Which Gun Is Better?

Originally posted by Pte1643@May 22 2005, 02:45 PM
I've a feeling of Deja-Vu...

Anyone else?

http://www.ww2talk.com/index.php?showtopic=360
[post=34695]Quoted post[/post]

And I expect we will discuss it again and again. It's one of those topics which keeps coming back.

 

Originally posted by I wrote@ May 22 2005, 02:38 PM
.......... I have shot tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition through Garands -- the great majority of which was in rifle competition .......... I have also fired Springfield bolt action rifles (US Rifle, cal.30, Model 1903, A1 and A3) extensively ..........
[post=34693]Quoted post[/post]

Of course, I obtained and fired (quite a lot) a SMLE MKIII partly out of nostalgia -- my grandfather carried one throughout WW1 and my father in 1917-1918 in the same war (East Lancashire regiment -- several uncles also) -- and also just for the satisfaction of firing it. Lee-Enfields are great shooting infantry rifles. The bolt action on mine was smooth as butter. The only real limitation on shooting well in competition was the open rear sight without good windage adjustment -- I found it hard to maintain fine sight alignment and difficult to accurately "hold off" at the longer ranges (500-600 yds) whenever the mirage was running strong.

James

 

Originally posted by sapper@May 19 2005, 02:55 AM
By selecting these you are showing your battle inexperience
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
[post=34572]Quoted post[/post]

I read the question as to which is the best weapon of those presented in the list. Overall the M1 Garand would provide the best results "overall" than any other.

There may have been better weapons like the simple Australian OWEN sub machine gun. "Horses for courses"

Great weapon, light, top loading magazine, 9mm, that was better than any other weapon when our troops were fighting in PNG (Close qarters). Drop it in the mud it still worked. Its two outstanding features were the top mounted magazine --and the provision of a separate bolt compartment inside the receiver so that the bolt was isolated from its retracting handle by a small bulkhead, through which passed the small diameter bolt. This ensured that dirt and mud did not jam the bolt and it was highly successful. The diggers even invented a triple magazine block. (99 shots) The OWEN was renowned for not jamming.

Geoff

 

Originally posted by Pte1643@May 22 2005, 01:54 PM

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.)


[post=34692]Quoted post[/post]

Only the old pre-WWI British regular army could do this and the reason was simple. Soldiers who reached this standard got more pay. The volunteers and conscripts from 1914 onwards never achieved it, because they were not so well trained in shooting.

If you started off with a full mag of 10 rounds, you only had to reload once. As the ammunition came in 5 round charger clips, it took just seconds to reload, assuming the clips were ready to hand.

 

Originally posted by angie999@May 29 2005, 02:35 PM
Only the old pre-WWI British regular army could do this[post=34866]Quoted post[/post]

You are correct of course Angie.

The British Soldiers that were fighting at Mons 1914 were indeed "Regular Army".
More usually regarded as the "Old Contemptables".

 

Originally posted by Pte1643+May 29 2005, 03:49 PM-->(Pte1643 @ May 29 2005, 03:49 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-angie999@May 29 2005, 02:35 PM
Only the old pre-WWI British regular army could do this[post=34866]Quoted post[/post]

You are correct of course Angie.

The British Soldiers that were fighting at Mons 1914 were indeed "Regular Army".
More usually regarded as the "Old Contemptables".
[post=34869]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
The title the old contemptables came from a comment made by the Kaiser, who described the british Army as being the Contempablie army.

 

I would have to say the Garand! Excelent weapon!

Thanks

 

i think that the best weapon in ww2 is the MP44 i like it because is german

 

Yah the grease gun was good b/c of the cheap and easily manufactured parts but i think the BAR was a pretty cool weapon b/c of the power of its shots but had a major drawback with the 20 round clip

 

How did the Sten get in that list? It was probably the worst weapon of the war.
The Bren? Heavy! I carted one across France Belgium and Holland. very accurate but slow firing....

Still the best. Not on your list...No trouble at all, it has to be the German Schmieser LMG. Forbidden to use captured guns, the troops British recognised the sound and would send a short burst in that direction.

Some men got killed by their own men using it.
Sapper

 

There is a weapon called the Welrod on the poll list.

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

 

kar98k

 

The best gun is the one you're comfortable with - the one that comes instantly into your shoulder and your eye locks in through the sights as soon as it's there, and it's already tracking what you're looking at.

It's a personal thing, and it has only a casual relationship with the gun's list of features or its performance on paper. That's why people develop views it's very hard to persuade them away from.

Regards,
MikB

 

Yah your right MikB, and my commt on the KAR98 was that it was a slow bolt action rifle, and its only good feature was its accuracy

 

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.

The M1A1 carbine is only good for shooting squirrels and woodchucks(and even a woodchuck might take a few shots to stop )

On the other hand my M1 Garand firing 185 grain fmj's blew a hole thru a 16" diameter hardwood tree and left a hole you could stick your fist into on the exit.

 

I personally think the best weapons in general would be the ones that had a punch and would knock an enemy down. This rationale stems from my experience growing up in Northern Michigan hunting deer for the past 20 years. Experienced deer hunters tend to favor rifles that deliver exceptional shock and knockdown power. The goal of every hunter is to have that deer drop where it's hit.
Obviously when you are hunting something that can shoot back you don't want him capable of returning your fire, If he's knocked flat on his ass he can't do that. . Submachine guns are potent at close range, but rifles can knock a person down at a few hundred yards and cause more devastating wounds at that distance.

 

Originally posted by Stich@Aug 9 2005, 10:13 AM
I personally think the best weapons in general would be the ones that had a punch and would knock an enemy down.
[post=37455]Quoted post[/post]

True enough, but all the belligerents' rifles and LMGs had plenty enough power to do that.

The only underpowered one for its role is the M1 carbine. SMGs were limited to pistol rounds, but were only intended for use at pistol range. And the Welrod was intended as a covert assasination weapon, unsuitable for any sort of combat whatever.

Regards,
MikB

 

Originally posted by Stich@Aug 9 2005, 07:13 PM
I personally think the best weapons in general would be the ones that had a punch and would knock an enemy down. This rationale stems from my experience growing up in Northern Michigan hunting deer for the past 20 years. Experienced deer hunters tend to favor rifles that deliver exceptional shock and knockdown power. The goal of every hunter is to have that deer drop where it's hit.
Obviously when you are hunting something that can shoot back you don't want him capable of returning your fire, If he's knocked flat on his ass he can't do that. . Submachine guns are potent at close range, but rifles can knock a person down at a few hundred yards and cause more devastating wounds at that distance.
[post=37455]Quoted post[/post]


I agree Stich, however it always comes down to "horses for courses". I hunt with a scoped Remington 243 for distance however the 44 magnum Winchester lever action is always on my back for that charging Boer.

 

I agree Stich, however it always comes down to "horses for courses". I hunt with a scoped Remington 243 for distance however the 44 magnum Winchester lever action is always on my back for that charging Boer.


charging Boer? Man, I thought the Crown had ended the Boer War in 1902.
You still carrying a grudge??

 

Originally posted by Stich@Aug 10 2005, 05:38 PM
I agree Stich, however it always comes down to "horses for courses". I hunt with a scoped Remington 243 for distance however the 44 magnum Winchester lever action is always on my back for that charging Boer.


charging Boer? Man, I thought the Crown had ended the Boer War in 1902.
You still carrying a grudge??
[post=37511]Quoted post[/post]

My brother went, but I was under age :P :P :P :P