Best Service Rifle Ever Made

Status
Not open for further replies.
A case could be made for the garand,maybe the AR-15. M-14? A rifle in front line use by 2 countries for a few years all the while outclassed by FN-FAL,G3,SIG...
 
Chuck3436 said:
The next time i hear someone say....did that gun win any wars...im going to vomit.

I can think of 100000 guns that havent won any wars. That does not mean they suck. Do mg42's, Fg42's and STg-44's SUCK becaues they didnt win ww2? NO, they were the basis for many modern firearms, if they sucked so bad, then why did so many people copy them!? Did the M16 win vietnam? NO, it had a rather shoddy reputation in Vietnam. Can i say it sucks because it lost the war? NO, its an inane and stupidly ignorant statement at best.
How about your Sig550, has it won any wars? NO............blah blah blah

The list goes on. Stop saying a gun sucks because it hasnt won any wars.

Your enfield and your garand isnt special because it won the war. IF you REALLLY want to get pathetically technical regarding stuff like this. Most casualties in that war were from machine gun fire, discrediting most of your glorious ambitions that your division of 10 000 men was fighting their division of 10 000 men. With a couple MILLION bullets flying aroudn you had time to aim and kill of all the enemy yourself with your enfield because it had 5 more round in the mag and it was possibly slightly faster on the bolt. Didnt happen.

Enfield is better...but change the course of a war better...i think not.
Same this goes with the Garand. Better, but not enought ot change entire outcomes of battles. They were so close in performance i would completely discredit their merits entirely and instead put the entire weight of functionality on the shoulders fo the man using the weapon.

Im not biased towards any of those rifles, i think they are function on a relatively simliar level and are all FINE regardless of some petty function.

Looking on paper, was a p51 mustang fighter better than a FW-190a?

Possibly yes in some areas, negligible in some areas.... you could argue one has more firepower, one climbs better, one has a tighter turn radius, one has more range......
But most ww2 fighters were so similar in performance, the majority of who won laid in the hands of the pilot.

Get it? Stop flogging redundant ideas like this.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you were directing your rant at me. I would like to point out that I am in fact german...and while proud, I sadly didn't mention a german gun. And my addition to the thread was simply a comment, not a WW2 judging statement. And yes, you are right, many designs were copied off another that may have lost a war or didn't have a long standing history of battle time or whatever.
 
I wasnt really DIRECTING it at anyone, so no real offence to you nor anyone. I just posted it after going through the entire thread.

It just really iffs me when people throw the "This gun hasnt won wars" or "this is the rifle that won the war" statement out there. It doesnt make sense. Or they base their argument on something inane and insignificant. Take a garand for example. A fine rifle for its day. But call it the rifle that won the war? Whos Uncle sam history books are you reading? Of course lets not discredit the mosin nagant and ppsh. Of course, not considering the eastern front fought 2/3s of the german army and the western front only fought 1/3 of that. But is the Mosin better than a Garand? Technically most would agree not, but then again, i dont go saying the Mosin is the rifle that won the war because it was held by the Majority of allied fighters in ww2. Or turn the tables, K98k rifle for rifle probably did alot more killing than any enfield or garand or mosin or modern battle rifle for that matter. 20 000 000 combined dead allied troops to 3.5 million germans. Take a ratio of how many died from various aspects of war, mG's artillery, etc etc and youll probably find the k98k did a heck of alot more killing than a garand.
You see thats what im getting at. How redundant it is to base an entire war over the mediocricies of one mans rifle, when the differences in times of battle could be considered miniscule.

Then people are comparing a battle rifle of 50years ago or more to a modern battle rifle and everything in between. I dont see how a comparison is made. How does one compare a bolt rifle to a FA battle rifle to the fandangled technologies of today? Doesnt make sense.


Thats all :)

Just like the Vz58 thread......someone comes along and says, well the sks is better because it won wars. What kind of statement is this?! Im not going to get into details there but you get the idea.


Not directed at anyone in specific, jsut anyone in general who is or will make such a statement.
 
Last edited:
I'd say the "best" service rifle ever, is the one you can use most effeciently & accurately.

That's what I think the "best" is.
 
Yeah hell he couldve at least picked Das Reich or Viking. As much as all Nazis needed to be shot when the war was over, their were plenty of SS who were just simple military or armoured. From a historical point of view theres alot to be learned from thier tough fighting. The best service rifle? Only a fool would argue it wasnt the Garand in WW2.
 
God Bless Rudyard Kipling, who was kind enough to supply us with one of the few useful things in this thread. There's damned little other virtue to be found here. This line of discussion is fraught with problems. It's origins are suspect, its arguements false, and its assumptions many. Save Chuck's very sensible post, and Steppenwolf's Poetry Corner, the rest of this seems a bit like "what's your favorite gun". There's nothing to be proven here, and plenty of sound and fury signifying SFA.

Panzerslob, I wish you luck in your school year. Grade 10 will be difficult, but with perseverence, you should have some success. Pehaps when you've learned a few things, you'll realize it's exceptionally bad manners to visit someone's home and pee on their furniture.

In the meantime, my churlish friend, begone. You are a weedy, impertinent young rapscallion. Any further words addressed to you would be seeds of wisdom cast upon the barren stones of ignorance.
 
So Dan, whats your favourite gun? Such a long post, and you didnt say? BTW, you ever watch The Big Lebowski?
 
I think Dark alley dan is the only one that understands the futility and downrigth idiocy of this entire thread.

So pointless.

And yet it will drag on and on and on...and more people will bring their redundant arguments again and again and again.

CLUE IN ALREADY.
 
I think it depends on the situation.

For poorly trained, rag tag armies its tough to beat the AK-47.

For a modern trained army a scoped AR-15/M-16 is one heck of a package.

I find it hard to overlook the M1 Garand as well.
 


I present you with the Stgw. 57 calibre 7.5x55 mm. Heavy, cumbersome, long and yet so deliciously lethal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom