PDA

View Full Version : Favorite American Gun



Sergeant Dorr
09-10-2007, 12:26 PM
My favorite rifle is the Springfield M1 Garand no questions asked.

pdf27
09-10-2007, 12:39 PM
Better at what, for what purpose? The Springfield is clearly the better battle rifle, which is hardly surprising given that it is a much more modern design.

Oh, and get your terminology right please - a "gun" sits on wheels and is used by the artillery, or is fitted to a tank.

bwing55543
09-10-2007, 02:21 PM
I picked the M1 over the Kar98k.

However, my favorite American weapon is the BAR.

overlord644
09-10-2007, 03:44 PM
i picked m1, bigger clip, semi auto

tankgeezer
09-10-2007, 06:10 PM
;I like the Garand better as well, it is a fine GUN . (In the Grand Republic of America, the term "GUN" is applicable to any firearm.);)

pdf27
09-10-2007, 06:17 PM
Not near me - it's always "rifle" or occasionally "gat" if you're feeling colloquial. "Gun" is liable to get you 20 pressups!

Panzerknacker
09-10-2007, 06:20 PM
Repeated topic, chek the earlier ones.

RifleMan20
09-10-2007, 07:03 PM
anyway you could tell what favorite gun is if you look at my sig............................................... .................................................. ..............................If you didnt look its a m1

tankgeezer
09-10-2007, 07:19 PM
Not near me - it's always "rifle" or occasionally "gat" if you're feeling colloquial. "Gun" is liable to get you 20 pressups!

and don't forget "Roscoe", "Heater", "Rod" ,"Merhasker" and "pocket Judge/lawyer" Okay,, i'll behave now,,,:)

srg.spartan
09-10-2007, 07:26 PM
my favorite rifle is the m1 grant it is faster firing and i like the design it better fit troops becuase in a fight the kar98k is like the british lee-enfield because its like a sniper rifle you cant shoot fast. though given it was kinda good when the allies were pushin the germans back because they could ambush you better. just add a scope!

pdf27
09-11-2007, 01:58 AM
Ummm... bolt design has a great deal to do with it. I believe the record for an SMLE is around 40 shots per minute.

Rising Sun*
09-11-2007, 06:45 AM
Oh, and get your terminology right please - a "gun" sits on wheels and is used by the artillery, or is fitted to a tank.

A rifle has a rifled barrel, unlike a gun which doesn't. Supposedly.

A general purpose machine gun has a rifled barrel but no wheels, although it might be fitted to a tank despite being primarily an infantry section weapon. It's still a gun, manned by a gun crew, unlike a rifle which is invariably a single operator weapon (unless it's a recoilless rifle - see below).

A fin stabilised mortar is an infantry support weapon which doesn't have a rifled barrel and is a gun, but a spin stabilised mortar has a rifled barrel and does the same thing and is also a gun. Neither have wheels, nor are they fitted to tanks. Both have gun crews.

Artillery pieces usually have rifled barrels and wheels, or tracks, and might be drawn or self-propelled but aren't rifles, although they invariably have gun crews.

A shot gun isn't a rifle. It doesn't have wheels and isn't fitted to tanks, but it's still a gun, even if it's a single operator weapon.

A recoilless rifle is a crew served weapon which fires artillery type shells without the burden of wheels or tanks, unlike a recoilless gun which is exactly the same except it's not rifled.

I just thought I'd clarify the differences, which should now be clear to all. :D

pdf27
09-11-2007, 07:00 AM
Evil swine! :D

SuperTroll
09-11-2007, 07:05 AM
.....This is my Rifle, this is my GUN....
.....This is for fighting, this is for FUN.


"Full Metal Jacket"

Rising Sun*
09-11-2007, 07:21 AM
Evil swine! :D

It could be worse.

We could be trying to work out what distinguishes a boat from a ship. :D

tankgeezer
09-11-2007, 10:26 AM
Rising Sun must work for the ministry of Red Tape, in the Tax codes dept...Bravo, a true professional :)

Sergeant Dorr
09-11-2007, 11:04 AM
Next question! What do you think of the browning Automatic Rifle?

tankgeezer
09-11-2007, 01:38 PM
Excellent firearm, having a selector for 2 rates of fire. it was a versatile weapon, and a gas to shoot. I would choose it over the later AR-10, (similar to the M-16, but in 7.62 Nato. ) Besides,the BAR had the Bonnie&Clyde seal of approval....

overlord644
09-11-2007, 02:56 PM
exellent weapon, especially since the germans didnt have anything quite like it, except for the stg44 which were hard to come by, to lay down supressing fire on a small scale

Sergeant Dorr
09-12-2007, 10:05 AM
The Tomson 45. Calibur Sub-Machine Gun (aka. Tommy Gun) had a pretty decent firerate
but the recoil was just to hard to control. probobly the worst flaw of the wepon. Compared to the BAR. The BAR is better.

bwing55543
09-12-2007, 03:47 PM
The Tomson 45. Calibur Sub-Machine Gun (aka. Tommy Gun) had a pretty decent firerate
but the recoil was just to hard to control. probobly the worst flaw of the wepon. Compared to the BAR. The BAR is better.


Are you sure? The BAR was originally designed as a machine gun, so I'm sure it had plenty of recoil too.

The main problem with the Thompson was its lack of range.

Sergeant Dorr
09-14-2007, 11:48 AM
Any problems with the .45 Tompson? State your Thoughts here. Like the Tompson? Post here too

Sergeant Dorr
09-14-2007, 12:11 PM
The Tomson 45. Calibur Sub-Machine Gun (aka. Tommy Gun) had a pretty decent firerate
but the recoil was just to hard to control. probobly the worst flaw of the wepon.

That is my problem with it:mad:

RifleMan20
09-21-2007, 11:29 PM
the only problem i would have with it would be the production cost and the BAR was an excellent weapon in the war, very accurate and is a kind of easy to carry .30 cal, gas operated machine gun which would scare any mp40 wielder

Cuts
10-06-2007, 05:01 PM
The Tomson 45. Calibur Sub-Machine Gun (aka. Tommy Gun) had a pretty decent firerate
but the recoil was just to hard to control. probobly the worst flaw of the wepon.

That is my problem with it:mad:

Eh ?
The Thompson in its various guises from M1921 to M1A1 is one of the easiest SMGs to control ever produced !
Can you compare it to another SMG ?

Your comparison to a BAR is a little strange, they're completely different wpn types.
As bwing55543 infers, if you assume the Thompson has a heavy felt recoil, then you'd kak over that of the BAR.

Have you handled either ?

Nickdfresh
10-06-2007, 07:36 PM
Any problems with the .45 Tompson? State your Thoughts here. Like the Tompson? Post here too

Few of the US or British personnel that carried it would have complained about much of anything regarding the weapon, other than it might be a little on the heavy side. The main military complaint was that is was complex and expensive to produce in comparison with other equivalent weapons, especially the Sten...

bwing55543
10-07-2007, 08:34 AM
Few of the US or British personnel that carried it would have complained about much of anything regarding the weapon, other than it might be a little on the heavy side. The main military complaint was that is was complex and expensive to produce in comparison with other equivalent weapons, especially the Sten...

I know the British commandos were outfitted with M1928 Thompsons. Whenever they returned from missions, such as the raid at St. Nazaire, the first thing the staff would do was make sure the Thompsons were all right, then attend to the grunts themselves. That was completely to do with how expensive the Thompsons were.

Cuts
10-07-2007, 12:14 PM
Any problems with the .45 Tompson? State your Thoughts here. Like the Tompson? Post here too
Few of the US or British personnel that carried it would have complained about much of anything regarding the weapon, other than it might be a little on the heavy side. The main military complaint was that is was complex and expensive to produce in comparison with other equivalent weapons, especially the Sten...

I know the British commandos were outfitted with M1928 Thompsons. Whenever they returned from missions, such as the raid at St. Nazaire, the first thing the staff would do was make sure the Thompsons were all right, then attend to the grunts themselves. That was completely to do with how expensive the Thompsons were.

Actually Bwing, it's unlikely to be due to the cost as that's been SOP for the British Army since it's inception.
Many years ago I read some papers on the C17 English Civil Wars, and that same philosophy was expounded then.

Carl Schwamberger
10-17-2007, 05:56 AM
The BAR appeared at the very end of WWI. I dont know if it was used in combat before the armistice. It was so well liked the Belgians manufactored it, and hired Browning to do some additional design work.

The Belgian Army had supplied the bulk of their infantry with the BAR as a squad weapon by 1940. The Poles also purchased a large quantity for the same purpose.

Post 1940 photographs of German soldiers will ocassionaly show them carrying these Belgian made BAR.

The French used the basic design of the gas operating system in their Chatellerault M29 design, but placed the magazine on top. Most other LMG or automatic rifle designs of the era, like the Cezch BREN designs had the magazine on top. That allowed the mag to be changed without the gunner taking the weapon out of his shoulder & losing his point of aim. It also allowed a slightly larger magazine.

The US Army T/E placed one BAR per rifle squad. Experinced US infantry scrounged extras to provide more firepower. In the Pacific the Marines authorized two per squad in early 1943, then three per squad at the end of 43. As the combat experince accumulated the Marines used the BAR more as a 'super SMG' than a LMG, and provided two to four belt fed MMG per platoon for covering fires.

overlord644
10-17-2007, 02:31 PM
The BAR appeared at the very end of WWI. I dont know if it was used in combat before the armistice. It was so well liked the Belgians manufactored it, and hired Browning to do some additional design work.

The BAR was kept out of combat in WW1 for fear that the germans would steal the design, the allies instead used a weapon so crappy, most infantrymen threw it away the first chance they got

Cuts
10-17-2007, 02:46 PM
The Belgian Army had supplied the bulk of their infantry with the BAR as a squad weapon by 1940. The Poles also purchased a large quantity for the same purpose.

Post 1940 photographs of German soldiers will ocassionaly show them carrying these Belgian made BAR.


The Belgian modified BAR, (produced at Herstal under licence from Browning,) was the Fusil-Mitrailleur 1930, known in German service as the 7.65 leMG 127(b)
It was chambered in 7.65 x 54 and some versions even had quick-change bbls and SF tripods.

They also used three models of the reczny karabin maszynowy wz. 28, which as you might gather was the Polish-built version. This at least had the advantage that it was chambered in 7.92 x 57.

Cuts
10-17-2007, 03:41 PM
The BAR was kept out of combat in WW1 for fear that the germans would steal the design, the allies instead used a weapon so crappy, most infantrymen threw it away the first chance they got

I hardly think the main reason it saw relatively few engagements was that it was kept from the line due to worries that the Germans would steal the design ! That mindset would be the ultimate in preventing military escalation.
Does Ballou have anything to say on the subject ?
It only entered service in 1918, and it's first recorded major action being in Sep that year.

Out of interest what was the "weapon so crappy, most infantrymen threw it away the first chance they got" ?

pdf27
10-17-2007, 03:58 PM
I suspect he's pulling directly from Wiki - there is a similar comment on there regarding Pershing and the BAR.
I also suspect the weapon he's referring to is the Chauchat in .30-06 conversion - apparently this was badly botched with regard to chamber measurements and the weapons were never reliable. However, the AEF did successfully use a large number of Chauchats in 8mm Lebel prior to the BAR coming into service.

overlord644
10-17-2007, 04:13 PM
I hardly think the main reason it saw relatively few engagements was that it was kept from the line due to worries that the Germans would steal the design !

Well, i dont know, i cant give any sources but i have heard it a number of times. I belive i heard it mentioned on an episode of the History Channel program "Man, Moment, Machine" which was about the death of Bonny and Clide


Out of interest what was the "weapon so crappy, most infantrymen threw it away the first chance they got" ?
This i also do not remember, i'm pretty sure it was french and i do know the reason behind it's "crappiness" was that it would frequently, without fail, jam.

overlord644
10-17-2007, 04:16 PM
I suspect he's pulling directly from Wiki - there is a similar comment on there regarding Pershing and the BAR.
I also suspect the weapon he's referring to is the Chauchat in .30-06 conversion - apparently this was badly botched with regard to chamber measurements and the weapons were never reliable. However, the AEF did successfully use a large number of Chauchats in 8mm Lebel prior to the BAR coming into service.

No, i will never intentionally quote an article without providing a link

Nickdfresh
10-17-2007, 06:14 PM
I suspect he's pulling directly from Wiki - there is a similar comment on there regarding Pershing and the BAR.
I also suspect the weapon he's referring to is the Chauchat in .30-06 conversion - apparently this was badly botched with regard to chamber measurements and the weapons were never reliable. However, the AEF did successfully use a large number of Chauchats in 8mm Lebel prior to the BAR coming into service.

Correct. Despite the fact that the far superior Lewis Gun in British service was designed by an American, many US troops lamented on having the Chauchat (pronounced sha-show-knee) inflicted on them. But part of the problem with the weapon was not the recalibration, but mainly that the Chauchats received by the AEF were badly used and worn as they had been pulled out of service from the French Army. Also, I believe the weapon had an open magazine allowing dirt and moisture to get in and adversely affect reliability...


And indeed small numbers of BARs were in service for the 'final push' in 1918, it was the Thompson that never quite got to the troops...

Rising Sun*
10-17-2007, 06:39 PM
The US Army T/E placed one BAR per rifle squad. Experinced US infantry scrounged extras to provide more firepower. In the Pacific the Marines authorized two per squad in early 1943, then three per squad at the end of 43. As the combat experince accumulated the Marines used the BAR more as a 'super SMG' than a LMG, and provided two to four belt fed MMG per platoon for covering fires.

