Best Rifle of WW2, Par Deux
- Thread starter Alonzo
- Start date
Potatos, smellie knows exactly what he is talking about.
Do you suppose that if the .303 had been brand new, either a SMLE, or, one of the so-called Irish No.4 Mk.2s, the observations would have been any different?
Various comments have been made about superior No.4 sights. Bulk of production originally had the simple Mk.ll sight. It is superior?
I cannot think of any bolt action service rifle issued in quantity during the 20th century that was not acceptably reliable, useable and sufficiently accurate, and that includes the generally despised Carcano. One rifle may have this feature, another, that one. They all worked.
Do you suppose that if the .303 had been brand new, either a SMLE, or, one of the so-called Irish No.4 Mk.2s, the observations would have been any different?
Various comments have been made about superior No.4 sights. Bulk of production originally had the simple Mk.ll sight. It is superior?
I cannot think of any bolt action service rifle issued in quantity during the 20th century that was not acceptably reliable, useable and sufficiently accurate, and that includes the generally despised Carcano. One rifle may have this feature, another, that one. They all worked.
Pathfinder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northeast Ontario
- The allies had MG's too... im sure if you would ask Hans (although he will never admit it) he would have liked to have another 5 rounds before having to fumble for another stripper clip.
- About the magazines....Enfield mags were hardly ever lost since they were top loaded from stripper clips just like the K-98 nor were there many problems with jammed cartridges
- If any guns blew up it was likely caused by an obstruction not because of a weak action, the No.4 mk1 was not the strongest but strong enough for was it was intended to do.
Obviously my vote goes to the No.4 Mk1 , not sure if Hans agrees but then again Hans didnt' win the war.......
tiriaq,
Even the simple Mk2 sights on the Enfields with 2 elevations to select from were better then the Mausers leaf sight attached to the barrel of the rifle.
Dimitri
That is an example of opinion, not fact. As it happens, I much prefer any aperture sight over any open sight, for vision related reasons. A vet I know was unhappy to exchange his SMLE for a No.4, because he much preferred the open sights on the No.1.
Actually, my biggest compliant with Mauser like sights is the fact they are attached to the barrel, and do not feel as natural as a rear sight attached to the receiver (at least to me). Mind you Aperature sights are nicer yes.
Dimitri
This little "test" I refer to was made in 1965, when you could buy a brand-spankin' new Kar98k for $27.50. It was marked dou 44, plywood stock (alright, guys, Original Tego Patent), cup-type buttplate and I had to clean the grease out of it. It came out of a shipment that came in from Israel, still in WW2 wooden crates of (if I remember right) 10 rifles. The SMLE was a 1918 Enfield, all matching, that had been beaten around a biut but hardly fired at all. I thought it was a good test of rifles in roughly comparable states of condition.
I was quite surprised when the Mauser locked up solid after less than 40 rounds.
Never did it again, mind you, as rifles started getting expensive.
Ammo used was Berdan-primed Greek 7.92x57, 1952 mfg, and some real hot .303 loads stamped SR 44 8z.
Come out to some of the WW2 simulation shoots we have at Virden and Shilo and you'll really appreciate those 10-round magazines.
Quite agree: most of the rifles of the period had something good going for them, enough so that the ordnance board for an entire country could be prodded into adopting them. The Carcano, for example, is widely derided as a sorry POS....... but have you ever really TRIED ONE OUT, using ammunition which has the correct diameter of bullet???? I certainly do not want to stand in front of one, and that is the test: guys stood in front of them for 6 years. Likely, better men than me.
I was quite surprised when the Mauser locked up solid after less than 40 rounds.
Never did it again, mind you, as rifles started getting expensive.
Ammo used was Berdan-primed Greek 7.92x57, 1952 mfg, and some real hot .303 loads stamped SR 44 8z.
Come out to some of the WW2 simulation shoots we have at Virden and Shilo and you'll really appreciate those 10-round magazines.
Quite agree: most of the rifles of the period had something good going for them, enough so that the ordnance board for an entire country could be prodded into adopting them. The Carcano, for example, is widely derided as a sorry POS....... but have you ever really TRIED ONE OUT, using ammunition which has the correct diameter of bullet???? I certainly do not want to stand in front of one, and that is the test: guys stood in front of them for 6 years. Likely, better men than me.
Let' not fight......
Guy's
Come we can hash this out until the cow's come home. They all made the grade.....It's the person firing it that counts....Once there was a guy called the panzerslob he started alot of these little battles....Have fun and shoot!
That's what I say.....There all good.....
Guy's
Come we can hash this out until the cow's come home. They all made the grade.....It's the person firing it that counts....Once there was a guy called the panzerslob he started alot of these little battles....Have fun and shoot!
That's what I say.....There all good.....
I had never thought much about Carcanos, one way or the other, until a 91/41 came along so reasonably priced that I couldn't turn it down. Nice shape, good bore. Dies, chargers, some PP ammunition, brass and bullets cost somewhat more than the rifle. The loading system is at least as smooth as an M-1; the rifle is accurate, smooth cycling, reasonably light, has modest recoil, ballistic performance is similar to the current experimental mid sized cartridges.
I have had really decent results with the Remington bulk 140 6.5mm slug in my '41. Most Carcs seem to need a fatter slug, but this one is nice and tight, also standard rifling instead of gain-twist.
Hard rifle to beat, really.
Hard rifle to beat, really.
Having fired thousands of rounds from .303 and M98s over the years I would prefer to have a No.4 in any battlefield situation. The magazine is no issue as reloads are done with stripper clips. The action seems to be faster and smoother than the M98, and the sights on the No.4 are quicker to use and seem to give me better accuracy. Also the longer sight radius of the No.4 seems to be an advantage as well. Jams also seem to be easier to clear, if they happen at all.
The M98 is a not so distant second choice.
And my favorite semi auto would the the Garand...
The M98 is a not so distant second choice.
And my favorite semi auto would the the Garand...
1. No4Mk1 or No1Mk3 Lee Enfield
2. M17 / P14 Enfield
3. K98k
4. Mosin Nagant
5. 1941 Carcano
6. Arisaka
7. 1903 Springfield
I do not count the Swiss K31 nor the Swedish M96/M38 as they came from countries too cowardly to take a side and therefore I do not consider them to be battle rifles in the truest sence regardless of accuracy or design.
Additionally I do not really consider the 2-piece firing pin of the 1903 to be appriopriate for the intended purpose. This might be appropriate for semi-auto's but not a bolt action. Too many moving parts and a rifle with very suspect receiver hardness. Over-all this rifle was an incomplete and inferior copy of the Mauser action. Springfield was actually taken to court by Mauser over patent infringement and lost. Its not even an original design and yet was inferior. Personally I have never understood what all the fuss has been about other than the fact is was "American". USA #1
At least the Carnaco and Arisaka were consistently reliable and acurate.
The K98k is so so so reliable even when immersed in mud, blood and goop. Accuracy is the same as an enfield but the sights are areal draw back. Not to mention the effective speed o fthe action. The bolt is just too long and the #### on open made it difficult to open with a dirty chamber.
The M17 / P14 was at least #### on closing and had good peep sights. The Brits knew how to make a good battle rifle - no doubt about it.
Remember that this is about the best bolt action battle rifle. There is only one winner. The Lee Enfield. It is still today the best bolt action battle rifle ever devised by a human being.
Having said all of this once the M1 Garand design was put into service the bolt action took a serious second place. Thanks to a Canadian by the name of John C. Garand. Too bad a rimmed cartridge was not possible in this rifle. The Yanks new a good rifle when they saw it - They needed it.
I'm adding this to thisd thread in the hope that new - young shooters will pay attention. I am starting to get tired of answering this question.
2. M17 / P14 Enfield
3. K98k
4. Mosin Nagant
5. 1941 Carcano
6. Arisaka
7. 1903 Springfield
I do not count the Swiss K31 nor the Swedish M96/M38 as they came from countries too cowardly to take a side and therefore I do not consider them to be battle rifles in the truest sence regardless of accuracy or design.
Additionally I do not really consider the 2-piece firing pin of the 1903 to be appriopriate for the intended purpose. This might be appropriate for semi-auto's but not a bolt action. Too many moving parts and a rifle with very suspect receiver hardness. Over-all this rifle was an incomplete and inferior copy of the Mauser action. Springfield was actually taken to court by Mauser over patent infringement and lost. Its not even an original design and yet was inferior. Personally I have never understood what all the fuss has been about other than the fact is was "American". USA #1
At least the Carnaco and Arisaka were consistently reliable and acurate.
The K98k is so so so reliable even when immersed in mud, blood and goop. Accuracy is the same as an enfield but the sights are areal draw back. Not to mention the effective speed o fthe action. The bolt is just too long and the #### on open made it difficult to open with a dirty chamber.
The M17 / P14 was at least #### on closing and had good peep sights. The Brits knew how to make a good battle rifle - no doubt about it.
Remember that this is about the best bolt action battle rifle. There is only one winner. The Lee Enfield. It is still today the best bolt action battle rifle ever devised by a human being.
Having said all of this once the M1 Garand design was put into service the bolt action took a serious second place. Thanks to a Canadian by the name of John C. Garand. Too bad a rimmed cartridge was not possible in this rifle. The Yanks new a good rifle when they saw it - They needed it.
I'm adding this to thisd thread in the hope that new - young shooters will pay attention. I am starting to get tired of answering this question.
Last edited:
TheWharGoul
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Thunder Bay, Ontario
The British tried out the P14 (A mauser based rifle I believe) and in the end the scrapped it and then developed the No.4 Enfield. What does that say ??
Dimitri
Yeah, and the Americans turned down the Christie suspension for their tanks.. What does it say to me? Not all decisions are good ones!
Very clear...except the rimmed cartridge in Garand part??
Please expand on what would be improved with a rimmed cartidge in the semi-auto???...thanks
Please expand on what would be improved with a rimmed cartidge in the semi-auto???...thanks
But both of thouse countries did take a side, to help the Germans, (The Swedish with their steel production going to help the German War effort and the Swiss giving the Germans the money to run the war) and did not (or completly refused) to do the same for the allies and to imprison & kill Allied Service men (the Swiss hunted down and imprisoned allied service men that had to ditch their planes in Switzerland and they killed at least 36 Allied Airmen over the course of the war).
Dimitri
Those Bastards, i did not know that
Because Canada would have adopted John C. Garands design using the .303 Cartridge.
The only reason I can think of.
We had first swing at bat but we would have had to adopt a rimless cartridge. The US was already set up to deploy the M1. We were not.
