with the M1 (earlier WWI vintage) bayonet and the Garand with either the M1 or M5 (short WWII) bayonet.

Incidentally, the M1 rifle can be readily loaded with a partial clip by those who attain the skill -- usually target competition shooters who are used to initially loading with a partial clip of two rounds at the start of each rapid fire string (loading with a full eight round clip after the first two rounds are discharged) -- I can load a partial clip with ease and reasonable rapidity (I have had a lot of practice). I think the old saw about a weakness of the Garand being the "ping" of the ejected clip allowing a rush by an opponent during the reloading of a new clip is overblown and somewhat of a myth. Even a moderately dexterous soldier can reload very rapidly and resume delivering aimed fire in a split second. The Garand can be loaded and fired rapidly as a single shot weapon if the need should arise.

The Garand was the standard US issue Infantry rifle in WWII (and also in the Korean War). It was in general use by early 1942. The last unit to use 1903 Springfield rifles as standard issue was the US Marine Corps at Guadalcanal -- once they saw the effectiveness of the Garands in the hands of the Army units they soon adopted that weapon. The Springfield 1903 rifle was issued and used in a sniper configuration on a limited basis during WWII (and also in the Korean War).

The Garand was issued in a sniper configuration as the model M1C/M1D with a flash hider, telescopic sight and detachable leather cheek piece.

In my opinion the best features of the "Garand" were its property of being able to deliver rapid aimed fire, its rugged reliability & dependability and its excellent sights.

 

I've a feeling of Deja-Vu...

Anyone else?

http://www.ww2talk.com/index.php?showtopic=360