Best Infantry rifle of WWII - Historum

Trevor Lane · April 23rd, 2009, 05:04 PM

Springfield - US .30-06 bolt action

Garand - US .30-06 semiauto

Mauser Karabiner 98 Kurz - German 7.92mm bolt action

Mosin-Nagant - Soviet 7.62x54mmR bolt action

Type 38 rifle Arisaka - Japanese 6.5x50mm bolt action

Carcano M1891 - Italian 7.35x51mm bolt action

Lee Enfield - Brittish .303 Bolt Action

What say you???

I would say the Garand. Much like the Stoner (now the AR-15/M-16/M-4), it was thought of as a "Mickey Mouse Piece of sh*#" by many in WWII. Despite this it proved to be nearly as accurateas the Springfield, but could deliver 2 more rounds in much less time on the target and my Hero, Gen. George Patton, called it "the greatest single battle implement ever devised by man."

coyotelaughs · April 24th, 2009, 01:41 AM

While the Garrand is clearly the king as the standard infantry rifle the mp43 was probably the most advanced gun used during WWII and was the model for the AK47 one of the most iconic weapons of our time.

Trevor Lane · April 24th, 2009, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyotelaughs

While the Garrand is clearly the king as the standard infantry rifle the mp43 was probably the most advanced gun used during WWII and was the model for the AK47 one of the most iconic weapons of our time.

If you open it up to all guns, this would be my choice - the M2 .50 Cal Machine Gun. It is the heavy MG used by the US to this day.

**Richard Stanbery** · April 24th, 2009, 06:28 PM

I voted for the Enfield because it is so pretty. That one in the caption seems to be a really old one?

Trevor Lane · April 24th, 2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Stanbery

I voted for the Enfield because it is so pretty. That one in the caption seems to be a really old one?

Yup, it looks like it is an original WWII era piece and not a replica or restoration.

**Richard Stanbery** · April 24th, 2009, 08:03 PM

I mean, it looks like an old Lee Enfield Mk1 from around the turn of the century. The SMLE was a later variant.

**Gile na Gile** · April 24th, 2009, 08:14 PM

If I was going to blow a hole in some idiot's head - out of that lot I'd pick the Mauser.

Trevor Lane · April 24th, 2009, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gile na Gile

If I was going to blow a hole in some idiot's head - out of that lot I'd pick the Mauser.

Yup, the Mauser certainly would do that.

**Richard Stanbery** · April 24th, 2009, 08:36 PM

Well, the Lee Enfield had a 10 round magazine, which was big for the time. It has the famous Lee Enfield short action, which is very fast and smooth. So smooth in fact, that a shooter can work the bolt without taking his eye off the target.

It is a wonderful bolt action rifle, and the safety catch lends itself to patrol action and snap shooting. The sights on the Mk IV #1, for example, are easier to acquire targets with than the Mauser.

And, its just so darn pretty! As an added bonus, you dont get that little "tingaling" sound of a clip leaving an empty magazine like you did with the Garrand. There was a little trick that a knowing shooter could do to overcome that, but it was still a handicap in some times.

And, with the Enfield, the bullets are a part of the weapon. Weighted in the back (sometimes using aluminum or even wood tips inserts), the bullets would tumble and keyhole violently upon hitting flesh, where the more stable Mauser 7.92 or so rounds didnt tumble so much. Tumbling bullets means dynamic wound channels. Balistic point to the Enfield.But that is a stop gap thing.

You see, back before WWI broke out, the .303 had a bad reputation for not doing as much damage as it should have. That was when the rear weighted bullets came into being, from experience learned in the many colonial wars. By WWI, the .303 was a pretty well developed round for war. It was an older round (1880s) but still kept current by the British ordanace depts tinkering tricks.

Of course, the .30-06 round from the Garrand needs no little tricks. It just makes mush out of whatever it hits, period. While the .303 has no noticable recoil (to me), the .30-06 is a bit punishing. You better really mean it when you shoot one of those in a modern civilian rifle. The heavy service weight of the Garrand helped, but it still had some kick to it. But then again, it was semi-auto, which made the Enfield rather dated.

I dont think that I saw the SVT-40 mentioned here. It could have been the Soviet Garrand.

**Gile na Gile** · April 24th, 2009, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Stanbery

Well, the Lee Enfield had a 10 round magazine, which was big for the time. It has the famous Lee Enfield short action, which is very fast and smooth. So smooth in fact, that a shooter can work the bolt without taking his eye off the target.

It is a wonderful bolt action rifle, and the safety catch lends itself to patrol action and snap shooting. The sights on the Mk IV #1, for example, are easier to acquire targets with than the Mauser.

And, its just so darn pretty! As an added bonus, you dont get that little "tingaling" sound of a clip leaving an empty magazine like you did with the Garrand. There was a little trick that a knowing shooter could do to overcome that, but it was still a handicap in some times.

And, with the Enfield, the bullets are a part of the weapon. Weighted in the back (sometimes using aluminum or even wood tips), the bullets would tumble and keyhole violently upon hitting flesh, where the more stable Mauser 7.92 or so rounds didnt tumble so much. Tumbling bullets means dynamic wound channels. Balistic point to the Enfield.But that is a stop gap thing.

You see, back before WWI broke out, the .303 had a bad reputation for not doing as much damage as it should have. That was when the rear weighted bullets came into being, from experience learned in the many colonial wars. By WWI, the .303 was a pretty well developed round for war. It was an older round (1880s) but still kept current by the British ordanace depts tinkering tricks.

Of course, the .30-06 round from the Garrand needs no little tricks. It just makes mush out of whatever it hits, period.

Good post, Richard.