The increase in numbers of BARs in a squad also altered squad tactics, as did replacing them with autos for every squad member.


In our enthusiasm to come up with the perfect rifle, ordnance seems to occasionally forget that a certain amount of cohesiveness of the rifle squad is/was based upon the teamwork necessary to keep the squad automatic rifle in action – at least that has always been the case in the Marines. Early in WWII we traded our old eight-man squad for a 13-man squad composed of three "four man" fire teams and a squad leader. Each fire team had one BAR (a total of 3 per squad) and each fire team’s job was to keep the BAR in action. This accounted for the cohesiveness in the fire team I spoke of above, and gave each fire team member a reason for existence. In the old days, we (as troops) were cautioned that (in combat) if there were only three men left in a squad, all three had better be carrying a BAR. The M14 with its selector switch and bipod did away with all that, as now all the rifles looked the same. The heat of the jungle caused the ever weight conscious Marine to leave the bipod in the rear to cut down on his load. Since every M14 was easily converted to full auto, most were. At this point, the fire team members no longer felt the necessity of covering and supporting the automatic rifleman, since all the rifles now looked and functioned alike; tactics went to hell in a handbasket.

The M16 simply perpetuated the mistakes of the past, except that it was now worse. Now every gun had a "go faster switch" and fire discipline became a thing of the past. I still remember the TV coverage of the battle of Hue with the rifleman sticking his M16 over the parapet by the pistol grip and firing a full magazine without the slightest idea of what he was shooting at. What a waste! Tactics were going the way of the "Do-Do Bird" and everyone was marveling at the number of rounds that the average rifleman was able to fire against our enemy(s), although I began to suspect that our real enemy resided in the Defense Department in the name of Robert McNamara, and leadership in the Military by individuals who hadn't seen combat since the charge up San Juan Hill.

http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/M16part2.html

Man of Stoat
10-18-2007, 09:14 AM
Given on the first commercial model of the Thomson was 1921, it didn't quite make it to the troops by a good number of years...

Nickdfresh
10-18-2007, 09:23 AM
"Commercial version" indeed. However, I believe prototypes were available as early as 1918, and had the war lasted into 1919, some may have found their way too the troops...

George Eller
10-18-2007, 10:13 AM
Thompson submachine gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_SMG


The Thompson Submachine Gun was designed by General John T. Thompson, who was inspired by the trench warfare of World War I to develop a "one-man, hand-held machine gun", firing a rifle caliber round. While searching for a way to allow such a weapon to operate safely, Thompson came across a patent issued to John Bell Blish. Thompson found a financial backer, Thomas Fortune Ryan, and started the Auto-Ordnance Corporation in 1916 for the purpose of developing his weapon. The principal designers were Theodore H. Eickhoff, Oscar V. Payne, and George E. Goll. By late 1917, the limits of the Blish lock were discovered, and it had been found that the only cartridge currently in U.S. service suitable for use with the lock was the .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol). The project was then titled "Annihilator I", and by 1918, most of the design issues had been resolved. However, the war ended before prototypes could be shipped to Europe.

At an Auto-Ordnance board meeting in 1919 to discuss the marketing of the "Annihilator", with the war over, the weapon was officially renamed the "Thompson Submachine Gun". While other weapons had been developed shortly prior with similar objectives in mind, the Thompson was the first weapon to be labeled and marketed as a "submachine gun".

tankgeezer
10-18-2007, 01:00 PM
Although its from the wrong century, I have always admired this gun, (nearly as much as the Thompson, Lewis, and Johnson firearms.

George Eller
10-18-2007, 01:12 PM
Although its from the wrong century, I have always admired this gun, (nearly as much as the Thompson, Lewis, and Johnson firearms.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1176&d=1192730417

-

IIRC, that would be "the Dictator", a heavy mortar used by Federal forces during the siege of Petersburg, Virginia towards the close of the American Civil War. :)

-

jacobtowne
10-18-2007, 02:36 PM
Yes, "The Dictator," 13-inch mortar.

David Knox, photographer.
October, 1864.

JT

tankgeezer
10-18-2007, 07:20 PM
The very one.

USMC_Cory
10-19-2007, 06:26 PM
The M-1 beats the Kar98 if only for it's rapid fire (the Kar was, of course, a bolt rifle, and shot slower than the M-1). As far as accuracy, however, the Kar98 probably beats the M-1.

overlord644
10-20-2007, 10:11 PM
This from elsewhere in the forum:

I've dealt with the Kar 98k elsewhere on the forum, but a brief summary follows:

Recoil - punishing, and unnecessarily so.
Action - slow to operate, cocks on opening (makes opening the bolt harder but does reduce the lock time), and can be dirt-sensitive (too many bearing surfaces in the cocking piece mechanism). Bolt handle too far forward.
Magazine - only 5 round capacity.
Sights - Miserable - the blade is too coarse, and are designed in such a way that under stress you'll shoot high (when the sights are lowered, the little U-notch sits at the bottom of a big, square notch. The temptation is to line the front post up with this big notch, not the little one, and therefore shoot high).
Heating - 3 rounds in rapid fire & the heat haze coming off the barrel starts to obscure the target and sights. 10rds & it's getting really wobbly.
Safety catch - awkwardly placed, awkward to use.
Forward locking - although theoretically much stronger (this is only an issue if you want to make a hunting rifle using a high-pressure cartridge though), the breech face is shrouded by the front of the action - makes cleaning difficult & checking clear harder.


http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5009 - Man of Stoat

Nickdfresh
10-21-2007, 05:16 PM
Yeah, I've heard this other places as well - the mass produced KAR98 wasn't as accurate and reliable as many assume.

Then again, if somebody shot me with it, I'd be just incapacitated or dead.

bwing55543
10-21-2007, 06:25 PM
Yeah, I've heard this other places as well - the mass produced KAR98 wasn't as accurate and reliable as many assume.

Then again, if somebody shot me with it, I'd be just incapacitated or dead.

I don't know. I know the kar98k was the preferred weapon of the German snipers over the Gewehr 43.

Cuts
10-22-2007, 06:27 PM
Yeah, I've heard this other places as well - the mass produced KAR98 wasn't as accurate and reliable as many assume.

Then again, if somebody shot me with it, I'd be just incapacitated or dead.I don't know. I know the kar98k was the preferred weapon of the German snipers over the Gewehr 43.
The 98 was the preferred weapon when equipped with the ZF39 or commercial scopes, the ZF41 was a dismal sight and hardly conducive to shooting over longer ranges.

The 'sniper' G/K43s accuracy was quite good when the precision sS Anchuss rds were used, unfortunately they were not generally available at the dirty end of the supply chain.
But as scoped G/K43s were only in front line service between late May 1944 and the end of the war, a little less than one year, for the majority of the conflict the Scharfschütze actually had little choice.

bas
10-22-2007, 07:45 PM
Next question! What do you think of the browning Automatic Rifle?

Completly pointless weapon. No detachable barrel and too small a magazine capacity to effectively operate as a light machinegun and too heavy and no semi-auto capability to be used as an infantry rifle.

Based on an outdated French concept of firing from the hip while crossing no-man's land it was too late to see much service in WWI and like all LMG's it was obselete at the beginning of WWII faceing the likes of the MG.34 and MG.42 GPMG's.

Apart from that beautifully made guns and I'd imangine a blast on the range.

Nickdfresh
10-23-2007, 09:38 AM
Completly pointless weapon. No detachable barrel and too small a magazine capacity to effectively operate as a light machinegun and too heavy and no semi-auto capability to be used as an infantry rifle.

Based on an outdated French concept of firing from the hip while crossing no-man's land it was too late to see much service in WWI and like all LMG's it was obselete at the beginning of WWII faceing the likes of the MG.34 and MG.42 GPMG's.

Apart from that beautifully made guns and I'd imangine a blast on the range.

I dunno. I've never heard a veteran disparage a BAR before as it was a generally popular weapon prized for it's rugged reliability. The troops developed tactics to overcome its shortcomings of the 20-round mag. by alternating the firing and reloading of two or more BAR gunners. American infantrymen often disregarded much of the dogma in their training and essentially developed their own tactics in the field..

The BAR was never meant as an equivalent of an MG34/42 or a "medium or GPMG." This was more of a tactical difference in conceptualization regarding tactics of automatic fire and the nature of the rifleman. The Allies tended to believe that machine guns should be placed in classes of light, medium, and heavy for infantry support of fire and maneuver and the Americans at least regarded the rifleman as the central weapon of war. Whereas the Germans had already evolved into the general purpose machine gun concept in which the MG was the central infantry weapon and rifleman and sub-machine gunners were just support of the MG...

Rising Sun*
10-23-2007, 07:00 PM
Completly pointless weapon. No detachable barrel and too small a magazine capacity to effectively operate as a light machinegun and too heavy and no semi-auto capability to be used as an infantry rifle.


Why would it need a detachable barrel, given it wasn't intended for sustained fire? It'd just be more weight for grunts to lug around, meaning it'd be ditched pretty soon once they realised they didn't need it.

The BAR and similar weapons need to be assessed against the standard infantry weapons of WWII, which were mostly bolt action repeaters with an effective rate of fire in action of about 5 to 15 RPM, depending upon the skill of the rifleman and the circumstances. A fully auto BAR, or Bren or similar, with even a 20 round mag was a huge step up and a critical weapon in an infantry section.

Mag auto weapons have an inherent advantage over belt fed ones in infantry fire and movement, because there's no belt to get tangled up in or carry while moving, and there's no chance of picking up dirt to jam it like there is with a belt that gets into the dirt. You don't need a No.2 to hold the belt or have to hold it up yourself.

As a machine gunner who used both M60 and L2 (roughly similar to BAR and Bren in function if not detail), I'd say each has its advantages and disadvantages depending upon the circumstances.

As an aside, one thing you won't do with a mag one is kill the bloke carrying the belt. One Aussie in Vietnam slung a belt over his shoulder and managed to put the nose into the primer of a round on another belt, which fired and put the projectile into his chest, killing him. Not a reason for an army to favour mags over belts, unless you're the one in a few billion who manages to kill himself that way.

tankgeezer
10-23-2007, 07:38 PM
Wonderful weapon the B.A.R. very useful to the troops, in any war it was used in. Way better than the A.R. 10, (like an M-16, only in 7.62 nato) controllable, potent, and dependable. whats not to like.

bas
10-24-2007, 12:27 AM
I dunno. I've never heard a veteran disparage a BAR before as it was a generally popular weapon prized for it's rugged reliability.

That's no surprise though, Americans very rarely speak ill of their weapons even though there are obviously better designs available at the time. The Thompson is another classic example. Great weapon, but totally over engineered for the job at hand and the only reason it even went to war is because the US had no other viable alternative at the time.



The BAR was never meant as an equivalent of an MG34/42 or a "medium or GPMG."

Never said it was, I said that the advent of the GPMG rendered all light machineguns obsolete.



Why would it need a detachable barrel, given it wasn't intended for sustained fire? It'd just be more weight for grunts to lug around, meaning it'd be ditched pretty soon once they realised they didn't need it.

So it wasn't designed for sustained fire, so it's not a LMG. And it's too heavy for a rifle... What role/purpose did it have again?


The BAR and similar weapons need to be assessed against the standard infantry weapons of WWII, which were mostly bolt action repeaters with an effective rate of fire in action of about 5 to 15 RPM, depending upon the skill of the rifleman and the circumstances.

So what are we compairing the BAR with? The M1 Garand? The G.43? The SVT-40? Given that choice I'd probably choose the M1 or the G.43 as it's a lighter semi-auto rifle.

Or are we comparing it against the likes of the Bren or DP-27? Given those choices I'd rather have the LMG's because... well that's what they are. Better magazine capacity and a weapon designed for the role.


A fully auto BAR, or Bren or similar, with even a 20 round mag was a huge step up and a critical weapon in an infantry section.

Which is why the German squad armed mostly with bolt actions and one or two GPMG's achieved fire superority over its American counter part in almost every encounter?


Mag auto weapons have an inherent advantage over belt fed ones in infantry fire and movement, because there's no belt to get tangled up in or carry while moving, and there's no chance of picking up dirt to jam it like there is with a belt that gets into the dirt. You don't need a No.2 to hold the belt or have to hold it up yourself.

Which is why you have assault drums.


As an aside, one thing you won't do with a mag one is kill the bloke carrying the belt. One Aussie in Vietnam slung a belt over his shoulder and managed to put the nose into the primer of a round on another belt, which fired and put the projectile into his chest, killing him.

Bollocks. Without a barrel for pressure to develop behind the bullet, a round discharging like that is essentually harmless. It will not have the force required to pierce the ribcage.

Rising Sun*
10-24-2007, 01:01 AM
Bollocks. Without a barrel for pressure to develop behind the bullet, a round discharging like that is essentually harmless. It will not have the force required to pierce the ribcage.

I found it surprising too, so did a lot of others, which is why it was in an Australian Army routine (safety?) bulletin based on that event in the late 1960's / early 1970's, which is one of those odd events that stuck in my mind.

Significant pressure has to be developed to force the projectile out of the crimped neck of the cartridge case to commence its journey. Why isn't that sufficient to penetrate a couple of inches of flesh?

If your view is right, then shark guns which have been killing sharks for years don't work. They're just a shotgun shell in a chamber with no barrel on the end of a stick with a firing pin in it.

Rising Sun*
10-24-2007, 01:48 AM
So it wasn't designed for sustained fire, so it's not a LMG.

Probably the reason it was called a Browning Automatic Rifle, not a Browning LMG.

Debatable just how sustained LMG sustained fire can be.



What role/purpose did it have again?

See my post #37 for one example.

The Marines who actually used them seemed to like them. If the BAR's were so useless, you'd think they'd have got rid of them.



So what are we compairing the BAR with? The M1 Garand? The G.43? The SVT-40? Given that choice I'd probably choose the M1 or the G.43 as it's a lighter semi-auto rifle.

I was comparing the BAR with common bolt action infantry weapons to which it was likely to be opposed, primarily as a squad suppressing weapon.

But compare it with an M1. Auto / Semi auto v. semi auto, 20 rds v 8 rds. You're the enemy. Which one would you rather face, all other things being equal?

There's no comparison between auto and semi-auto weapons.



Or are we comparing it against the likes of the Bren or DP-27? Given those choices I'd rather have the LMG's because... well that's what they are. Better magazine capacity and a weapon designed for the role.

Somewhat difficult if you happened to be in an American unit in WWII. They didn't have the ammo, for a start.


Which is why the German squad armed mostly with bolt actions and one or two GPMG's achieved fire superority over its American counter part in almost every encounter?

So what was the alternative for American units? Drop the BAR from all squads? How would that have improved things?

If the Germans achieved fire superiority over the Americans in almost every encounter, how come they kept retreating from 6 June 1944 until they lost the war?

Man of Stoat
10-24-2007, 02:45 AM
The alternative would have been to adopt a proper LMG. Given that Inglis in Canada were producing the Bren in 30-06 (and 8 mm Mauser) for China at the time, they could have produced this design south of the border.

However, never underestimate the "not invented here" ethos of the US military at that time.

Another point, the comparison with the AR 10 is moot, given that one is a lightweight battle rifle with full auto capability, and the other is a strange contraption, too heavy to be a serious rifle (and firing from an open bolt, so not terribly accurate) yet is too light to be a proper LMG.

Rising Sun*
10-24-2007, 03:31 AM
Bollocks. Without a barrel for pressure to develop behind the bullet, a round discharging like that is essentually harmless. It will not have the force required to pierce the ribcage.

I've recalled since my last post on this that when I was a kid I was amusing myself flinging .22 LR rimfire ratshot rounds onto concrete until they went off. One went off apparently pointing somewhere towards my face. A few bits of ratshot penetrated my skin just fine without a barrel, from maybe 5 to 6 feet. They sure as hell didn't disperse harmlessly within a couple of inches of the crimp. If it works with .22 shot, it's gotta be a lot better with a 7.62 solid projectile.

Man of Stoat
10-24-2007, 05:33 AM
RS, it is precisely because the bullet weighs more that it will not move forward with any significant velocity. See Hatcher's work on this topic. If the rat shot is very light, the cartridge case may be strong enough to act as a barrel. In the case of a proper rifle cartridge going off, you are more at risk from shards of brass from the cartridge case then you are from the bullet.

tankgeezer
10-24-2007, 07:53 AM
MythBusters had a show dealing with this type situation. Unchambered rounds cooking off in an oven, filmed by a high speed camera. the slugs moved little if at all, the cases, launching from the bullets and sometimes shredding as they went.
See Dicovery channel/mythbusters and they might have clips of the segment online.

Rising Sun*
10-24-2007, 08:40 AM
MythBusters had a show dealing with this type situation. Unchambered rounds cooking off in an oven, filmed by a high speed camera. the slugs moved little if at all, the cases, launching from the bullets and sometimes shredding as they went.
See Dicovery channel/mythbusters and they might have clips of the segment online.

I'm not sure that ignition on a round fired by primer and by oven would be the same. Did the MythBusters round actually fire the primer to ignite the charge? If not, the process might be different, as might the behaviour in an oven at X degrees rather than working battlefield temperatures.

Maybe the army bulletin I saw was dated 1 April?

It was so odd that it stuck in my mind, which is filled mostly with oddities. :D I've been trawling the AWM site and others to see if I can get something on it, to no avail.

I'll keep digging and post if I can find something.

Man of Stoat
10-24-2007, 08:48 AM
Hatcher did experiments in which he ignited the primer of a 45 ACP ball cartridge using a welding apparatus, and concluded that the worst that would happen was likely to be a nasty bruise.

Rising Sun*
10-24-2007, 08:50 AM
Is it possible that the projectile didn't cause the injury in the MG belt case but that the round detonated and a bit of case shrapnel penetrated the wearer?

Rising Sun*
10-24-2007, 08:55 AM
Hatcher did experiments in which he ignited the primer of a 45 ACP ball cartridge using a welding apparatus, and concluded that the worst that would happen was likely to be a nasty bruise.

Does a primer fire the charge the same way if it's heated rather than struck?

I'm thinking from my welding experience that it's impossible to isolate heat to a tiny area like a primer on a rifle round, with the possibility that it's heating the charge, and softening the cartridge case, and altering their behaviour compared with normal pin firing.

Why didn't the experiment just use a firing pin?

Man of Stoat
10-24-2007, 09:26 AM
He touched one contact on to the rim and the other onto the primer.

He didn't use a firing pin because he was investigating a claim that a round had spontaneously detonated in somebody's shirt pocket and thereby shot them. The fact that there was rifling on the recovered bullet had totally passed the police by, as had the lack of any fouling on the shirt in question...

The other reason for not using a firing pin is that a mechanism to do it it would necessarily need to restrain the case and thereby not replicate the conditions of the supposed incident.

Man of Stoat
10-24-2007, 09:28 AM
Is it possible that the projectile didn't cause the injury in the MG belt case but that the round detonated and a bit of case shrapnel penetrated the wearer?

This is the most likely scenario, especially given that a significant portion of the case is restrained by the link, which would tend to direct shards away from the link side of the belt

Soldierboy
10-24-2007, 12:07 PM
My favorite rifle is the Springfield M1 Garand no questions asked.

same here

Cuts
10-24-2007, 04:26 PM
same here

For the precisely same reasons, spookily enough...
:roll:

Rising Sun*
10-24-2007, 06:47 PM
For the precisely same reasons, spookily enough...
:roll:

What's even spookier is that Soldierboy and Sgt Dorr seem to be of one mind, able to communicate without explanation. Maybe they are of one mind. ;)
Such as the mind is. :D

Rising Sun*
10-24-2007, 08:18 PM
This is the most likely scenario, especially given that a significant portion of the case is restrained by the link, which would tend to direct shards away from the link side of the belt

That seems to be the consensus.

The Australian official histories, both general and medical, which I've now consulted and the AWM site are useless on details of individual causes of death, so I doubt I can track down the specific case I mentioned

Had a look at Gunshot wounds : practical aspects of firearms, ballistics and forensic techniques by Vincent J.M. Di Maio (1985) which is the only book accessible to me, which takes the same view (mainly based on Hatcher), as do most posts here http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-231751.html .

However, there's a couple of exceptions to the rule in that link, in a thread which generally supports the consensus.


I wish people would not make blanket statements like this.

AMMO CAN EXPLODE AND SERIOUSLY WOUND/KILL YOU !!

My son was sitting around a campfire. A 'friend' threw a .22 round in the fire. Son raised a coke can to his mouth and screamed. His hand was bleeding badly.

The .22 round hit his finger with enough force to take a large chunk of meat off of his finger and splinter the bone. His hand was in front of his eye when he was hit. If he had not taken that sip of soda when he did, the round would have either entered his eye or forehead. It had enough power to shatter his finger so it most likely would have penetrated his skull. He still has metal chunks embedded in his finger bones.

I repeat:
AMMO CAN EXPLODE AND SERIOUSLY WOUND/KILL YOU !!


I had read/heard, like most posters here, that when ammo cooks off it just kind of pffffts out and there is minimal risk. Well, this spring we were doing some construction at the club and decided to burn some of the scrap material. We just picked a spot that was convient - never really thought anything of it - except that there were a few live rounds on the ground (it was dark at the time). While the fire was burning we heard a loud pop and then a "thwack" kind of noise. The next day my buddy's Tahoe had a huge dent in the door and on the ground was .45 slug with black paint on it!

Maybe wouldn't have killed anyone, but it sure would have hurt like hell!

Nickdfresh
10-25-2007, 08:10 PM
That's no surprise though, Americans very rarely speak ill of their weapons even though there are obviously better designs available at the time. The Thompson is another classic example. Great weapon, but totally over engineered for the job at hand and the only reason it even went to war is because the US had no other viable alternative at the time.


Americans have had very few opportunities to speak ill of any weapon issued for the past 100 years or so, because by and large, they've been issued some good weapons overall. I'm not sure what the better design than the Thompson was. I believe there was another .45ACP submachine-gun issued besides the Tommy Gun and the Grease Gun, which WAS NOT a better design. Cheaper, yes --but not better.

The only weapons that drew significant complaint was the first version of the M-16, because of jamming issues due to some poor briefings one the weapon in which the troops were told it was a "space age rifle" that needed no cleaning, and the fact that the powder for the 5.56mm round was switched causing significant fouling. Today some gripe about the three-round burst on the M-16A2...


Never said it was, I said that the advent of the GPMG rendered all light machineguns obsolete.

Then why have most armies gone back to fielding them, in incarnations such as the SAW?


So it wasn't designed for sustained fire, so it's not a LMG. And it's too heavy for a rifle... What role/purpose did it have again?

It was designed to provide a high rate of fire without the need for an assitant to haul ammo and the like. The gun was imperfect, but it did the job well. For instance, once the US Marines started taking heavy casualties in towards the end of the Island campaign, they would take an understrength squad and issue every man a BAR or a Tommy Gun in order to increase firepower. So the weapon could be used as an "assault rifle."

And "too heavy?" Bonnie of the Barrow Gang/Bonnie and Clyde fame wielded the BAR, in the words of one commentator, "like a US Marine." And she was only 98lbs!

bas
10-26-2007, 12:25 AM
I'm not sure what the better design than the Thompson was. I believe there was another .45ACP submachine-gun issued besides the Tommy Gun and the Grease Gun, which WAS NOT a better design. Cheaper, yes --but not better.

Sorry mate, but you've completely missed my point. The Thompson was introduced as a necessity as the Allies had no suitable SMG at the beginning of the war. As soon as the Brits had the Sten they started to replace the Thompson. Even the US recognised that it needed to be replaced ergo we have the Grease Gun.


Then why have most armies gone back to fielding them, in incarnations such as the SAW?

Weapons like the SAW are not LMGs in the true sense as they are belt feed. They are a new hybrid between an assult rifle and a GPMG. I guess with all the other stuff soldiers have to carry these days, a GPMG is too heavy. Have they rendered the GPMG obsolete? I have no idea as it's outside my field of interest.

But you certainly don't see Bren guns being used in Iraq.

kallinikosdrama1992
10-26-2007, 04:08 AM
i agree with every one of you who likes the m1 garand . it provide the gi's to have fire superiority and i think it was better as the kar-98

Man of Stoat
10-26-2007, 04:51 AM
The US Army squad never had fire superiority over its German equivalent, unless the MG was disabled. The individual rifle man certainly had more "firepower" than his German counterpart, but the ethos was totally different. The German infantry section was approximately 11 men dedicated to the care and feeding of the MG, whereas the American infantry squad was more a collection of individuals who could not , neither individually nor collectively, apply as much concentrated, accurate fire as one good German MG gunner (provided he was being fed sufficient ammunition).

ww2artist
10-28-2007, 03:30 PM
M1 Garand all day long...........:)

Nickdfresh
10-28-2007, 06:55 PM
The US Army squad never had fire superiority over its German equivalent, unless the MG was disabled. The individual rifle man certainly had more "firepower" than his German counterpart, but the ethos was totally different. The German infantry section was approximately 11 men dedicated to the care and feeding of the MG, whereas the American infantry squad was more a collection of individuals who could not , neither individually nor collectively, apply as much concentrated, accurate fire as one good German MG gunner (provided he was being fed sufficient ammunition).


True. But the Germans were also primarily on the defensive against the Americans, in which case their firepower could be brought to bear on exposed, attacking troops. In many cases where the Wehrmacht went on the offensive later in the War, they did not do so well as the MG42 is only going to be of limited use in an infantry assault...

Man of Stoat
10-29-2007, 06:10 AM
They didn't do so well in the attack later in the war because the troops by that point were not well-trained. A better comparison is attacks earlier in the war. in any case either of the German GP MGs provides a better base of fire for an assault than A BAR and a handful of rifles.

kallinikosdrama1992
10-30-2007, 07:15 AM
" my m1 does my talking " it is painted to many propanda pictures to show how the power of it and other good points of hte gun . and i think that they didnt made no mistakes because it was really good weapon

Cuts
10-30-2007, 04:38 PM
True. But the Germans were also primarily on the defensive against the Americans, in which case their firepower could be brought to bear on exposed, attacking troops. In many cases where the Wehrmacht went on the offensive later in the War, they did not do so well as the MG42 is only going to be of limited use in an infantry assault...

:o ?
Any MG is essential in a section assault if the unit is to win the firefight, succeed in the attack & keep cas low. In larger attacks they're indispensable.

In a section attack it is possible to use the LMG (eg L4) if there's a well trained gun group, but link works so much better.

Nickdfresh
10-30-2007, 04:59 PM
:o ?
Any MG is essential in a section assault if the unit is to win the firefight, succeed in the attack & keep cas low. In larger attacks they're indispensable.

In a section attack it is possible to use the LMG (eg L4) if there's a well trained gun group, but link works so much better.

Not if the machinegunners were caught in the open without any real cover, in which case they were maggot feed since they drew fire from pretty much everybody...

And the Germans weren't winning many firefights by mid-1944 or so, and when they did, I doubt it had much to do with actual superior firepower and more to do with adeptly using defensive cover, their knowledge of the terrain, and mastering ambush tactics...

Nickdfresh
10-30-2007, 05:06 PM
They didn't do so well in the attack later in the war because the troops by that point were not well-trained.

Perhaps, or they no longer bothered giving many classes in offense to the trainees.


A better comparison is attacks earlier in the war. in any case either of the German GP MGs provides a better base of fire for an assault than A BAR and a handful of rifles.

Yes. But the BAR was never meant to match the MG34/42. The Browning .30 cal. was. In which case, it was unsatisfactory to an extent, though that may have had more to do with the gun being a solely tripod mount in most configurations which obviously inhibited quick displacement and tactical movement...

This has little to do with the BAR being a "bad" weapon when compared to, say, the Bren Gun. In any case, the Commonwealth troops who carried the Bren may have had a dedicated LMG. But they also had bolt action rifles and WWI era Vickers guns to compensate. In any case, I'm not sure the Bren would have had any significant advantages over the BAR which would have tilted the battle either way...

Man of Stoat
10-31-2007, 05:22 AM
Nick, if you tried to use the BAR in the same manner that the Bren was used, i.e. with the same sort of rates of fire as a solid base of fire,2 things happened:

1. the forend caught fire
2. the barrel wore out extremely rapidly

It really is not capable of providing a solid base of fire, it really is just a heavy, fully automatic rifle firing from an open bolt.

bas
10-31-2007, 06:23 AM
Nick, no one is saying the BAR is a bad weapon, just that it has no use. It's a classic example of a weapon that tries to do too much and thus ends up not being very good at anything.

There are better rifles, and there are better LMG's, the BAR is just sub-par at both roles, end of story.

As for superior firepower, do you really have so little understanding of what you are talking about? The Americans had overwhelming superority of firepower, its the only way they could beat the Germans. It's just that this firepower was not present in the infantry squad instead it was present in the air superority and artillery support. Coupled with superior logistics and communications, far more important factors to the outcome of a battle than what bloody rifle the infantry carry.

Besides the bulk of the German army was committed on the Russian front, had that not been the case the Allies would have been wiped off the beaches in Normandy... As it happend it was a close enough call for the American landing.

Rising Sun*
10-31-2007, 06:40 AM
As for superior firepower, do you really have so little understanding of what you are talking about? The Americans had overwhelming superority of firepower, its the only way they could beat the Germans. It's just that this firepower was not present in the infantry squad instead it was present in the air superority and artillery support. Coupled with superior logistics and communications, far more important factors to the outcome of a battle than what bloody rifle the infantry carry.

I doubt that Marines who clawed their way through the Pacific without artillery and air support in many instances, with squad tactics based on several BARs, would agree.

Perhaps we need to separate Marine and Army tactics, and Pacific and European theatres.

I realise this a European thread, but it doesn't justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of whatever problems might have existed in Europe when the BAR worked very well in the Pacific.

On the European front, there wasn't much scope for air and artillery, nor armour which often kept back, nor often much communication, in the close fighting in the bocage. How did BAR's do there, against prepared German positions, along with other American infantry weapons which won the fight?

Nickdfresh
10-31-2007, 07:14 AM
Nick, no one is saying the BAR is a bad weapon, just that it has no use. It's a classic example of a weapon that tries to do too much and thus ends up not being very good at anything.

If you're saying the BAR "ends up not being very good at anything," then you're pretty much saying it's a "bad weapon," putting you squarely against a large body of both anecdotal and historical evidence...


There are better rifles, and there are better LMG's, the BAR is just sub-par at both roles, end of story.

There are better LMGs, but that role was somewhat filled with the Browning .30, which was more ergonomic than say the Vickers or any other Allied "medium" machine gun due to the fact it was air cooled and lighter. Furthermore, the Browning was specifically adapted to US tactics, ones used to this day (or at least when I was in) of "fire-and-maneuver" in which extended fire support was deemed less important than a quick overwhelming of the enemy by the assault element. You cannot simply judge weapons by their classes, which was the fundamental mistake made repeatedly by the Allies in WWII, or rigidly dividing weapons into classes and thereby reflecting an inherent tactical inflexibility and dogma. Just because the BAR did not fit a narrow paradigm doesn't mean it was not an effective weapon in the hands of an experienced unit of infantry.

The BAR was a beloved weapon for a reason. And its users found ways to compensate for it's drawbacks while maximizing its firepower...

And feel free to offer a "better" example of an automatic rifle designed prior to the advent of WWII, then fielded to any extent during the war...


As for superior firepower, do you really have so little understanding of what you are talking about?

I don't follow. Seriously, you need to quote me as I think you may be having reading "difficulties" when making such general statements...


The Americans had overwhelming superority of firepower, its the only way they could beat the Germans.

This is a thread about infantry weapons and I think you're going off track a bit here. And how else does one defeat an enemy? Inferior firepower? The US also fielded lessor tanks and had some poor tactical doctrines due to inexperience and unrealistic concepts, and were fighting on the exposed offensive, for the majority of the war, against an experienced foe. Of course they were going to use the advantage in airpower and artillery. Did the Russians or British, or Germans for that matter, ever decline to do so when they had the ability?


It's just that this firepower was not present in the infantry squad

I don't think I've said the American squad had "superior" firepower. In fact, if you go through my posts either in this thread or any other, I've stated the German concept built around the machinegun and not the rifleman was superior. Although individually, American soldiers more often than not did. The Germans certainly had the advantage in machineguns, but more telling was their advantage of being continually on the defensive in Europe which made this advantage more telling, possibly even exaggerated. The flip side of that is when the MG42 is wiped out, they were pretty much f****d, weren't they? Especially when conducting assaults and attempting fire and maneuver with the GPMG, which has also proved somewhat unsatisfactory as most contemporary armies have introduced a lighter SAW type weapon to augment the GPMG...

This was especially apparent towards the end of the War at the Battle of the Bulge, where despite being issued shitty BARs, American infantry reported wiping out thousands of Wehrmacht and SS infantry attempting assaults over open fields - often without the aid of artillery and with virtually no air support at all. In which case, the MG42s weren't very effective for obvious reasons..


instead it was present in the air superority and artillery support. Coupled with superior logistics and communications, far more important factors to the outcome of a battle than what bloody rifle the infantry carry.

Agreed. However, there are also subtle differences in the use of weapons tactically which put a different emphasis on different weapons. Comparing the BAR directly to the Bren without consideration of tactics and the use of other weapons, such as the anachronistic Vickers, then uniformly dismissing the weapon as vastly inferior is also a bit silly. And the German "advantage in firepower" had as much to do with employing mostly defensive tactics as it did with the weapons. Otherwise, it was hardly noticed...


Besides the bulk of the German army was committed on the Russian front, had that not been the case the Allies would have been wiped off the beaches in Normandy... As it happend it was a close enough call for the American landing.

What does this have to do with anything smallarms?

In any case, the Soviets could not have counterattacked without the mobility provided to them by the Dodge trucks of American War production. And Americans were far from the only nationality that had difficulty with amphibious operations I recall. Are we going to get into some nationalistic pissing contest now?

Nickdfresh
10-31-2007, 07:24 AM
Nick, if you tried to use the BAR in the same manner that the Bren was used, i.e. with the same sort of rates of fire as a solid base of fire,2 things happened:

1. the forend caught fire
2. the barrel wore out extremely rapidly

It really is not capable of providing a solid base of fire, it really is just a heavy, fully automatic rifle firing from an open bolt.

But they didn't use it in the same manner as the Bren...

And when BARs used in conjunction with each other (which was a typical tactic improvised in the field that I stated earlier in this thread), or with a .30 Browning, they seemed to do just fine...

On a side note, I'd be interested to find the ratio of BARs issued to troops as opposed to other weapons...

Rising Sun*
10-31-2007, 07:33 AM
Are we going to get into some nationalistic pissing contest now?

Why not? ;)

How much water did the BAR require to be carried by its user compared with, say, a Vickers crew?

Which WWII MG got pissed on the most to cool it in action?

Which scientific testing shows that pissing on any barrel cools it enough to resume continuous, or even sustained fire?

Which weapon could fire without carrying a few gallons of water? Vickers? BAR?

If the Vickers was so great, how come the UK used the Bren?

How about, shock of shocks, we just accept that different weapons in different hands at different times could have different results.

As has often been said, it's not the size of the dog in the fight that counts, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

Nickdfresh
10-31-2007, 07:39 AM
Why not? ;)

How much water did the BAR require to be carried by its user compared with, say, a Vickers crew?

Which WWII MG got pissed on the most to cool it in action?

Which scientific testing shows that pissing on any barrel cools it enough to resume continuous, or even sustained fire?

Which weapon could fire without carrying a few gallons of water? Vickers? BAR?

If the Vickers was so great, how come the UK used the Bren?

How about, shock of shocks, we just accept that different weapons in different hands at different times could have different results.

As has often been said, it's not the size of the dog in the fight that counts, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

The last sentence is the "Truthiest" of all. :D

Of course, although the MG42 had a magnificent 1100 round per minute rate of fire (give or take) which so intimidated its foes, they needed to produce training films to help their troops overcome the psyche-out (the US did, I've viewed it!). This also caused a nasty overheating problem. Yes, Fritz could change the barrel, but, that also provided a nice grenade range window...

Rising Sun*
10-31-2007, 07:43 AM
On a side note, I'd be interested to find the ratio of BARs issued to troops as opposed to other weapons...

I think this is where you'll find a big difference in doctrine and tactics in the European and Pacific theatres, and between the Army and Marines.

In the Pacific, no disrepect to the men who fought, the Army were usually conservative in every respect and rarely as effective as the Marines who, as Gomer Pyle would say, Surprise! Surprise!, were based on 3 BARs per squad with related fire and movement.

It's no accident that the USMC usually penetrated Japanese defences far more effectively than the US Army, although that's by no means just a consequence of having BAR's.

However, Marine aggression and skill in using BARs is one of the factors that made the USMC a more potent force than the Army in the Pacific.

Nickdfresh
10-31-2007, 07:57 AM
Oh I agree. The Marines overall embodied a different, more practical approach to infantry warfare than did the US Army of the period (with the exception of the airborne formations and a few select divisions). Part of the problem with the US Army was the very often unrealistic training that was outdated, and incorporated many of the wrong lessons (although, I've heard that many a drill instructor that were veterans of North Africa and Italy threw out the training manuals towards the end of the conflict, and trained the recruits/draftees more realistically)...

I think one recurring theme I've seen in interviews with US Army veterans is that they had to "unlearn" new replacements of some of their training, such as the whole "one shot, one kill" ideal, which was wholly unrealistic yet persisted in the basic training of US troops. Fire discipline was one thing, but new replacements needed to be taught volume of fire principles and the object of the War was not to conserve ammunition for the next one. I believe towards the end of the War in the ETO, the individual soldiers had also adopted ad hoc tactics of using multiple BARs in conjunction with one another during assaults...

Indeed, I've heard that entire understrength Marine squads were armed with BARs...

Cuts
10-31-2007, 10:45 AM
:o ?
Any MG is essential in a section assault if the unit is to win the firefight, succeed in the attack & keep cas low. In larger attacks they're indispensable.

In a section attack it is possible to use the LMG (eg L4) if there's a well trained gun group, but link works so much better.

Not if the machinegunners were caught in the open without any real cover, in which case they were maggot feed since they drew fire from pretty much everybody...
Which is why tacdoc insists on 'one foot on the ground' at all times. Anybody moving without cover, concealment or covering fire is making a target of themselves. But that's beside the point, the mg was and is the firebase for attacks, the assault is carried out by rfn supported by the gun.


And the Germans weren't winning many firefights by mid-1944 or so, and when they did, I doubt it had much to do with actual superior firepower and more to do with adeptly using defensive cover, their knowledge of the terrain, and mastering ambush tactics...
"Winning the firefight" is one of the stages in a section attack, and conversely for defence too.

overlord644
12-19-2007, 07:56 PM
heres a question i've had for a while, the picture at the top left corner of the page, the soldier doesn't appear to be American but has an m-1???

Nickdfresh
12-19-2007, 10:27 PM
heres a question i've had for a while, the picture at the top left corner of the page, the soldier doesn't appear to be American but has an m-1???

It's an American wearing the pre-war/very early War M1917 helmet. The M-1 was adopted in 1937, not 1942, and many soldiers wore the M1917 well into 1942...

h2so4
12-24-2007, 05:02 PM
M-1 Garand of course!!

OLD RSM
12-26-2007, 02:11 PM
Hi Guy's
You can't compair a M1 with K98k The M1 has my vote.I have a K98k.
I collect Canadian British and US mil Firearms.The one I like is the M1928A1 Thompson Submachine Gun.


http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/OLDRSM/KIF_0456.jpg

cimot_cool
01-05-2008, 10:34 AM
I picked the M1

Both the M1 Garand and the K98k were rugged, accurate, and very reliable. The only difference was that the M1 held more rounds and was semi-auto which was a very big plus in battle while the K98k was a bolt action rifle and held only 5 rounds. In battle I would lean towards the M1.

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-07-2008, 07:49 PM
Your Thompson's Mag looks like it holds 20 rounds if I'm correct.

OLD RSM
01-08-2008, 11:34 AM
Hi
Yes 20 Rd
Cheers

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-08-2008, 07:39 PM
I prefer 30 rounds.

OLD RSM
01-10-2008, 12:58 PM
Hi PLT Sgt
When we could take that type of Firearm to the range only 5 rd mag all pined no pre ban.
Now we cannot take them out to the range. Our Handguns are pined at 10 Rd The only sa rifle with more than 5 is my M1 Rifle they allow 8 rd.
Cheers

Moreheaddriller
01-14-2008, 08:15 PM
No contest the M1 for sure!

