What was the crappiest bolt action rifle during WWII?

My brother has an old guerilla warfare booklet that was initially published in Great Britain, 1940. The book writer was the chief instructor of the commando school in Scotland. In every single artistic drawing that showed a commando/guerilla fighter with a rifle, an M1 rifle was drawn into the picture. And not any other rifle. Funny huh??
I think that's called projection.
 
Are you certain that it was a Garand and not a Pederson? Vickers did licence the Pederson for local manufacture and the British military was seriously considering its adoption at one point.

In 1940, though, it is difficult to see that. The US was firmly neutral and Britain was signing a contract for a million Number 4s from Savage. There was NO excess production capacity for the Garand, which is why the Marines supplied themselves with Johnsons for a period... two years later. USMC, USAAF and US Army formations in the Pacific tried to stop the Japanese with 1903s. The Philippines tried it with their M-1917s. I am certain that if there had been excess production of the M-1 rifle, they might have sent a few to the only war they had at the time!
 
J996 said:
The crappiest bolt action rifle of WW2? You guys must be really bored today.

None were crappy as their respective designs had been adapted from WWI and improved upon over a substantial period of time. They were however ALL OUTDATED and had no business as the front line infantry weapon on a WW2 battlefield.

America was the only nation that got it right by issuing a modern self loading design as general issue in the M1 Garand. Russia and Germany at least made an effort to field the SVT40 and the G43 in signifficant numbers. Everyone else was stuck back in WW1 including the Brits.

Conclusion: By WW2 all bolt actions "sucked".
Click to expand...

Bolt-action rifles are not outdated even by todays standards. It all depends on the situations. After certain ranges semi-autos no longer have the advantage. Even within certain ranges they don't have much of a advantage as it is more about the tactics being used then the speed of the firearm. eg. rapid fire for our military is currently 1 shot every 5 seconds, I don't know about you but I can definitely do that with most the bolt-actions I have used.
 
Vandoo66, the Mat 49 is no bolt action rifle! :)

Nobody had better post vids of Jesse Ventura and his rigged carcano test.
52800232.jpg
:p
 
Last edited:
smellie said:
Are you certain that it was a Garand and not a Pederson? Vickers did licence the Pederson for local manufacture and the British military was seriously considering its adoption at one point.

In 1940, though, it is difficult to see that. The US was firmly neutral and Britain was signing a contract for a million Number 4s from Savage. There was NO excess production capacity for the Garand, which is why the Marines supplied themselves with Johnsons for a period... two years later. USMC, USAAF and US Army formations in the Pacific tried to stop the Japanese with 1903s. The Philippines tried it with their M-1917s. I am certain that if there had been excess production of the M-1 rifle, they might have sent a few to the only war they had at the time!
Click to expand...

No, not a Pederson, the gas cylinder was a dead give away. And I am not saying it makes any sense only what they wanted to have. After all these were the elite forces that Churchill sent to raid occupied ports across the Channel.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
The Garand was a decent rifle but not the be all, end all. Many WW2 marines preferred the Springfield and said so at the time of wide spread Garand issue to the USMC. Marines pride themselves on marksmanship and the Springfield WAS more accurate than the Garand, no question. I wouldn't put too much stock in Patton's comments on the Garand, the guy was completely overrated as a commander, a tactician and as a leader. The Americans had much better than Patton. Americans made heroes out of Patton and MacArthur and neither stacked up well against the competition.
 
An interesting discussion in view of the fact that most of the killing in WW2 was done with MGs, mortars and artillery. As pointed out, all of the WW2 bolt action infantry rifles were refinements of basic WW1 or earlier designs. All of these designs, incl Mausers, Springfields, M98s, Mosin-Nagants, Enfields, Carcanos, etc, and the cartridges for them, were the products of a lot of R&D effort and all were acceptably effective under field conditions.

The only truly advanced infantry rifle which was fielded in large numbers in WW2 was the M1 Garand. It was reliable, powerful, and accurate and could generate a high degree of firepower. This was a good thing given the limitations of the M1918A1 BAR which was the squad automatic weapon for the US infantry, and which was a generation behind more advanced designs like the BREN and MG34/42.
 
Honestly when it comes to ww2 era bolt rifles, one is splitting hairs when considering differences.

Some may have a few more rounds, some may be slightly more accurate, some may have slightly better sights.....

But really, effectiveness wise, they all go bang reliably and accurately, and your target will not know the difference.
 
J996 said:
The crappiest bolt action rifle of WW2? You guys must be really bored today.

None were crappy as their respective designs had been adapted from WWI and improved upon over a substantial period of time. They were however ALL OUTDATED and had no business as the front line infantry weapon on a WW2 battlefield.

America was the only nation that got it right by issuing a modern self loading design as general issue in the M1 Garand. Russia and Germany at least made an effort to field the SVT40 and the G43 in signifficant numbers. Everyone else was stuck back in WW1 including the Brits.

Conclusion: By WW2 all bolt actions "sucked".
Click to expand...

Thats what I said 70 posts ago!!!
 
Seeing as none of us were there, this whole discussion is just a bunch of armchair quarterbacking.
 
The K31 shouldn't be on a list of combat rifles. I suspect the worst real battle rifle was the French Lebel due to its tube mag and age. Although most French designed rifles weren't great. The MAS36 wasn't much better.
 
It is pretty obvious that you know nothing about the MAS36 and any i suspect any other french rifle actually. The MAS 36 was a pretty good rifle for the time, not better than most, but as good as many others. You must try one! Its a great little rifle. The Chassepot was a great rifle by 1870 and ahead of its time. The Lebel had a magazine problem, I totally agree. The Berthier wasnt that bad and made it trough 2 world wars (there's no horror stories about them, no mechanical flaws, and the troups liked them) and it was efficient despite the horrific conditions of WW1... Granted it wasnt as great as the SMLE, but it did the job... Annnnd the MAS 36 was actually a great rifle, any simple research will tell you that. I had the chance to get one a while ago and always had fun with it. It is made like a tank, very sturdy, nice rear sight, good grip, not too long, awesome handling. Dont get fooled by the french bashing when it comes to military history and/or firearms... Read, read, read, and not only from anglo-saxons sources. As for the candidate for the worst rifle of WW2, I woudl have to say the Berthier, the Mosin 91 and the 91/30, and maybe the long version of the Carcanos. Why those ? Simply because of their overall lenght... Most of these loooong rifles were designed before or during WW1 and werent adequate compared to the shorter 98ks, NO4 and SMLE, MAS36 etc etc.
 
I own and shoot most of the rifles being discussed here. I too would not bad mouth the MAS 36. Mine is in very good condition and I shoot it once in a while. Good accuracy with both cast and jacketed bullet reloads. I've never shot (or seen) issue ammo for these rifles. Windage adjustments are a pain as replacement apertures are used to make the change. Got mine dialed in now thanks to my nephew who was able to locate the one I needed (Thanks Frank).
Rifle has no safety which is not an issue for range plinking. Wouldn't be my first choice as a WWII bolt battle rifle but certainly wouldn't be my last either.
 
Last edited:
I could not agree more! This being said, my favorite rifle of ww1 would be the SMLE, and for WW2 it would be the Garand and the NO4.
 
Thus againsolution: whethe quieturns that under insolence dother there's turn awry, and the wish'd. There's deat that merit off trave, ther beary life; and, but thousand, by a consummative shocks the quieturn no mortune, or in that undispriz'd long, the shuffles coil, and the sleep to die, that is nobles of ther 'tis not that undisprises the in the wills bear, that that sling a coil, and arrows of the with a sea of the name with when he who would fardelay, to take cast of retural shocks that sleep;

larrysmith said:
So what was the worst rifle in combat during WWII?
Mosin?
Mauser?
Lee Enfield?
Springfield?
Swiss K31?

I would go best to worst:

K31
Lee Enfield
Mauser
Springfield
Mosin

I find the mosin to be to light for its large cartridge.
Click to expand...
 
I would think that to the illiterate peasant from the Caucasus or the Mongolian tribesman drafted into the Soviet army that a Mosin Nagant rifle was probably a modern technological marvel as would have been a Carcano to a villager from a poverty stricken area in central Italy.
 
thought the italian mann-carcano was the worst ever ......didnt it have a slightly larger bore to reduce pressure and wearing out the bore/barell ?

after that id say mosin nagant.. .... kinda...... have owned 2 of them ...carbine and a sniper ..... couldnt get them to shoot.......but thats only 2 that ive held ..... then again maybe the finns had em right in their modifications ........dont know much about that ........ but soviet snipers also had huge kill scores in ww2 that mainly used those .....but again sovoet accounts are such full of SHIP who knows for real..... i do know germany s number 2 sniper in the war favoured a mosin early on and had great success with it....sepp allenbreger ......went back home for leave/training and had very naiviley notched his rifle with his kills and when the sniper he left it with got captured the russians did some bad stuff to him....sepp didnt notch his rifles anymore .......... so i dunno , guess a good one is fine .....or maybe the design was good but the barrells crap for the most part .....
 
Just to stir the pot, I think the "Swedish Mausers" saw more WWII combat than the Swiss K-31's.....:stirthepot2:


BTW, I do not consider the "Swedish Mauser" to be a crappy rifle/carbine.
 
The carcanos, except for the m41, have progressive rifling in order to reduce wear and stabilize the bullets. The bore diameters are commonly 268" as built but commercial ammo, for some reason, uses 264" bullets.

Hand loading makes them incredibly accurate. One article I found for an Italian shooting match with an m91 versus a garand, the m91 came out on top.
 
People think SMLE's are garbage for similar reasons why people think any other military bolt action rifle is garbage. One thing, the armourers from the 1930s are not doing much more work on these. People want point and click & are upset when they find they can't plug & play etc.

USSR firearms & Axis firearms are the flavour of the week in some quarters - anything else doesn't even rate a mention. :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom