PDA

View Full Version : The best semi auto rifle of WWII...



ryankm
06-21-2007, 06:28 PM
I would have to go with the Gewher 43. From what I hear its just a better all around gun compared to the SVT 40. Compared to the M1 Garand it has a ten round clip , and it can be reloaded any time, also from my understanding a way more powerful bullet.

Skoshi Tiger
06-21-2007, 06:38 PM
Not really a fair comparison. The M1 is a main battle rifle and the others are assault rifles. I'm sure if you asked the people who had to use them in anger then you'ld find out the benifits and problems for each.

For my 2 cents worth I'ld put in the SMLE .303. With a trained marksman you've got a bolt action rifle that can put down the same amount of accurate fire as the semi-auto's.

LStarosta
06-21-2007, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
Not really a fair comparison. The M1 is a main battle rifle and the others are assault rifles. I'm sure if you asked the people who had to use them in anger then you'ld find out the benifits and problems for each.

For my 2 cents worth I'ld put in the SMLE .303. With a trained marksman you've got a bolt action rifle that can put down the same amount of accurate fire as the semi-auto's.

What assault rifles?


I will go with the Garand. It's good to know that I have a weapon that actually works. Plus it won the war and everything.

FPSOLKOR
06-21-2007, 06:47 PM
SKS

Esel1964
06-21-2007, 06:52 PM
Garand-hands down.

It would've been even better if when the clip ejected,it didn't ring like a "here I am and I've got to reload" alarm.

M_Gunz
06-21-2007, 07:09 PM
There is M1 Garand and M1 Carbine.

You wouldn't be comparing the Carbine bullet to your GW43 bullet would you?
Because AFAIK the 30-06 and full barrel of the Garand is full power, good for killing bear.
It was developed in response (read almost a copy) of the Mauser 8mm from before WWI beating
what the US or Brits had, again AFAIK.

Just wondering.

US forces very often carried the Carbine btw, and after you've humped gear over long distances
you'll know how much of a difference even a couple pounds makes -- for one you will be able to
shoot better especially if the gun don't kick so hard.

IMO the ratio of MG's to rifles and the effective range of SMG's are at least as important
from fire team size units on up. Also IMO, how much arty you have on call is even better!

EDIT: just a quick look;
GW43 is 7.92x57mm,
Garand is 7.62x63mm,
M1 Carbine is 7.62x33mm

I read more....
GW43 saw limited issue in 1944-45 and was design principles taken from SVT-40 which was
in Russian (and captured by German) hands before Germany invaded. Earlier Gewehr model
was not so good but then all had either problem or was not so high fire rate.

If I got tha right?

Skoshi Tiger
06-21-2007, 07:25 PM
What assault rifles?


Sorry! Too early in the morning for me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif




I will go with the Garand. It's good to know that I have a weapon that actually works. Plus it won the war and everything.

I guess its the case of "if it ain't broke why fix it!". Thats why it took so long for the Lee-Enfield to be replaced in Commonwealth service.

Korolov1986
06-21-2007, 07:47 PM
M1 Garand. Sure, pain-in-the-butt loading procedure, 8 round magazine and a nasty empty sound - but you get a hard hitting, long ranged, reliable semi-auto rifle at a respectable cost.

In that list, I'd put the Garand first, SVT40 second, and G.43 last.

The SVT40 has shortcomings in terms of reliability and complexity - which may not be a problem for most armed forces - but was a major issue for the Soviets.

G.43 was just an unreliable weapon from the start and pretty much only saved by the fact they pieced a SVT40 gas system onto it to make the damn thing work.



SKS


Ah, if only it weren't too late for WW2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2007, 07:57 PM
???

I am confused...Where is the M1 Carbine in the choices...I don't see it, just the three listed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I never have fired a Gewher 43. All I know about SVTs is about Fords

But I've fired a Garand. Lovely machine. A touch heavy to shoot off-hand, but actually well balanced for all that. Loading the clip is easy. Single-shotting the Garand is not so easy. All you do is keep your thumb clear of the receiver when loading a clip. And if you don't do it that way even once, the rifle actually reminds you not to do that, ever again. Did the Soviets or Gerries ever make a rifle that taught you what not to do, all by itself? The sound of the clip might be bad in combat, but hopefully you're smart enough to be around 10 or 12 of your buddies

Having the clip or a hot spent shell land on your head, on the other hand, is truly an annoyance

The Garand is a nice honest rifle and I like it. Good for target shooting, discouraging looters, reducing varmints to a damp patch, or as a nice club

StellarRat
06-21-2007, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
What assault rifles?

I will go with the Garand. It's good to know that I have a weapon that actually works. Plus it won the war and everything. Wait just a cotton picking minute there partner...I thought the P-51 won the war! Which is it? I'm so confused now.

Hawgdog
06-21-2007, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
Not really a fair comparison. The M1 is a main battle rifle and the others are assault rifles.

+1

LStarosta
06-21-2007, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
What assault rifles?

I will go with the Garand. It's good to know that I have a weapon that actually works. Plus it won the war and everything. Wait just a cotton picking minute there partner...I thought the P-51 won the war! Which is it? I'm so confused now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant Korea. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

tigertalon
06-21-2007, 08:18 PM
SVT-40 (http://www.frenchparadise.net/modules/Page/html/images/SVT40.jpg). No question about that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LStarosta
06-21-2007, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
SVT-40 (http://www.frenchparadise.net/modules/Page/html/images/SVT40.jpg). No question about that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

IBTB

tigertalon
06-21-2007, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
What assault rifles?

I will go with the Garand. It's good to know that I have a weapon that actually works. Plus it won the war and everything. Wait just a cotton picking minute there partner...I thought the P-51 won the war! Which is it? I'm so confused now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant Korea. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't it PPSH? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LStarosta
06-21-2007, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
What assault rifles?

I will go with the Garand. It's good to know that I have a weapon that actually works. Plus it won the war and everything. Wait just a cotton picking minute there partner...I thought the P-51 won the war! Which is it? I'm so confused now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant Korea. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't it PPSH? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M1 Carbine FTW. (http://www.rt66.com/%7Ekorteng/SmallArms/images/snipscm1.jpg)

FPSOLKOR
06-21-2007, 09:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
SKS


Ah, if only it weren't too late for WW2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Первые образцы самозарядного карабина под новый патрон были созданы конструктором Симоновым к концу 1944 года. Небольшая опытная партия карабинов проходила испытания на фронте,

Rifle was made by the end of 1944 and a small batch of rifles underwent testing during WWII, so technicaly - it is a WWII design and weapon. Same as Il-10 and IS-3... Oh, yes, wwii ended in august,by this time SKS was a field weapon.

FPSOLKOR
06-21-2007, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
What assault rifles?

I will go with the Garand. It's good to know that I have a weapon that actually works. Plus it won the war and everything. Wait just a cotton picking minute there partner...I thought the P-51 won the war! Which is it? I'm so confused now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant Korea. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't it PPSH? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were winners? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

LStarosta
06-21-2007, 09:39 PM
Not so much. SKS prototypes were sent out for field testing in Bielarus in 1944-1945. The weapon was not mass-manufactured until 1949.

Nice gun, but I don't think it belongs in the same group as the rest of the previously mentioned guns. It was made for a relatively MUCH weaker cartridge (7.62x39mm) than the rest of the rifles, and was more of an over-sized carbine than a battle rifle, in terms of WWII doctrine. It was a link between the battle rifle and the postwar assault rifle, and very unique in its design and use doctrine.

M_Gunz
06-21-2007, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
???

I am confused...Where is the M1 Carbine in the choices...I don't see it, just the three listed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


I asked because he says Gewehr 43 compared to Garand, "also from my understanding a way more
powerful bullet." which is why I included cartridge sizes. The two should be about equal,
both have 500m effective range while M1 Carbine has 300m effective range (and much higher ROF).
So I think maybe somebody got M1's mixed up and would like to know.

Cajun76
06-21-2007, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Esel1964:
Garand-hands down.

It would've been even better if when the clip ejected,it didn't ring like a "here I am and I've got to reload" alarm.

I'd rather hear that =RING= than <pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">"click"</pre> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
06-21-2007, 10:14 PM
I read that when German soldiers in 41-42-? would get an SVT-40 they would use that instead
of their manual action rifle, at least until they did get semi-auto rifle.

But also "In service, it was noted that the SVTs frequently suffered from vertical shot dispersion. For a sniper rifle, this was unacceptable and production of the specialised sniper variant of the SVT was terminated in 1942. At the same time, the milling of scope rails in the receivers of standard SVT rifles was discontinued.". And then they made AVT-40 (automatic)
and SKT-40 (carbine) versions.

Garand and Gewehr 43 sniper versions were used in large numbers as well but then about 55,000
sniper versions of SVT-40 were made so how bad could it be from tests?

Esel1964
06-21-2007, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Esel1964:
Garand-hands down.

It would've been even better if when the clip ejected,it didn't ring like a "here I am and I've got to reload" alarm.

I'd rather hear that =RING= than <pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">"click"</pre> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
But,not to be overly technical,most semi-auto bolts lock back when the mag. follower comes up- when the mag is empty-so there is no click,just a trigger that does nothing.

So still,valid thought! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

woofiedog
06-22-2007, 01:34 AM
http://www.kysrpa.org/images/M1Talking.jpg

gx-warspite
06-22-2007, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
SVT-40 (http://www.frenchparadise.net/modules/Page/html/images/SVT40.jpg). No question about that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Glorious.

You took one for the team to share that with us.

Xiolablu3
06-22-2007, 01:53 AM
Gotta be the Garand or the SVT-40.

The Gewher 43 was notoriously unreliable and went through many different versions.

None being entirely satisfactory.

I have heard stoies of both sides using each others weapons. Russians using MP40's because they were better made.
Germans using PPSh because of the hardy construction.

Its hard to get a clear picture of what was best.

The garand was very heavy I believe, the SVT didnt make a good sniper rifle with the Bolt action prefered. I believe this is also because you dont want the empty shell popping out and falling to the ground, even snipers today prefer bolt action guns so they can remove the spent shell silently.

I cannot pick a winner between the 2 becauee I have never fired them and I have heard good points about both. Only bad report about the Gewher 41/42/43.


I just love the FG42 because of its eccentricness and coolness value. They are so rare nowadays for a original. :-

http://www.fg42.net/fg42a.jpg

I know that reports were not favourable, but as a design to have a full power sniper rifle which doubled as a light machine gun, I dont think it would have been that bad. FIre it single shot from the shoulder, and use like a Bren Gun with the bipod down in full auto.

Still, that side mounted mag would pull the weight to the side and down. It was pretty much impossible to fire on full auto from the standing position, because it used a full size rifle cartridge. Imagine firing a Garand on full auto and trying to keep it steady.. Thats the FG42, Coolness factor 10 !

HotelBushranger
06-22-2007, 02:05 AM
Re was Xiolablu said about the SVT not being a good sniper rifle, I remember reading an article from a Finnish sniper in the Continuation War who preferred the SVT-40 over the MN 91/30 because it gave him the opportunity for a follow up shot, as well as a couple other things I can't remember.

Xiolablu3
06-22-2007, 02:14 AM
Rgr that mate, thanks for the info.

I am by no means an expert, just going by what I read/see.

I always seem to see Soviet snipers with the bolt action rifles. (forget the name)

ALso I definitely read about most snipers preferring bolt action because they can remove the shell silently. A pinging cartridge hitting the floor when you are up a tree or on a ledge is sometimes just enough to give you away after the shot.

Gumtree
06-22-2007, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Gotta be the Garand or the SVT-40.

The Gewher 43 was notoriously unreliable and went through many different versions.

None being entirely satisfactory.

I have heard stoies of both sides using each others weapons. Russians using MP40's because they were better made.
Germans using PPSh because of the hardy construction.

Its hard to get a clear picture of what was best.

The garand was very heavy I believe, the SVT didnt make a good sniper rifle with the Bolt action prefered. I believe this is also because you dont want the empty shell popping out and falling to the ground, even snipers today prefer bolt action guns so they can remove the spent shell silently.

I cannot pick a winner between the 2 becauee I have never fired them and I have heard good points about both. Only bad report about the Gewher 41/42/43.


I just love the FG42 because of its eccentricness and coolness value. They are so rare nowadays for a original. :-

http://www.fg42.net/fg42a.jpg

I know that reports were not favourable, but as a design to have a full power sniper rifle which doubled as a light machine gun, I dont think it would have been that bad. FIre it single shot from the shoulder, and use like a Bren Gun with the bipod down in full auto.

Still, that side mounted mag would pull the weight to the side and down. It was pretty much impossible to fire on full auto from the standing position, because it used a full size rifle cartridge. Imagine firing a Garand on full auto and trying to keep it steady.. Thats the FG42, Coolness factor 10 !

I have read from interviews of Richard Winters ( band of brothers fame) that one of his men use to modify the M1 Garand to be full-auto and he had one of those specials. So they did exist

Esel1964
06-22-2007, 03:12 AM
Originally posted by Gumtree:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Gotta be the Garand or the SVT-40.

The Gewher 43 was notoriously unreliable and went through many different versions.

None being entirely satisfactory.

I have heard stoies of both sides using each others weapons. Russians using MP40's because they were better made.
Germans using PPSh because of the hardy construction.

Its hard to get a clear picture of what was best.

The garand was very heavy I believe, the SVT didnt make a good sniper rifle with the Bolt action prefered. I believe this is also because you dont want the empty shell popping out and falling to the ground, even snipers today prefer bolt action guns so they can remove the spent shell silently.

I cannot pick a winner between the 2 becauee I have never fired them and I have heard good points about both. Only bad report about the Gewher 41/42/43.


I just love the FG42 because of its eccentricness and coolness value. They are so rare nowadays for a original. :-

http://www.fg42.net/fg42a.jpg

I know that reports were not favourable, but as a design to have a full power sniper rifle which doubled as a light machine gun, I dont think it would have been that bad. FIre it single shot from the shoulder, and use like a Bren Gun with the bipod down in full auto.

Still, that side mounted mag would pull the weight to the side and down. It was pretty much impossible to fire on full auto from the standing position, because it used a full size rifle cartridge. Imagine firing a Garand on full auto and trying to keep it steady.. Thats the FG42, Coolness factor 10 !

I have read from interviews of Richard Winters ( band of brothers fame) that one of his men use to modify the M1 Garand to be full-auto and he had one of those specials. So they did exist </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A full-auto M-1 would be a waste(except for room clearing),it'd be an early M-14 or caliber-wise it would be a BAR.(FAR too much muzzle climb in full-auto):while perfect in the semi-auto version,M1A.I'm a proud owner http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.
Still in use by the USN,and USN SEALs.

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i314/DMFesel/SEAL_with_M14.jpg

Badsight-
06-22-2007, 03:27 AM
Originally posted by ryankm:
The best semi auto rifle of WWII was ? CoD 2 was the first time i asked the same question

my own opinion was the M1 Gerand

accurate .

long range (for WW2 rifles) hit power

ability to use half empty clips

reliable

Bewolf
06-22-2007, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ryankm:
The best semi auto rifle of WWII was ? CoD 2 was the first time i asked the same question

my own opinion was the M1 Gerand

accurate .

long range (for WW2 rifles) hit power

ability to use half empty clips

reliable </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto, CoD2 there. Preffered the G43, though. Not as much hitting power, but more ammo and reloadable any time. The Garand got me killed several times just because of the relaod problems.

tigertalon
06-22-2007, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Rgr that mate, thanks for the info.

I am by no means an expert, just going by what I read/see.

I always seem to see Soviet snipers with the bolt action rifles. (forget the name)

ALso I definitely read about most snipers preferring bolt action because they can remove the shell silently. A pinging cartridge hitting the floor when you are up a tree or on a ledge is sometimes just enough to give you away after the shot.

That's true, but many snipers prefer auto load because they do not have to move after they shoot, not a millimeter, as you do with manual reload, and this reloading movement can also give you away nicely.

Blutarski2004
06-22-2007, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
???

I am confused...Where is the M1 Carbine in the choices...I don't see it, just the three listed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


I asked because he says Gewehr 43 compared to Garand, "also from my understanding a way more
powerful bullet." which is why I included cartridge sizes. The two should be about equal,
both have 500m effective range while M1 Carbine has 300m effective range (and much higher ROF).
So I think maybe somebody got M1's mixed up and would like to know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Not to hijack the thread, but I've always felt that the M1/M2 Carbine family never really got due credit. There is a strong argument for it being the first successful assault rifle (even if it wasn't actually designed with that function in mind) -

> Light weight.

> Intermediate power cartridge.

> Clip-fed (10, 15, and 30 round capacities IIRC).

> selective semi-auto & auto fire.

> Compact and easy to handle.

> Reliable.

- and it was in mass-production and widespread use from 1942.

Scorpion.233
06-22-2007, 06:47 AM
G43, eventhough it was a good rifle. Was horribly prone to jamming.

Therefor I voted for the SVT40.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2007, 07:20 AM
100% possible to make an M1 Garand automtic, if it is modified

But you're going to ruin the barrel in short order. That's not my opinion, by the way, that's what will happen

With full accesories, the Garand weighs a touch over 11 pounds. By itself, it's about 9.5 pounds

M1 Carbine weight: about 5 pounds by itself

KAR 98K by itself: about 9 pounds

ryankm
06-22-2007, 07:31 AM
The fact that I put the Garand instead of the carbine was from lack of knowledge on the two guns. I still would go with the G43. I am talking about late 1944 in terms for this weapon also. Not the G41.

M_Gunz
06-22-2007, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Esel1964:
Still in use by the USN,and USN SEALs.

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i314/DMFesel/SEAL_with_M14.jpg

While I was reading on the Garand for numbers, I see that the USN version is 7.62x51mm
as opposed to 7.62x63mm but then you don't need a 500m range rifle at sea do you?
And then I get to thinking "Which did the Marines have?" knowing that whatever it was
certainly served them well!

PaulV2007
06-22-2007, 08:57 AM
While I was reading on the Garand for numbers, I see that the USN version is 7.62x51mm
as opposed to 7.62x63mm but then you don't need a 500m range rifle at sea do you?
And then I get to thinking "Which did the Marines have?" knowing that whatever it was
certainly served them well!

A shortage of M14 rifles during the Vietnam war led the USN to convert some Garands to the standard 7.62 NATO round. The Marines and Army were equipped with other rifles by the time the Navy experimented with the "new" round.

I've seen a few posts regarding the ping prompting a charge by the enemy. This is largely a myth. First, in the din of battle this would be extremely difficult to hear. Second, it is not hard to reload an M1. I own several and can readily reload a clip in a matter of a few seconds. How far can the average person run from a dead stop in 3-4 seconds? Third, how likely is it that your entire unit would run empty at the same time especially when equipped with a mix of weapons?

Skunk_438RCAF
06-22-2007, 09:24 AM
FN FAL. Oh wait. You said WWII. Meh.

jarink
06-22-2007, 10:05 AM
I voted M-1. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

By the way, the best version of the M-1 was the Italian BM-59. (postwar, so it doesn't count)
http://www.reesesurplus.com/images/BM59%20w%20cb.jpg

waffen-79
06-22-2007, 11:44 AM
G-43 BE SURE

FPSOLKOR
06-22-2007, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
ALso I definitely read about most snipers preferring bolt action because they can remove the shell silently. A pinging cartridge hitting the floor when you are up a tree or on a ledge is sometimes just enough to give you away after the shot.

Someone isn't too bright... Compare pinging of a cartrige to the sound of gunshot...

Xiolablu3
06-22-2007, 12:27 PM
I know that DUHHHH. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I think you are not too bright to think someone would 'forget' about the gunshot when they actually wrote it in the sentence? Maybe you were joking?

I guess that ANY extra noise that a sniper makes is bad.

Anyway, dont ask me, it was REAL US sniper instructors at the US sniper school saying that about the empty cartridge.

They said that the bolt action was preferred because they could remove the empty cartridge manually and silently.

Now you decide why that is?

I gather that it is because when the first shot goes off, surviving enemies will look in a wide general direction of the sniper. If there is another noise, it helps to ID the snipers location.

However I am no sniper, so if you have a better reason?

Bewolf
06-22-2007, 12:28 PM
The first shot is pretty undefined. Ppl dont focus onto it until its too late. They know a general direction, but nothing more. Now follow up noise is different. It helps pinpoint the location. Thats why snipers never shoot twice from the same position.

Xiolablu3
06-22-2007, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
The first shot is pretty undefined. Ppl dont focus onto it until its too late. They know a general direction, but nothing more. Now follow up noise is different. It helps pinpoint the location. Thats why snipers never shoot twice from the same position.

Exactly what I thought when the Sniper teacher said it mate.

FPSOLKOR
06-22-2007, 01:15 PM
I've shot from SVD in RL and at some living target in a hostile territory and I was under sniper fire myself. Let me tell you one thing - after initial successful shot (and a sniper must be sure that first shot will be the only one needed) there would be NO ONE looking for a sniper next 30-50 seconds. Besides, I never shot from closer distance then 600 meters...

Xiolablu3
06-22-2007, 11:59 PM
Damn, that qualified sniper at the US SNiper school must be WRONG!#

FPSOLKOR knows better than these guys!

Please tell us, oh wise one, why do you almost always see snipers using bolt action rifles in this modern day where a semi auto can be as accurate as a bolt action??

From Wikipedia :-

'Since the spent cartridge has to be manually removed instead of automatically ejected, it helps a sniper remain better hidden, since not only is the cartridge not flung into the air and to the ground, possibly giving away the sniper's position, but the cartridge can be removed when most prudent, allowing the sniper to remain still until reloading is tactically feasible.'

Korolov1986
06-23-2007, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Damn, that qualified sniper at the US SNiper school must be WRONG!#

FPSOLKOR knows better than these guys!

Please tell us, oh wise one, why do you almost always see snipers using bolt action rifles in this modern day where a semi auto can be as accurate as a bolt action??

I don't know what FPSOLKOR's take on it is, but from what I recall, bolt action rifles are MUCH more accurate than most semi-auto designs. They're also easier to customize and cheaper to build.

Just take your usual Remington 700, put a scope on it, zero it in, and you've got a sniper rifle.

Xiolablu3
06-23-2007, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by Korolov1986:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Damn, that qualified sniper at the US SNiper school must be WRONG!#

FPSOLKOR knows better than these guys!

Please tell us, oh wise one, why do you almost always see snipers using bolt action rifles in this modern day where a semi auto can be as accurate as a bolt action??

I don't know what FPSOLKOR's take on it is, but from what I recall, bolt action rifles are MUCH more accurate than most semi-auto designs. They're also easier to customize and cheaper to build.

Just take your usual Remington 700, put a scope on it, zero it in, and you've got a sniper rifle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I BELIEVE this is no longer the case and Semi auto rifles are now as accurate as bolt action.

However I am no expert on guns, I am going from what I have read/seen on Documentries.

I just know that the US sniper school teacher told of how bolt actions were prefered for the reasons stated here :-

'Since the spent cartridge has to be manually removed instead of automatically ejected, it helps a sniper remain better hidden, since not only is the cartridge not flung into the air and to the ground, possibly giving away the sniper's position, but the cartridge can be removed when most prudent, allowing the sniper to remain still until reloading is tactically feasible.'

Skoshi Tiger
06-23-2007, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Please tell us, oh wise one, why do you almost always see snipers using bolt action rifles in this modern day where a semi auto can be as accurate as a bolt action??


I know that there are some very accurate semi-autos out there but I think the bolt action rifle still have the edge in accuracy.

These guys aren't stupid and in a specialist field they have a fairly big say in the equipment they use, so if there were better guns they would have them.

As an asside theres a good story about the Australian snipers in Somalia. Apparently they were guarding an airfield and there was a problem with feral dogs running about the airstrip. After the local population saw the Aussie snipers clear out the dogs with 400 metre+ head shots the locals figured the safest place around to set up camp away from the local militia's and gansters was right along the edges of the airstrip. So within days there was a village of shanty houses around the field. They were using the tired old Parker-Hale rifle that were on issue. I fairly sure we've re-equiped our snipers with something a bit more modern.

FPSOLKOR
06-23-2007, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Damn, that qualified sniper at the US SNiper school must be WRONG!#

FPSOLKOR knows better than these guys!

Please tell us, oh wise one, why do you almost always see snipers using bolt action rifles in this modern day where a semi auto can be as accurate as a bolt action??

From Wikipedia :-

'Since the spent cartridge has to be manually removed instead of automatically ejected, it helps a sniper remain better hidden, since not only is the cartridge not flung into the air and to the ground, possibly giving away the sniper's position, but the cartridge can be removed when most prudent, allowing the sniper to remain still until reloading is tactically feasible.'

Hmmm... I really don't know why you decided that I'm a wise guy and why I can speak for USN... But I used SVD (which currently is the only sniper rifle in Russian army. Tthere actually are some more modern designs, but they are not widespread) in combat situation... Note - I was appointed sniper, not a professional one. And if I'm still alive - it does prove something. Bolt rifles are not that cheaper, they do have better accuracy for the reason of generally bigger cartrige with more gunpowder in it and longer barrels (which is not good in combat). At a distanse of 600-800 meters there is almost no bullet spreading in a new (up untill 500 shots) SVD, and believe me, there is no fkung difference what will hit you in the head with a speed of 1000 or 700 meters per second... Use of the bolt rifles is good for benchrest or for use in special forces (quite similar), but not in all out combat, really. About removal of the cartrige - from my experience it is quite opposite - you do not move, so you are not noticed. The cartrige most often folls to the grass or to the ground, thus there is no sound (and even if there was - try to hear it at 100 meters distance). The only problem from automatic ejection that may arise is blinking in the sun, but for that reason we used matt cartriges and picked a proper position in relation to the sun (and by the way - we were forbidden to sit in the branches of trees, since it is too obvious sniper position). Main snipers enemys are MOVEMENT and REFLECTING OPTICS, the rest is not critical. But we are getting carried too far away from the main topic of this discussion.

Esel1964
06-23-2007, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Esel1964:
Still in use by the USN,and USN SEALs.

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i314/DMFesel/SEAL_with_M14.jpg

While I was reading on the Garand for numbers, I see that the USN version is 7.62x51mm
as opposed to 7.62x63mm but then you don't need a 500m range rifle at sea do you?
And then I get to thinking "Which did the Marines have?" knowing that whatever it was
certainly served them well! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Navy uses them to shoot the random anti-ship mine they may spot,etc.
The SEALs and Marines use them as sniper rifles and in extreme weather.

The earlier post ,where I said "caliber-wise",I meant the BAR and M-1 Garand were both .30-06.

The M1A/M14 is 7.62x51 (.308),because of NATO 'uniformity'.
These rifles are used at Camp Perry in 1000 yd. comp regularly,and perform well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M_Gunz
06-23-2007, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
The first shot is pretty undefined. Ppl dont focus onto it until its too late. They know a general direction, but nothing more. Now follow up noise is different. It helps pinpoint the location. Thats why snipers never shoot twice from the same position.

That is known also to poachers.
1st shot, game warden knows only there was a shot.
2nd shot, he knows the direction.

What can I say, some families were living in the country during the Great Depression.

JG52MadAdler
06-23-2007, 04:00 AM
There are a few reasons why bolt actions are more reliable and accurate than semi autos.

1 Gas loss (Semi auto use some of the gas to work the action)
2 Free floating barrels (Not possible in a semi auto) and are more accurate
3 Strength of the action, More powder = more distance. This is where the extra accuracy comes in.
Bolt actions are more stealthy in world where nothing can be left to chance.

Esel1964
06-23-2007, 04:10 AM
But,the subject was semi's.

If we're going bolt action WW2 issue age,I'll call a tie between the Springfield '03,and the Mauser K98.

Hydra454
06-23-2007, 04:59 AM
Why hasn't anyone mentioned the Mosin-Nagant?I own two of these rifles,and I have to say that they are solid battle rifles that match up pretty well against their contemperies.Heck,I've even used them for hunting and I'm pretty sure the deer I bagged with them would say they never knew what hit them...Thats if they could talk...And were still alive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Blutarski2004
06-23-2007, 06:09 AM
Solkor's comment re use of matte cartidges was very interesting (although I'd still hate for a casing to be pinging around among rocks and boulders ......

Maybe we should set up a separate sniper / sniper rifle thread.

Hawgdog
06-23-2007, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
this modern day where a semi auto can be as accurate as a bolt action??



As a custom gun maker for the last 15 years with my creds spanning the US,I've done work for police\swat depts and snipers- and those insane ultra long range varmint shooters...that is completely wrong. While there may well be advantages to a semi-auto in some circumstances, the bolt gun rules the accuracy dept.
As far as manually removing the spent cartridge, the guys I know who do it, say they want to take the said empty with them. Not have it chucked into the tall grass to be found by "them" later.
I'll gladly argue the point into the dirt too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Skoshi Tiger
06-23-2007, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by Esel1964:
But,the subject was semi's.


Hey this tread is OT anyway. So we can do what we want with it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Originally posted by Esel1964:

If we're going bolt action WW2 issue age,I'll call a tie between the Springfield '03,and the Mauser K98.

Without having used either of the two guns you mentioned, I'ld put forward (again) a third, SMLE Lee Enfield .303
Why?
1. Accurate enough for the job it was design for.
2. Rugged as Hell!
3. Super smooth action, fast follow up shots. (The average soldier was expected to be able to fire 15 aimed shots in a minute and hit a target at 200yrds , The record was something like 38 with all shots hiting a 20 inch target at 300yrds in one minute! That included reloading using charger clips. At one stage during WWI the germans complained about the British arming their troops with somany automatic weapons!)

4. They look good especially with the 18 inch bayonet attached!
5. I'm Australian and the guns were used in front line service from about 1907 right up to and including the Korean war. Theres a lot of history in these rifles.

Point of interest
Australian SMLE's were built at Lithgow NSW and the machinery they were manufactured with was supplied by Colt from the USA.

LStarosta
06-23-2007, 08:36 AM
Adler has it right on the fact on the count of no gas-loss and free-floating barrel and overall better vibration characteristics of bolt action sniper rifles making them more accurate.


Also +1 on the SMLE. Amazing rifle, probably the smoothest action I have ever cycled, with the only thing coming close was a sporterized KAR98k. This is also the reason why I will disagree with whoever said the Mosin Nagant was 'as good as its contemporaries'. The Mosin Nagant was as crude a bolt action rifle as you could build. The action is very heavy and difficult to cycle especially with the straight bolt handle. Also, the safety on that rifle is a JOKE. I cannot see anybody ever using the safety in a tactical situation, and anyone who ever used a MN can confirm this. Contrast this to the handy and easy to use safety on the 98k, and you see why the Mosin Nagant was in many ways a step behind most other bolt action rifles at the time. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice rifle, and its simplicity has a quality of its own. They can be very rugged and accurate, with the Finnish and Polish models rivaling the accuracy of many modern-made bolt action rifles readily available on the civilian market, but in terms of engineering and ergonomics, the Mosin Nagant definitely lacks a lot.

KG26_Oranje
06-23-2007, 09:04 AM
vote for M1 garand.

I used it myself in the army and it was the best semi auto matic rifle that i expriance.
From 50 meters till 1500 meters i was able to hit targets wihtout any help mounted on it, after 1500 i started to mis targets (moving or staticks targets).
It feels great to and handling in the field was a lot behter than the standard FN Fal that we used in army to.
For the ather WW2 rifles i cant say if the are great or not becose i have never handle tham.
Exept for brouwning .50 heavy machine gun and FN cold pistol and bren machine gun.
- point on the Garand was the reloading , only 8 bullets and top reloading compare to the FN fal that had more than 8 bullets and buttem reloading.
Maintanace was a minus point to, it needs more atantion than uzi , fal or ahter rifles.
Some small parts on it that was easy to loose if u was in the field.

S!

M_Gunz
06-23-2007, 04:57 PM
Is it time to throw in SMG's and MP's yet? My choice is Thompson with clip and from what I
hear, the Greasegun was possibly the worst. Perhaps the German 1944 Trench Broom was best
(I think so) but they weren't there like the Thompson was until late war.

Comparing late war improved anything, it should be held to a higher standard and then win.

Skoshi Tiger
06-23-2007, 08:39 PM
+1 for the Thompson. They're well made (No nasty pressing yuk), Well designed and in most settings and when well maintained reliable. Also the 45ACP has a fairly decent punch.

One of the men in my dads battalion (2nd/16th AIF)by all accounts used one in the Kokoda track as a 100-round carbine. His fellow soldiers were impressed he could squeeze off single shots. At the short range at which they enguaged the Japanese, the 45ACP round were as good as anything.

In the tropics the thompson did have maintenance issues so for my number 2 choice i'ld go with the Owen Sub-machine gun. A nasty war time designed gun, but it was designed for jungle conditions and any oaf could keep one going.

LStarosta
06-23-2007, 08:46 PM
Thompson was also a logistical nightmare. It was very expensive and difficult to produce relative to other submachine guns such as the MP40. Overall, I'd rather have the sturdy and well built Thompson than a sheet metal MP40, but sometimes quantity and low-cost are more important than quality. Some people also say the Thompson was too heavy; I think it's a good thing because of reduced recoil and muzzle climb.

LW_lcarp
06-23-2007, 11:19 PM
Seen it mentioned a couple times in this thread about a bolt action using a shell with more powder then one for a semiauto. Now the M1 and Springfield used the same round. Nothing different. The same bullet was used in the BAR.

You go buy a box of ammo at the local store for you rifle it doesnt care if it being fed into a semi or bolt action.

Its mostly the guy pulling the trigger that will determine the rifles accuracy but if I had a choice Id take a Bolt action.


Hydra454 I have a Finnish built Mosin M-27 built in 1930 and have to say its a very fun rifle to shoot. And its accuracy at 300 meters is very good.

Skoshi Tiger
06-24-2007, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by LW_lcarp:
Seen it mentioned a couple times in this thread about a bolt action using a shell with more powder then one for a semiauto. Now the M1 and Springfield used the same round. Nothing different. The same bullet was used in the BAR.

You go buy a box of ammo at the local store for you rifle it doesnt care if it being fed into a semi or bolt action.



The ammunition that you buy from a gun shop need to work safely in all guns made for that caliber. A comany like Winchester isn't going to sell ammunition that could damage or explode in a gun.

Also if you run a 'Hot' loads through an autoloader you end up with all sorts of jams and miss-feeds. Military firearms are made to a specification. Thats why your military ammo doesn't change all that often.

Now lets take the .303 cartridge and the guns that shoot them. The SMLE has a rear locking action and its not recomended to over load it. The P14 uses a mauser like front locking action and can stand greater pressure. So hand loaders routinely bump up the round they fire through them to get increased muzzle velocities and braging rights! (Others, like myself, tend to under load my target loads to make it more plesant to shoot and get some more life out of an old gun!)

I'm sure you'ld find it's similar with the 30-06 rifles you've mentioned


Originally posted by LW_lcarp:

Its mostly the guy pulling the trigger that will determine the rifles accuracy but if I had a choice Id take a Bolt action.


I agree with you 100% there.

Whats 'THE BEST' rifle. The one you've got your hands on at the moment. As the person using it you've got to come to terms with its limitations and use it to your best advantage.

Dagnabit
06-25-2007, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by Esel1964:
Garand-hands down.

It would've been even better if when the clip ejected,it didn't ring like a "here I am and I've got to reload" alarm.

Some of our boys used the trick of keeping an empty garand clip handy and throwing it down to encourage enemys to expose themselves to a freshly loaded rifle.

Dag

Dagnabit
06-25-2007, 11:58 PM
Garand ....nothing else was close

Kurfurst__
06-26-2007, 01:56 AM
I'd go for the Garand, I haven't used it myself, but pretty much everybody who did camew in contact with it prasied it highly, giving high marks for the sights and the rifle itself - and that circle isn't limited to the usual fanbois with a predictable opinion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BTW the Gewehr 43 as far as I know was just a Wehrmacht rip-off of the Soviet Tokarev rifle, which as far as I believe was a pretty good piece and formed the basis for a number of other successfull designs, esp. it's gas piston design. So again, we're left wondered how come the G43 was 'unreliable', whereas the Tokarev semi auto rifle was not.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Perhaps it is getting mixed up in the minds of some with the G 41, a Walther design iirc introduced first but was not a very successfull semiauto due to poor balance and the sensitive nature of it's gas piston, that collected the gas at the muzzle for some theoretical considerations, which proved to be inpractical in the field.

PS : BTW I wondered why the Brits never had any semi autos developed in WW2, as appearantly all other combatants did? France, Italy, Germany, USSR, the US first and foremost all had effective semi auto rifles.. I wondering because of WW2OL, cast balance etc. If there are semi autos introduced at any time into that sim, I wondered what the UK would get, I'd hate to see having something odd like a replacement Garand.

Aaron_GT
06-26-2007, 02:37 AM
PS : BTW I wondered why the Brits never had any semi autos developed in WW2, as appearantly all other combatants did?

The development of what was effectively an assault rifle for the Royal Armored Corps was dropped to concentrate on the Bren. There were only so many things that could be done to rearm against the German threat. Similarly the EM2, which would have been a very early bullpup design, like the SA-80, was dropped at the end of the 1950s.

In terms of history, the Mexican army and Danish Navy were the first to use semi auto rifles as standard around 1900. An Italian inventor was the first to demonstrate an assault rifle around 1895. So on that basis everyone was pretty late in terms of adopting semi auto guns in WW2.

Kurfurst__
06-26-2007, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The development of what was effectively an assault rifle for the Royal Armored Corps was dropped to concentrate on the Bren.

Any links to that development, Aaron ? I hope you don't mean that blasted Faquar-Hill (sp?) ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

ryankm
06-26-2007, 06:37 AM
Although I have never fired any of these weapons, my favorite bolt action rifle is the K98k. My favorite smg is a tie between PPSH and the Mp40.

FHMax3
01-13-2017, 02:33 PM
What assault rifles?


I will go with the Garand. It's good to know that I have a weapon that actually works. Plus it won the war and everything.

It did not win the war. The war was won by the No1 SMLE, No4, Mosin-nagant, and Svt-40. You American people think you were the main contributors. No you are wrong It was the Brits and Russians. They fought and had more losses than you. You only gave equipment, and D-day, which you have been postponing for 3 years. Your cites were never bombed and you did not encounter enemy tanks in the streets. Hate the M1 Garand because I own one and the sights and it's size outweigh it's good sides.

Berg417
01-29-2017, 01:11 AM
It did not win the war. The war was won by the No1 SMLE, No4, Mosin-nagant, and Svt-40. You American people think you were the main contributors. No you are wrong It was the Brits and Russians. They fought and had more losses than you. You only gave equipment, and D-day, which you have been postponing for 3 years. Your cites were never bombed and you did not encounter enemy tanks in the streets. Hate the M1 Garand because I own one and the sights and it's size outweigh it's good sides.


LOL! Your inferiority complex is showing.