.50cal.forever
01-18-2008, 01:53 PM
I vote for the M1 Garand it can fire semi-auto verses the K98's bolt action. It also holds more ammo, though be it slight smaller then the 7.92x57mm Mauser (or know in the USA as the 8 mm Mauser or 8x57mm Mauser, I think) round, the .30-06 Springfield (or 7.62x63mm NATO) had the same, if not more stopping power.

Man of Stoat
01-18-2008, 03:02 PM
.30M2, otherwise known as 7.62 x 63 is NOT NATO.

The difference in power between 8 x 57 and .30M2 is absolutely irrelevant, since they are both vast overkill. In any case, .30M2 is a far more manageable cartridge for the user than 7.92sS...

.50cal.forever
01-18-2008, 09:10 PM
Hello, Man of Stoat, what I meant by "NATO" was its specifications in millimeters. Sorry for the confusion, next time I well make myself clearer. :)

WaffenSS
06-12-2008, 03:15 PM
my favorite american weapon would be the M1 Garand

imi
07-10-2008, 08:24 AM
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/729/m1911pistolusuq6.jpg
Nice Colt 1911
http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/5151/springfielduq1.jpg
Springfield with scope

christophe1992
07-16-2008, 05:34 AM
is would pick the m1 because its also a good short range weapon due to its semi.
the kar98 is more accurate an slightly more powerfull.
the m1 has the disadvantage of the loud pinging sound of the clip.

both great rifles and both where weapons of victory over the enemy.

Major Walter Schmidt
07-16-2008, 10:23 AM
is would pick the m1 because its also a good short range weapon due to its semi.
the kar98 is more accurate an slightly more powerfull.
the m1 has the disadvantage of the loud pinging sound of the clip.

both great rifles and both where weapons of victory over the enemy.

your avatar looks a bit inapropriate.....

Hysteria__
07-16-2008, 10:32 AM
The Garand is undoubtedly the more effective rifle, except at advanced range, but I'd rather have the Kar98 as it's far more fun to fire.

flamethrowerguy
07-16-2008, 10:47 AM
Even if the 98K is THE classic carbine the M1 was better because of it's higher firing rate. BTW. I love the "pling" of the M1 when the clip is empty!

pdf27
07-16-2008, 02:49 PM
the m1 has the disadvantage of the loud pinging sound of the clip.
Do you seriously think that anybody will notice the sound of a clip pinging out in the middle of a firefight? You have to shout very loudly indeed to be heard at close range, let alone where the enemy are!


your avatar looks a bit inapropriate.....
It is VERY inappropriate - change it immediately for something WW2 related.

flamethrowerguy
07-16-2008, 03:30 PM
It is VERY inappropriate - change it immediately for something WW2 related.

Inappropriate, yes. But at least it matches his location...

christophe1992
07-16-2008, 04:10 PM
Inappropriate, yes. But at least it matches his location...

yeah i know wassent gona keep it changed it to uzi:p

Man of Stoat
07-17-2008, 01:44 AM
Hysteria and flamethrower guy:

The kar 98, despite the name, is not a carbine -- it is a short rifle. The only Mauser carbine used by German forces was the Gew.38/40 (I'm not sure I've got the designation right, by the way). It is also not very accurate, and the sights are crap. Under no circumstances can it outperform the Garand.

christophe1992
07-17-2008, 06:54 AM
[QUOTE=pdf27;129247]Do you seriously think that anybody will notice the sound of a clip pinging out in the middle of a firefight? You have to shout very loudly indeed to be heard at close range, let alone where the enemy are!

look imagine that your sqaud is killed and your the last left. you shout your last bullet the clip flies out. that is so loud that the germans willl hear it they will run into you and kill you.

germans and japs knew the sound and payed attention to it.
amerikan troops did have a tric to fool them. one soldier puts his helmet to the floor and trow a rock at it. it makes almost the same sound like the clip.
iv testet it with my own m1 helmet

pdf27
07-17-2008, 07:47 AM
look imagine that your sqaud is killed and your the last left. you shout your last bullet the clip flies out. that is so loud that the germans willl hear it they will run into you and kill you.
Uh huh. You've never been in the close vicinity of a lot of gunfire, have you? Seriously, you would have trouble hearing it yourself in that circumstance, let along some enemy 50m away who're breathing out of their arse due to being under fire and having to move very rapidly with weight.
Furthermore, exactly how are these notional Germans going to know that you are both now alone and have just fired off your last clip? Telepathy?

Furthermore, pray tell me exactly why troops are trained to yell "MAGAZINE" at the top of their voice when changing mags, as well as "BACK IN" when they've done so if this is such a problem.


germans and japs knew the sound and payed attention to it.
Urban myth. Find me one genuine WW2 German or Japanese soldier who did this.

Man of Stoat
07-17-2008, 08:02 AM
Perhaps he has been getting his gen from the call of duty manual like our late ferrous friend?

christophe1992
07-17-2008, 12:45 PM
Perhaps he has been getting his gen from the call of duty manual like our late ferrous friend?

no i didnt:p
i didnt mean at long distances ofcourse:p
and yes i shot with a few weapons. fn p90, fnc,a shotgun( mosberg), an m249 and a famas.

seek on the web for that pinging sound youl find it.
:D

flamethrowerguy
07-17-2008, 05:21 PM
Hysteria and flamethrower guy:

The kar 98, despite the name, is not a carbine -- it is a short rifle. The only Mauser carbine used by German forces was the Gew.38/40 (I'm not sure I've got the designation right, by the way). It is also not very accurate, and the sights are crap. Under no circumstances can it outperform the Garand.

As far as I know the definition for a carbine is: light military rifle with shortened barrel and comparative small caliber which fits the "Mauser Karabiner K 98k", the littke "k" stands here for kurz (=short).
The Gewehr 98/40 was a reproduction of the hungarian rifle Modell 35, built in Hungary (by Metallwaren-, Waffen- und Maschinenfabrik A.G. Danuvia) for the german army due to the shortage of infantry weapons in the Wehrmacht.

pdf27
07-17-2008, 06:17 PM
no i didnt:p
i didnt mean at long distances ofcourse:p
and yes i shot with a few weapons. fn p90, fnc,a shotgun( mosberg), an m249 and a famas.
Uh huh. And this is relevant how? A substantial number of us (myself, Nick, MoS, Cuts, RS*, Firefly, etc.) are current or former military in one form or another. A firefight (and I've only been in a one-way one - if rounds are coming downrange at you it'll be ten times worse) is one of the loudest and most confusing places on earth. The first one I was in in training I never even knew where the enemy were - and that was despite them firing on me with automatic weapons at the time. When I did the section in defence range in September (8 x assault rifles + 1 GPMG + lots of pyro) it was impossible to communicate to people 10m from me without a radio due to the noise levels - the people in the next hole along were hard enough. And you still reckon that a minor metallic "ting" is going to be a noticeable tactical disadvantage???


seek on the web for that pinging sound youl find it.
If it's on the internet, it must be true, right?
http://lolcats.com/images/u/08/21/lolcatsdotcom7haklee465x249ye.jpg

christophe1992
07-18-2008, 12:49 AM
Uh huh. And this is relevant how? A substantial number of us (myself, Nick, MoS, Cuts, RS*, Firefly, etc.) are current or former military in one form or another. A firefight (and I've only been in a one-way one - if rounds are coming downrange at you it'll be ten times worse) is one of the loudest and most confusing places on earth. The first one I was in in training I never even knew where the enemy were - and that was despite them firing on me with automatic weapons at the time. When I did the section in defence range in September (8 x assault rifles + 1 GPMG + lots of pyro) it was impossible to communicate to people 10m from me without a radio due to the noise levels - the people in the next hole along were hard enough. And you still reckon that a minor metallic "ting" is going to be a noticeable tactical disadvantage???


If it's on the internet, it must be true, right?
http://lolcats.com/images/u/08/21/lolcatsdotcom7haklee465x249ye.jpg
ok good point there about the internet. i did see it in a book and its wel know about that sound. im not going to keep talking about the stupid pinging sound.:p
anyway both great rifles but i prefer the svt 40 over the garand and kar.

Man of Stoat
07-18-2008, 02:43 AM
As far as I know the definition for a carbine is: light military rifle with shortened barrel and comparative small caliber which fits the "Mauser Karabiner K 98k", the littke "k" stands here for kurz (=short).
The Gewehr 98/40 was a reproduction of the hungarian rifle Modell 35, built in Hungary (by Metallwaren-, Waffen- und Maschinenfabrik A.G. Danuvia) for the german army due to the shortage of infantry weapons in the Wehrmacht.

Don't get bogged down in terminology -- the German in particular is very inconsistent and confusing.

Essentially, shoulder fired infantry weapons in Rifle calibres in the period in question break down into three broad groups:

(Long) rifle: Ross, Long Lee's, Gew 98,Kar98b, Lebel,Mosin Nagant 1891/30, the standard Arisaka rifles etc. These were initially intended to be used exclusively by the infantry.

Carbine:Gew 38/40, Lee Enfield no.5,Mosin Nagant M38 and M44, those crappy Italian Mannlicher carbines, and so on. These were initially intended for artillery and cavalry, but saw much wider application in the Second World War.

Short rifles: SMLE, Lee Enfield no.4, Springfield M1903, kar98a, kar98k, MAS36 etc. These were originally intended to bridge the gap between the rifle and Carbine, and so issue the same weapon to all branches of the service. They are intermediate in length between the long rifle and the Carbine.

If your definition were correct, all "Short rifles" would fall under the definition of "Carbine", which they clearly are not.

Nickdfresh
07-18-2008, 08:28 AM
is would pick the m1 because its also a good short range weapon due to its semi.
the kar98 is more accurate an slightly more powerfull.
the m1 has the disadvantage of the loud pinging sound of the clip.

both great rifles and both where weapons of victory over the enemy.


Yeah well, the "loud ping" wasn't really much of a consideration. What you're talking about would individual or personal combat in which a US soldier was cut off and cornered. This kind of thing was pretty rare and US military training emphasized mutual support as did everyone else's.

Still, I have heard this on a documentary where some idiot claimed that some wily US veterans would throw down a chunk of metal to simulate the clank in hopes that a German soldier would pop up, thinking he was empty, and present a target. But as pdf stated, this sort of thing would have been exceedingly rare in the chaos of actual combat.

If anyone is listening for anything, it's where the shooting is coming from....

Jagdpanther
07-18-2008, 08:39 AM
my favorite rifle is the m1 grant it is faster firing and i like the design it better fit troops becuase in a fight the kar98k is like the british lee-enfield because its like a sniper rifle you cant shoot fast. though given it was kinda good when the allies were pushin the germans back because they could ambush you better. just add a scope!
you know not all sniper rifles "cant shoot fast"

Nickdfresh
07-18-2008, 09:38 AM
you know not all sniper rifles "cant shoot fast"

And the ones that do tend to lack precision accuracy and are mostly used as intermediate range accurized weapons...Something between an infantryman's small caliber assault rifle and a sniper rifle...

But semi-autos are rarely used as precision stalking weapons. The US Marines and Army now use the M-21 (accurized, rebuilt M-14) and the M-110 (an updated AR-10) as intermediate sniper systems to counter the Soviet designed Dragunov..

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1cm1d.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m21sight.jpg

http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/imgs/m110.jpg

Rising Sun*
07-18-2008, 09:55 AM
A true sniper very rarely needs to shoot fast, or more accurately to fire quickly between shots.

One to three, or no, shots a day could be the best a true sniper might do.

A sniper has to be in a position exposed to the enemy. He relies upon being in a position which the enemy cannot identify, despite being in the enemy's field of view. Firing rapid shots increases his risk of discovery.

Apart from the risk of discovery being increased by the extra movement involved in reloading, a sniper could do his job in many cases with a single shot weapon.

A sharpshooter is a different issue.

flamethrowerguy
07-18-2008, 10:09 AM
Don't get bogged down in terminology -- the German in particular is very inconsistent and confusing.

't was logisch. Dit soort van gelul kan alleen maar van een nederlander komen. En, dames en heren, daar is hij weer: de grote-broer-komplex. Proficiat!



If your definition were correct, all "Short rifles" would fall under the definition of "Carbine", which they clearly are not.

Well, it's not my definition in the first place. But if you insist on your opinion to be right, well, then the history of one of the best-known firearms of the world must be re-written.

Rising Sun*
07-18-2008, 10:34 AM
But if you insist on your opinion to be right, well, then the history of one of the best-known firearms of the world must be re-written.

This should be an interesting discussion.

Chevan
07-18-2008, 01:24 PM
But semi-autos are rarely used as precision stalking weapons. The US Marines and Army now use the M-21 (accurized, rebuilt M-14) and the M-110 (an updated AR-10) as intermediate sniper systems to counter the Soviet designed Dragunov..

This one?
http://handgun.kapyar.ru/ph/201_01.jpg

Nickdfresh
07-18-2008, 01:27 PM
This one?
http://handgun.kapyar.ru/ph/201_01.jpg


Indeed...

Is that the only Russian sniper weapon?

Chevan
07-18-2008, 03:18 PM
Is that the only Russian sniper weapon?
Of course not.
There are a few other specialized types of sniper rifles that is used by Special forces, Specnaz and ets.
The SVD ( Sniper rifle of Dragunov) was a basic soviet sniper rifle in army since 1963.
The my favorite is the big 12,7 mm SVN-98 the newest russian rifle
http://www.artillerist.ru/images/library/5803.jpghttp://ludvig.guns.ru/9-sm.jpg
This is uber-rifle..literally.It's steel shell can penetrate the armor the Bradly or BMP through.
it remind me the famouse 14,5-mm PTRS
http://rkka.by.ru/weapon/ptr/images/ptrs.jpg
BTW has the US army also an 12,7 mm sniper rifle?

Nickdfresh
07-19-2008, 06:24 PM
...
BTW has the US army also an 12,7 mm sniper rifle?


But of course:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_Barrett_rifle

http://lh4.google.com/Nitro2k/RtQS-JJbCuI/AAAAAAAAAYA/5CqizApmIoQ/s144/M82rifle.jpg

flamethrowerguy
07-19-2008, 06:28 PM
A 12,7mm round to take out one single so-called "soft target". The effect must be terrible!

Major Walter Schmidt
07-20-2008, 12:35 AM
my favorite us gun would be the Bazooka. Though I like the XT-7 and the Panzerschrck btter.

pdf27
07-20-2008, 07:08 AM
A 12,7mm round to take out one single so-called "soft target". The effect must be terrible!
It is rather unpleasant. People hit by a .50 round in the chest tend to be blown into upper and lower halves...

imi
07-20-2008, 07:38 AM
Hungarian sniper rifle called "Gepárd" 14,5 x 114 mm
http://i33.tinypic.com/mkynsz.jpg

Cuts
07-20-2008, 10:58 AM
't was logisch. Dit soort van gelul kan alleen maar van een nederlander komen. En, dames en heren, daar is hij weer: de grote-broer-komplex. Proficiat!
Jij, mijn oosterbuurse vriend, bent een grote omanaaier.
I'd also like to point out to any other newcomers that while MoS speaks, reads & writes Dutch rather well he's actually British, born and bred.
He's also quite correct in his reply to your post.




Well, it's not my definition in the first place. But if you insist on your opinion to be right, well, then the history of one of the best-known firearms of the world must be re-written.
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/8045/10302112497833543302404yj7.gif
Your father wasn't a USMC Korean vet was he...?

flamethrowerguy
07-20-2008, 11:32 AM
Jij, mijn oosterbuurse vriend, bent een grote omanaaier.
I'd also like to point out to any other newcomers that while MoS speaks, reads & writes Dutch rather well he's actually British, born and bred.
He's also quite correct in his reply to your post.

Nou, geef hem een lekker kusje dan. Verder ben ik niet jouw vriend en wil 't nooit worden. Jouw oma was prima trouwens.
As a newcomer I'd like to point out that flamethrowerguy speaks, reads & writes english and dutch rather he is actually a very inconsistent and confusing german (quote), born and bred.



Your father wasn't a USMC Korean vet was he...?
What is this supposed to mean?

Cuts
07-20-2008, 11:34 AM
As far as I know the definition for a carbine is: light military rifle with shortened barrel and comparative small caliber which fits the "Mauser Karabiner K 98k", the littke "k" stands here for kurz (=short).
And the major differences between the G98 and K98 are ?


The Gewehr 98/40 was a reproduction of the hungarian rifle Modell 35, built in Hungary (by Metallwaren-, Waffen- und Maschinenfabrik A.G. Danuvia) for the german army due to the shortage of infantry weapons in the Wehrmacht.
I'm guessing here so please forgive me if I'm in error, but I think MoS mistyped his designation and wrote "G38/40" instead of "G33/40."
As far as I can remember after a good Sunday lunch, the only Mauser action carbine, (as opposed to a slightly shorter rifle,) used by the German forces in any number was the G33/40, (a modded vz. 16/33.)

pdf27
07-20-2008, 11:47 AM
What is this supposed to mean?
Some time back we had a rather unpleasant troll on the forum, going by the name of "IRONMAN" (linky (http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/index.php/IRONMAN)). Among his claims was that his father was in the USMC and fought at Chosin reservoir, although amusingly all his "father"'s quotes also appear in the Call of Duty manual.

flamethrowerguy
07-20-2008, 12:03 PM
Some time back we had a rather unpleasant troll on the forum, going by the name of "IRONMAN" (linky (http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/index.php/IRONMAN)). Among his claims was that his father was in the USMC and fought at Chosin reservoir, although amusingly all his "father"'s quotes also appear in the Call of Duty manual.

Got that. At least I know in which category I have to put Mr. Kuts.

Man of Stoat
07-21-2008, 02:28 AM
't was logisch. Dit soort van gelul kan alleen maar van een nederlander komen. En, dames en heren, daar is hij weer: de grote-broer-komplex. Proficiat!


Easy, Tiger! The only thing consistent about the German terminology is its inconsistency. Taking just the German Mausers:

Long rifle -- Gew.98, Kar98b
short rifle -- Kar98a, Kar98k
Carbine -- Gew.33/40

I don't have a fundamental problem with them calling anything shorter than the Gew.98 a Karabiner, but look at the above and tell me with a straight face that it is consistent!

Chevan
07-21-2008, 04:29 AM
It is rather unpleasant. People hit by a .50 round in the chest tend to be blown into upper and lower halves...
the nightmare..
i' did read a book where the one man's head blowed up after the 12,7 mm bullet hited his face.

Major Walter Schmidt
07-21-2008, 12:44 PM
Some time back we had a rather unpleasant troll on the forum, going by the name of "IRONMAN" (linky (http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/index.php/IRONMAN)). Among his claims was that his father was in the USMC and fought at Chosin reservoir, although amusingly all his "father"'s quotes also appear in the Call of Duty manual.

how come IRONMAN has a medal?

SS Ouche-Vittes
07-21-2008, 04:16 PM
Comparing a Semi-auto to a non-auto weapon is not fair :(
Which is better? M1? G43 ?G41? SVT40? (not sure if its called svt 40 or if G41 is semi)

Man of Stoat
07-22-2008, 06:58 AM
Comparing a Semi-auto to a non-auto weapon is not fair :(
Which is better? M1? G43 ?G41? SVT40? (not sure if its called svt 40 or if G41 is semi)

Okay, a brief summary:

There are 2 G41's:G41(W), and G41(M). the Mauser G41 was ridiculously over complicated so didn't work well, and the Walther G41 became the G43 when fitted with a proper gas system. Both of the G41 rifles had the same muzzle trap with annular piston gas system that was completely bonk and was used because the German high command had a prejudice against drilling lateral holes for gas. both of these rifles were never on general issue because, frankly, they were crap, one fundamentally and the other just due to the gas system.

G43: works quite well, but is somewhat fragile in the action which leads to parts breakage. a little complex.

SVT 40: the best designed but the worst made of the three main semiautomatic battle rifles in question. It is let down by its manufacture and its fiddly gas regulator. If it had been made well it would have been really excellent -- everything is there in principle , and if it had been made by any of the other major powers it would have been very good.

Garand: the worst designed but the best made of the three. Fundamentally, it is little more than a mechanised turn bolt rifle, rationalised and slimmed down. It is the most accurate and most reliable of the three, and capable of the highest sustained rate of fire -- this is little short of amazing given how many weaknesses there are in the design that can lead to slight damage stopping it from working. it also has the most primitive and indeed worst gas system of the big three. But, because American production engineering was the best in the world, it worked and worked very well, and is certainly the best of the three.

kenbu
07-22-2008, 07:06 AM
My favourite all time U.S.gun is the old Large Frame Colt M1917,which used Half or full moon Clips to shoot the rimless 0.45 ACP round.A lot of these guns were in circulation (pre-Dunblane) when I shot pistol and they were lovely ,solid and quite accurate.I liked the old Springfield 30-06 rifle as well,guess I`m an old fashioned F@rt!!

Kenny

George Eller
07-22-2008, 11:29 AM
My favourite all time U.S.gun is the old Large Frame Colt M1917,which used Half or full moon Clips to shoot the rimless 0.45 ACP round.A lot of these guns were in circulation (pre-Dunblane) when I shot pistol and they were lovely ,solid and quite accurate.I liked the old Springfield 30-06 rifle as well,guess I`m an old fashioned F@rt!!

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2253&d=1216728462

Kenny
-

My dad had a Colt M1917 for years (1960's - 1970's) for personal and home defense. It was a beautiful revolver.

I seem to remember an alternate round that could be used without half-moon clips called the .45 Auto Rim. It had similar dimensions to the .45 ACP but with a rim at the base which enabled the empty cases to be ejected from the cylinder.

-

http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting2006/swwheelgun/graphics/l/33.jpg
http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting2006/swwheelgun/graphics/l/21.jpg
.45 ACP on left, .45 Auto Rim on right, note difference in rim thickness.

http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting2006/swwheelgun/index.asp

-

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y171/hipowersandhandguns/Corbon45ARvsMoonclipcylinder1.jpg
The three cartridges in the half-moon clip are .45 ACP and lower three cartridges are .45 AR (Auto Rim).

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=193439

-

kenbu
07-22-2008, 12:23 PM
Yes ,George, I remember that the the 0.45 Auto Rim was quite expensive ,compared to surplus "hardball" 0.45 ACP,but far,far easier to use.Some of the half moon clips I used had a grip like a giant squid on those 0.45 ACP cases!!!:)


Take care

Kenny

George Eller
07-22-2008, 01:30 PM
Yes ,George, I remember that the the 0.45 Auto Rim was quite expensive ,compared to surplus "hardball" 0.45 ACP,but far,far easier to use.Some of the half moon clips I used had a grip like a giant squid on those 0.45 ACP cases!!!:)


Take care

Kenny
-

Hi Kenny,

I bought a full-moon clip once to try it out on my Smith & Wesson model 25 (1955) .45 ACP and after ejecting, the empty cases were extremely tight - much harder to remove from the clip than they were to remove from the half-moon clips (for reuse). I prefer the half-moon clips, but like you said, they can sometimes put quite a grip on the cases :)

-

SS Ouche-Vittes
07-25-2008, 05:30 PM
thanks man of stoat, very informative post!

imi
07-26-2008, 09:07 AM
http://s4.tinypic.com/25iohvr.jpg
AMT Hardballer Longslide cal.45 ACP
piece of cake :)
looks like familiar?
http://s4.tinypic.com/oszswo.jpg

Nickdfresh
07-26-2008, 05:17 PM
http://s4.tinypic.com/25iohvr.jpg
AMT Hardballer Longslide cal.45 ACP
piece of cake :)
looks like familiar?
http://s4.tinypic.com/oszswo.jpg

Not in WWII...

imi
07-27-2008, 06:29 AM
Nickdfresh: ok sorry!

kenbu
08-07-2008, 04:38 AM
There`s no doubt that the M1 Garand gave the U.S. rifle squad the ability to pour a lot of lead into the direction of the enemy.But it had 2 major drawbacks ;firstly you couldn`t single load rounds,secondly being a Gas-recoil operated weapon you had to keep it reasonably clean (not pristine, just a reasonable level of care).The British Enfield 0.303, in my opinion is a far better battle rifle ,smooth fast bolt action,10 rd magazine and able to fire accurately and dependably under the most appalling conditions (Flanders mud in WW1 ,comes to mind).

Kenny

Man of Stoat
08-07-2008, 05:11 AM
Of course you can single load the Garand! Why you would want to on a two-way range is another matter though. You do it like this:

Drop single round into chamber
Place edge of hand against charging handle
depress follower while pushing back slightly against charging handle
rotate hand sharply upwards out of the way.

If you are talking about "topping off" with single rounds, then sure. But why would you want to? I can't in fact think of a single military semiauto that can be easily topped off without removing the magazine anyway.

Interestingly, I had a chat with some 1950s era Canadian soldiers who said that their top shooters were faster on the range over 15 rounds in aimed fire with a number four rifle than with the Garand, but from 16 rounds and up the Garand was much faster.

Semper Fi
08-09-2008, 09:26 AM
There`s no doubt that the M1 Garand gave the U.S. rifle squad the ability to pour a lot of lead into the direction of the enemy.But it had 2 major drawbacks ;firstly you couldn`t single load rounds,secondly being a Gas-recoil operated weapon you had to keep it reasonably clean (not pristine, just a reasonable level of care).The British Enfield 0.303, in my opinion is a far better battle rifle ,smooth fast bolt action,10 rd magazine and able to fire accurately and dependably under the most appalling conditions (Flanders mud in WW1 ,comes to mind).

Kenny

Im sory but the M1 Garand Is a far better rifle then the Lee Enfield Smle because one you have a Eight rounds and the enemy only has one. The Enfield is a good rifle but it is a bad I idea to fire a bolt action rifle when a German is firing a Mp44 or a m40. Against a 98k is a far match up. But I rather have a M1 then a SMLE.... !0 v.s 8 but 8 is semi- auto..

Semper Fi
08-09-2008, 09:31 AM
Well My fav. Has to be the Thompson SMG. It has the power to stop the German running at you and the compated for paratrooper to use.

kenbu
08-13-2008, 10:22 AM
Of course you can single load the Garand! Why you would want to on a two-way range is another matter though. You do it like this:

Drop single round into chamber
Place edge of hand against charging handle
depress follower while pushing back slightly against charging handle
rotate hand sharply upwards out of the way.

If you are talking about "topping off" with single rounds, then sure. But why would you want to? I can't in fact think of a single military semiauto that can be easily topped off without removing the magazine anyway.

Interestingly, I had a chat with some 1950s era Canadian soldiers who said that their top shooters were faster on the range over 15 rounds in aimed fire with a number four rifle than with the Garand, but from 16 rounds and up the Garand was much faster.

I should have said "safely single load";;"hey Sarge could you hand up my thumb-nail ,while i stop the bleeding!!!

BIGJOHNFROMMICHIGAN
08-13-2008, 11:03 AM
Mine is the M-60 I used to love firing this baby...

flamethrowerguy
08-13-2008, 11:08 AM
Which one is nicknamed the "pig"? Is it the M60 or the M249?

BIGJOHNFROMMICHIGAN
08-13-2008, 11:54 AM
That would be the M-60

BIGJOHNFROMMICHIGAN
08-13-2008, 11:58 AM
the 249 is the saw, basically the same weight as the 16 as I remember, I volunteered to carry the 60 because after a road march we used to do rifle drills and after carrying that beast for 15 miles a 16 was like a feather in my hands..

Man of Stoat
08-14-2008, 03:04 AM
I should have said "safely single load";;"hey Sarge could you hand up my thumb-nail ,while i stop the bleeding!!!

You have to be a complete idiot to get your thumb caught, by the way...

Semper Fi
08-15-2008, 10:50 PM
The M60 is a good weapon but I like the Marine Corp Mediam machine gun the stinger .30 cal weapon but the problem of this weapon is a few burstsand you or out of ammo. So It is a ammo eater. But The Japs did not expect the Marines to have that kind of fire power with them.

Jagdpanther
09-01-2008, 02:43 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/240mm_howitzer.jpg/300px-240mm_howitzer.jpg 240 MM HOWITZER

Nickdfresh
09-01-2008, 05:53 PM
The M60 is a good weapon but I like the Marine Corp Mediam machine gun the stinger .30 cal weapon but the problem of this weapon is a few burstsand you or out of ammo. So It is a ammo eater. But The Japs did not expect the Marines to have that kind of fire power with them.

The "Stinger" was a one-off experiment by an individual marine that modified a gun out of a crashed dive-bomber. Not an actual production weapon...

aerwulf6814
09-03-2008, 07:34 PM
the m14. best of the garand with the ability to top off.

Cuts
09-05-2008, 07:10 AM
the m14. best of the garand with the ability to top off.

Yes.
Very popular with all the Allied troops from D-Day to the fall of Berlin.



Now when was the 7.62 x 51 invented again...?

Nickdfresh
09-05-2008, 01:10 PM
Yes.
Very popular with all the Allied troops from D-Day to the fall of Berlin.



Now when was the 7.62 x 51 invented again...?


It would have been nice!

George Eller
09-05-2008, 03:24 PM
-

.308 Winchester
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/308_Winchester

7.62x51mm NATO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x51mm_NATO

-

Len
09-06-2008, 09:05 AM
I like the old Colt .45 M1911A1
Aye yours,

christophe1992
09-07-2008, 04:17 AM
i like the tompson m1a1 and1928a1 models. strong,reliable,high stopping power the only problems where its price and accuracy over 50 meter (55 yards)

Nickdfresh
09-07-2008, 06:53 AM
Most sub-machine-guns aren't terribly accurate over 50 meters, and even if they are somewhat with a 9mm, the round is going to lack stopping power...

ww11freak34
09-30-2008, 07:08 PM
the m1 and springfield are better cause they did better damage and i think its better

1917
10-23-2008, 08:32 PM
garand is all fine and dandy but the K98 has it whiped by a long shot take the K98 VS Garand set up a 300 yard target garand will always hit outter target lines has K98 will always in inside

Man of Stoat
10-24-2008, 02:37 AM
Not a chance. Ever tried it? I have. An average Garand will out shoot an average K98, and a good Garand will out shoot a good K98.

1917
10-24-2008, 10:23 AM
i have i own both and and tryed them and the 1903

Laconia
10-24-2008, 10:27 AM
The m-1 Garand. No doubt about it. Quick loading, high rate of fire, reliable, and good stopping power.

Django
10-29-2008, 11:06 AM
M1, an easy choice to make.
Semi Auto wins as a combat rifle imho.

colonel hogan
11-24-2008, 01:50 PM
mine is the bar

gunner-B
11-25-2008, 09:39 AM
Man of Stoat says:
Not a chance. Ever tried it? I have. An average Garand will out shoot an average K98, and a good Garand will out shoot a good K98.

I say:
If you think that a Garand is more accurate than a bolt action rifle (Especially the Kar 98)
then I think that you have been watching too many war films.

If the Garand was that accurate, how come the US forces used the PO3 Bolt-action rifle for sniper work up to the Vietnam War?

Even to this day the bolt-action rifle is preferred over a semi-automatic weapon when it comes to sniper work. And, oh yes! Look at the pedigree of the P03 and you will see that it is strongly influenced by the Mauser design.

Paul

tankgeezer
11-25-2008, 11:25 AM
Man of Stoat says:
Not a chance. Ever tried it? I have. An average Garand will out shoot an average K98, and a good Garand will out shoot a good K98.

I say:
If you think that a Garand is more accurate than a bolt action rifle (Especially the Kar 98)
then I think that you have been watching too many war films.

If the Garand was that accurate, how come the US forces used the PO3 Bolt-action rifle for sniper work up to the Vietnam War?

Even to this day the bolt-action rifle is preferred over a semi-automatic weapon when it comes to sniper work. And, oh yes! Look at the pedigree of the P03 and you will see that it is strongly influenced by the Mauser design.

Paul

As a skirmish (assault) weapon, the Garand far outclasses the Mauser98. The difference in rates of accurate fire prove the point. Hitlers main mistake in WW2 was starting a war with a bolt action infantry rifle. Having to go off sight picture to chamber each round takes too much time, and delays engagement of succeeding targets. in a fight, thats a good way to loose. As for sniper rifles, there may have been more bolt rifles than semi-autos used, but that is changing. The bolt action lends itself to the task of sniping as there is no need for any volume of fire. just one, or two shots. But I think that the Garand would fare as well as a sniping weapon in most battle conditions, as ranges would generally be less than 600 meters, and most engagements taking place at 300-400 m. (far less in Urban operations. ) The reason most sniping rifles were bolt action was due more to the need to have the semi autos in the roll of infantry weapon where they would do the most good. (You have all day to play as a sniper,so the high rate of fire was not needed. )
The 98 could not hope to match the performance of the Garand, or any other rifle caliber semi auto rifle fielded in WW2. Apples, and oranges. Sorry "B", but Stoat has you on this one.

gunner-B
11-25-2008, 05:33 PM
Man of stoat said that the Garand is more accurate. Accuracy is what he meant as accuracy is what I meant.

The bolt action concept is the best 'ask any competition shooter' system for target & sniper shooting and has been for over 100 years. Show me a World Champion shooter who used a semi-automatic to win the title, and ill show you a pile of rocking horse shit.
Most engagement ranges for infantry weapons are 'though not exclusively, 100-300 yards. Out to 600 yard + range are more for the support LMG/GPMG.

And to cheer you up a bit, I voted for the Garand, as a semi-automatic rifle is better for the main reason of putting more rounds down and winning the firefight and the concept was another step towards 'though not a huge one' the assault rifle

Paul

Nickdfresh
11-25-2008, 06:01 PM
I'll let MOS speak for himself. But I think what he is referring too is that the quality of the K98s slipped quite a bit later in the War as they were being churned out, and the Garand was manufactured to a high degree of relative precision because of America's much larger industrial base...

I've heard this more than once...

Obviously, an accurized K98 was one of the best sniper arms of WWII, and the Garand sniper version was for more intermediate ranges...

gunner-B
11-25-2008, 06:32 PM
Nickdfresh
If you read Man of Stoat's post again, you will see that he was matching quality as well as accuracy

Paul

Rising Sun*
11-25-2008, 07:21 PM
mit der garand dafür öfter..
also kommt es auf die kampfentfernung an, um zu sagen welches geeigneter ist..
k98 is besser man schießt mit ihr genauer !!

This is an English language forum. Very few members can read German, so posting in German does not encourage the discussions which are the purpose of the forum.

It is clear from your post at #186 that your English is more than adequate to post in English, although most of your posts so far have been in German.

Please post in English in future.

Nickdfresh
11-25-2008, 08:03 PM
This is an English language forum. Very few members can read German, so posting in German does not encourage the discussions which are the purpose of the forum.

It is clear from your post at #186 that your English is more than adequate to post in English, although most of your posts so far have been in German.

Please post in English in future.


He's posting from Vancouver, Canada --I would hope so! :D

Nickdfresh
11-25-2008, 08:04 PM
Nickdfresh
If you read Man of Stoat's post again, you will see that he was matching quality as well as accuracy

Paul


Actually, his post was a anecdotal personal experience. Experience I've heard echoed other places...

Man of Stoat
11-26-2008, 02:59 AM
Actually, his post was a anecdotal personal experience. Experience I've heard echoed other places...

Quite...

To answer all of these in one go:

Of course an accurised 1903 will outshoot an accurised Garand. No contest. but, I have never seen a military kar98k that actually shot very well, and I have seen rather a lot. Even the sniper versions were not as accurate as for instance the 1903A4,No4Mk1(T), and even the nagant sniper.

As for the military versions, even forgetting issues of bedding, the sights on the Garand are light-years ahead of those on the Mauser.

Personal experience: a bog standard Garand will outshoot a bog standard Mauser, end of story.

Gunner-B -- I give you David Tubb who has owned NRA high-power with a tricked up SR-25 for many many years. I give you John Feamster who took a heavy barrelled AR 15 bench resting and shot a sub-quarter inch group at 200 yards at his first competition, without any special preparation, and finished respectably. I give you myself, who is currently averaging 5-7 points per card ahead of the nearest competition at my club's 100 m target rifle competition using a 20 inch hbar AR 15 with match sights. What you mean by a "world champion" shooter anyway? Many target disciplines shot at "world" level are restricted to manual actions anyway... as for sniping, the main issue is that a semiautomatic shoot a shiny, spinning empty case out of the side with every shot -- not very good if you want to stay hidden.

There is an enormous prejudice against the accuracy potential of semiautomatic rifles in general. For the most part, these prejudices are entirely correct. However, a properly set up AR 15/AR 10/ SR 25/equivalent can and will perform just as well as a properly set up modern bolt action.

gunner-B
11-26-2008, 03:42 PM
I give you 100 years of Historical fact, not anecdotal prejudice.

When someone like Accuracy International supersede their current bolt action system with a semi-automatic system, then I will cede to that system. But it will not change the fact that the Mauser was, ‘all being equal, more accurate than the Garand.

Paul

Man of Stoat
11-27-2008, 02:56 AM
What "historical fact"? Can you cite me a comparative test? Otherwise you are just repeating the anecdotal prejudice of others.

I, on the other hand, in addition to my own PERSONAL experience with several Garands and several Kar98k's, have just discovered, thanks to the miracle of Google, such a comparative range test: http://www.cruffler.com/match1.html

If we ignore the National match and sniper models, there is one M98, of 1908 vintage (therefore the long rifle) running at 2.25 MOA. The two standard specification Garand rifles are running at 2.46 and 2.48 MOA. The only 98k-type rifle in the test is an M48 (which would be the post-war Yugoslav version of the Kar98k, but otherwise identical to wartime production), running at 4.5 MOA.

As for accuracy International, you are ignoring the tactical consideration of a flying empty case giving away the position of the sniper, which I already mentioned above. This is NOT an issue of accuracy: it is a question of the sniper's craft. Anyway, AI produce two fifty-calibre sniper rifles,1 a bolt action, and one a semiauto. They claim that their semiauto matches the accuracy of their bolt. Interestingly, their semiauto looks like a super sized SLR action, complete with dust grooves.

Cuts
11-27-2008, 09:11 AM
Man of Stoat says:
Not a chance. Ever tried it? I have. An average Garand will out shoot an average K98, and a good Garand will out shoot a good K98.

I say:
If you think that a Garand is more accurate than a bolt action rifle (Especially the Kar 98)
then I think that you have been watching too many war films.

If the Garand was that accurate, how come the US forces used the PO3 Bolt-action rifle for sniper work up to the Vietnam War?

Even to this day the bolt-action rifle is preferred over a semi-automatic weapon when it comes to sniper work. And, oh yes! Look at the pedigree of the P03 and you will see that it is strongly influenced by the Mauser design.

Paul


There are many reasons for the choice of weapons used in the sniping rôle, accuracy being only one of them. Not being pinged after the shot is even more important !

Also, I was unaware that 7.65 Luger pistols were of that much use in sniping. ;)



I give you 100 years of Historical fact, not anecdotal prejudice.
You're not Henry Allingham are you ?
If not I would suggest that your historical fact is anecdotal and obviously prejudicial.


But it will not change the fact that the Mauser was, ‘all being equal, more accurate than the Garand.
And therein lies the rub.
The inverted V sights on the K98 are not easy to pick up and do not engender themselves to an accurate and consistent sight picture.
The bedding of K98s is absolutely appalling. The stepped barrel, bedded along it's entire length causes no end of problems for grouping.
The trigger on the Garand is far smoother and with a crisper release than the heavy, gritty and clunky item dangling beneath the Mauser.


For the record I have two Garands, (one a Model D,) three K98s, (all bog standard,) and a G33/40.
Time and time again the Garands have shot better side by side against the 98's, both using wartime and modern ammunition.

Nickdfresh
11-27-2008, 11:51 AM
It should also be noted that both the US Army and Marine Corp have now returned to using semi-automatic sniping weapons with a modernized, rebuilt versions of both the M-14 and AR-10. Of course, the M-14 was basically a modernized M-1 Garand recalibrated and using a 20-round box magazine...

They of course still retain the bolt-action M24/40 as well...

gunner-B
11-27-2008, 10:03 PM
You can harp on about the supposed better accuracy of the Garand over the Mauser all you like. Sniper work up to today is almost exclusively a Bolt action club. Of course a different system may supersede the bolt action system, as will a system supersede semi & auto systems. Until then, it is bolt action.

Cuts
How refreshing it is to use a fine old warrior to make a sarcastic remark, I bet you had to dig deep to use that one....

Man of Stoat
You know as well as I that the .50cal system was designed for different tactical reasons.

Lee Harvey Oswald should have used a Garand, ‘with which he gained his marksman grade whilst in the Marines’ instead of a crappy Mannlicher Carcarno and an accomplice on the grassy knoll.

Paul

Nickdfresh
11-27-2008, 10:09 PM
You can harp on about the supposed better accuracy of the Garand over the Mauser all you like. Sniper work up to today is almost exclusively a Bolt action club. Of course a different system may supersede the bolt action system, as will a system supersede semi & auto systems. Until then, it is bolt action.

...

Wrong. The US Army is phasing out its M-24 (Remington 700) rifles in favor of the M-110 (an accurized, highly refined AR-10). I initially thought these weapons were a supplement to counter the Russian designed Dragunov...

http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/imgs/m110.jpg

gunner-B
11-27-2008, 10:48 PM
Nickdfresh
Wrong. Read my last post again, carefully.
Because the US are using a semi-auto/auto sniper rifle, dosn't mean the system is better. 'Remember, there is a world beyond the USA.

Paul

gb308
11-27-2008, 10:53 PM
My Father carried a B.A.R. and was in the 382d Infantry, Company E. He was severely wounded on Okinawa (in the battle at the Shuri line on "**** Right").

I am putting together a military history of his service and I would love to have more information on the B.A.R. and also information on what my Father's role in his company would have been. Can anyone help me or guide me to some websites that can help me?

Thank you so much for any help you can give me!

Man of Stoat
11-28-2008, 02:56 AM
You can harp on about the supposed better accuracy of the Garand over the Mauser all you like. Sniper work up to today is almost exclusively a Bolt action club. Of course a different system may supersede the bolt action system, as will a system supersede semi & auto systems. Until then, it is bolt action.

Cuts
How refreshing it is to use a fine old warrior to make a sarcastic remark, I bet you had to dig deep to use that one....

Man of Stoat
You know as well as I that the .50cal system was designed for different tactical reasons.

Lee Harvey Oswald should have used a Garand, ‘with which he gained his marksman grade whilst in the Marines’ instead of a crappy Mannlicher Carcarno and an accomplice on the grassy knoll.

Paul


To repeat myself again in words of one syllable for the hard of thinking:

Sniping is an almost exclusively bolt action club for TACTICAL reasons.

Interesting slight change of subject though, no?

As for the straw man Lee Harvey Oswald argument, how much did a scoped Mannlicher Carcano cost in 1963, and how much did an M1D cost? The former was under $100, and the latter appear to have been constructed entirely out of unobtainium at that time. Even now they are like rocking-horse poo, and cuts is very lucky to have one (I have fired it).

Back at the plot: can you quote me a comparative accuracy test similar to the one which I quoted you in which a Kar98k tests better than a Garand? As a substitute, you can look up the military acceptance standards for accuracy for the two systems. Otherwise, return thyself to thy box.

Cuts
11-28-2008, 03:11 AM
You can harp on about the supposed better accuracy of the Garand over the Mauser all you like.
Thank you.
But regardless of how many times you say a std '98 is more accurate than a std Garand it won't make the claim any less incorrect.


Sniper work up to today is almost exclusively a Bolt action club. Of course a different system may supersede the bolt action system, as will a system supersede semi & auto systems. Until then, it is bolt action.
No argument with that, none at all.
However, to aver that a K98 is more accurate than a self-loader purely because of it's action type is, quite frankly, ridiculous.


Cuts
How refreshing it is to use a fine old warrior to make a sarcastic remark, I bet you had to dig deep to use that one....
Oh get off the outrage bus !
Having had the great pleasure of meeting the gentleman himself I know he still has the heart of a serviceman and can spot squaddie humour a mile off.


Lee Harvey Oswald should have used a Garand, ‘with which he gained his marksman grade whilst in the Marines’ instead of a crappy Mannlicher Carcarno and an accomplice on the grassy knoll.

Paul

Oswald could have been caught with a handful of marbles, a forked twig and his sister's knicker elastic and he'd still have been hung out as the killer.

Man of Stoat
11-28-2008, 03:41 AM
Gunner-B,

So that you don't have to actually do any work or thinking, here are two acceptance standards that may be of interest to you:

M1 Garand (standard infantry rifle): 4 minutes of angle (although most rifles would do much less than this out of the factory, 2.5 seeming typical).

Mauser Kar98k Sniper: at 100 m,3 of 5 shots in a rectangle measuring 80 x 140 mm, all five within a circle of 120 mm. Assuming that this is all shots edge-to-edge, this is exactly 4 minutes of angle.

This latter standard is from the German technical specification TL1/1003, quoted in Law's Backbone of the Wehrmacht volume two, page 12, and relates to the standard required for a rifle to be selected from the production line to be set up as a sniper rifle rather than an infantry rifle. I have not yet found the infantry specification, although I am working on it.

So, what have we learnt from this? A standard, infantry M1 Garand that met the minimum US acceptance standard would have met the sniper acceptance standard for the Kar98k.

Now, please go and draw the following from stores: Box, For the Getting Back into, Yours, For the use of, No.1 MkI.

gunner-B
11-28-2008, 10:39 AM
Man of Stoat
Now, are we getting a tiny bit agitated. Bleat and bawl & cry heretic all you like, You will never convince this old Squaddie.

I have a 1033 & will return to my box and settle down to a brew and egg banjo. I see that you haven’t found a way to get out of yours yet. (Probably still attached to the sprue)

Cuts
Meeting Mr Allingham doesn’t make you party to his personal thoughts.

Paul

Nickdfresh
11-28-2008, 11:00 AM
Nickdfresh
Wrong. Read my last post again, carefully.
Because the US are using a semi-auto/auto sniper rifle, dosn't mean the system is better. 'Remember, there is a world beyond the USA.

Paul


What you said was that nobody was using it. Perhaps you should reread you own comments...


Sniper work up to today is almost exclusively a Bolt action club. Of course a different system may supersede the bolt action system, as will a system supersede semi & auto systems. Until then, it is bolt action.

You are also the one using the preponderance of bolt-action sniper weapons as a testament of their alleged, categorical superior accuracy. Not me...

Nickdfresh
11-28-2008, 11:03 AM
...

As for the straw man Lee Harvey Oswald argument, how much did a scoped Mannlicher Carcano cost in 1963, and how much did an M1D cost? The former was under $100, and the latter appear to have been constructed entirely out of unobtainium at that time. Even now they are like rocking-horse poo, and cuts is very lucky to have one (I have fired it).

Back at the plot: can you quote me a comparative accuracy test similar to the one which I quoted you in which a Kar98k tests better than a Garand? As a substitute, you can look up the military acceptance standards for accuracy for the two systems. Otherwise, return thyself to thy box.

Exactly! Oswald's sniper perch was only 100 yards away form the President's motorcade. In fact, he'd have been much better off with a Garand irregardless of accuracy...

Cuts
11-28-2008, 12:42 PM
Man of Stoat
Now, are we getting a tiny bit agitated. Bleat and bawl & cry heretic all you like, You will never convince this old Squaddie.

I have a 1033 & will return to my box and settle down to a brew and egg banjo. I see that you haven’t found a way to get out of yours yet. (Probably still attached to the sprue)

Cuts
Meeting Mr Allingham doesn’t make you party to his personal thoughts.

Paul

You've definitely made your position clear, regardless of any evidence given you will refuse to accept the facts.
Merely putting your fingers in your ears and singing does not make your opinion correct, but it is of course your prerogative to be as wrong as you wish.

Your comment about Henry Allingham has four-fifths of buggerall to do with your contention that an average K98 is more accurate than an average Garand. You don't happen to know an American chap who uses the pseudonym 'IRONMAN' by any chance do you ?

tankgeezer
11-28-2008, 02:03 PM
Looks like the 98 is going,,,,

Comrade Commisar
11-28-2008, 10:01 PM
M1 Carbine damn thing never jammed!

Comrade Commisar
11-28-2008, 10:01 PM
Far lighter and smaller then the massive garand

Nickdfresh
11-29-2008, 06:39 AM
Far lighter and smaller then the massive garand

And nearly useless beyond 50 or 100 yards! Especially in winter...

Rising Sun*
11-29-2008, 07:34 AM
M1 Carbine damn thing never jammed!

Maybe it did, even in ideal circumstances when the M1 was issued to prison guards and nobody was firing back.


THE mystery surrounding the conviction and execution of Ronald Ryan has taken a new twist, with his former accomplice claiming the last man hanged in Australia was innocent.

Breaking his silence publicly after more than four decades, Peter John Walker yesterday said Ryan could not have shot dead a warder during their dramatic escape from Melbourne's Pentridge Prison in 1965 because the rifle he was using had jammed.

"I know the gun had jammed because I bloody well jammed it," Walker said. "Ronnie shouldn't have hung."

Ryan was hanged in 1967 after being convicted of murdering warder George Hodson while he and Walker were fleeing Pentridge on December 19, 1965.

But there has always been uncertainty over whether Ryan fired the fatal shot from an M1 carbine the pair seized from a guard tower on the way over the prison wall or whether the bullet had come from the gun of a warder firing at the escapees. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22958005-421,00.html?from=public_rss

Some of the detectives hunting Ryan and Walker were also armed with M1s.

From a public safety viewpoint, it might have been an ideal weapon for police and prison guards where it had enough power to kill at shortish ranges but not enough power to go through a couple of buildings at longer ranges like our standard WWII .303 SMLE and its variants.

gunner-B
11-30-2008, 12:05 PM
Cuts/Man of Stoat
I would just like to say that it is you that brought Mr Allingham into this ‘discussion’. If you don’t want someone quoted, then don’t bring him up.
My proof is Historical not favouritism, if it was then I could argue that overall, the best combat rifle of the two World wars was not the Mauser or Garand, but the Lee Enfield.

On Mr Oswald. Why don’t you have a long hard think about why he used a Mannicher Carcarno

As I have said before, ‘read my thread. If you do, look up the word a-l-m-o-s-t.

Ironman means nothing to me

Must go now and get back into my nice comfy box. ’Where’s those earmuffs’?

Paul

tankgeezer
11-30-2008, 12:54 PM
Oswald probably chose it because it was inexpensive,($20 usd or less) short (easier to conceal, ) and available through the mail with little paper trail. At the time, rifles were available through the mail for less than $10. Mostly the lesser European types, like the Carcano. They were also commonly available through hardware, and deptartment stores, piled on tables, prices from $5.00 to perhaps $12.00. As the saying goes,," Cheap, fast, and dirty".

Nickdfresh
11-30-2008, 02:49 PM
Cuts/Man of Stoat
I would just like to say that it is you that brought Mr Allingham into this ‘discussion’. If you don’t want someone quoted, then don’t bring him up.
My proof is Historical not favouritism, if it was then I could argue that overall, the best combat rifle of the two World wars was not the Mauser or Garand, but the Lee Enfield.

Really? And why is that?


On Mr Oswald. Why don’t you have a long hard think about why he used a Mannicher Carcarno...

He used the Carcarno because he paid just under $20 for it via mail-order. He also obtained a snubnose .38 revolver the same way...

Feel free to price out the M-1 Garand circa 196-. Then tell us why he didn't use the Mauser instead of the Italian arm if accuracy was really his major consideration....

Pretty much any rifle can be used out to 100 yards. And if you're somehow trying to insinuate that Oswald chose the weapon he did for anything more than being cheap and easily obtainable, you're insane.

Cuts
12-01-2008, 12:24 PM
Cuts/Man of Stoat
I would just like to say that it is you that brought Mr Allingham into this ‘discussion’.
It was myself & not MoS who first mentioned Henry's name on this thread, his name is quite recognisable as the oldest person in Britain quite aside from being a veteran of the Great War.
You could see which way your contention was going and arced up the outrage bus as a red herring.



If you don’t want someone quoted, then don’t bring him up.
But you haven't quoted him.
Or is this just a gypsy's ?



My proof is Historical not favouritism,
Please show us this 'proof,' it promises to be most entertaining.



if it was then I could argue that overall, the best combat rifle of the two World wars was not the Mauser or Garand, but the Lee Enfield.
You'd be in very good company if you did argue for the Lee Enfield, most people with considerable practical experience of all three support that view, however their conclusions have not been reached through favouritism.



On Mr Oswald. Why don’t you have a long hard think about why he used a Mannicher Carcarno
I have old mate, and to a far greater degree than you might imagine.



As I have said before, ‘read my thread. If you do, look up the word a-l-m-o-s-t.
If you mean your posts in this thread, and in particular this quote, "Sniper work up to today is almost exclusively a Bolt action club", then, at risk of repeating myself, I have no argument with that, though not necessarily for the same reasons as yourself.






Edited for grammatical error.

Nickdfresh
12-01-2008, 09:06 PM
I was bored at work, so I decided to read about the M-14 rifle and stumbled across this. The M-25, basically an improved M-21, is an accurized sniper variant of the M-14:


The Special Forces ("Green Berets") have made some use of the M25 "spotter rifle". The M25 was developed in the late 1980s within the 10th Special Forces Group, which was charged to support Special Forces sniper weapons as well as the Special Operations Target Interdiction Course (SOTIC). The M25 was first planned as a replacement for the old M21, but after the Army adoption of the M24 SWS as its standard sniper rifle, the M25 was intended to be used by spotters of the sniper teams, while the snipers would use the bolt-action M24. Tests had shown that the M24 and M25 have the same precision when using the same M118 ammunition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle