Five of the best WW2 weapons,

[redrommel]

Quite some bias here! How you could *POSSIBLY* want a LE over this:

Is beyond me!

 

[Dirt McGirt]

LOl wtf do these dumb polls accomplish.

 

[Alonzo]

now hold on there- it was the AMMUNITION that was at fault with the m16 , not the gun itself- some a/h changed the calcium carbonate content and that caused the breechblock to weld shut, or the case would separate, or a host of other 'problems"- what's NOT told is that there was a simple cure for this with a section of cleaning rod amd a wrap of emery cloth- once this was done, no more jams- and then there was the problem with the firing pin tips breaking off- however, the m16a2( which was fielded without the pressures of being at war) did some 5000 rounds full auto without a single misfeed- btw jam is somethng you put on toast

You forgot to mention that the prime contract ammunition supplier had a powder lot change, which increased the pressure of the cartridge thus increasing the cyclic rate of the gun in full auto. The result was a severely damaged recoil system...hence the modification of the buffer recoil system. Additionally, the first batch of rifles which went overseas used standard manufacturing technique in relation to barrel finishing. The interior of the barrel was left unfinished through polished. In the jungles the troops would neglect cleaning the rifle and keeping the chamber clean most importantly. The chamber would become badly pitted thus causing a fired case to stick in the chamber tearing the rim off. The remedy was a plating in the chamber which resisted corrosion; as well as updated, and supposedly, rigidly enforced regular cleaning. There are photos of a cross section of a rifle with a severely pitted chamber.
Probably the most important point is that the troops were not very well trained with the new rifles.
Add to this the fact that the M-14 had an issue which could only be addressed at battalion level repair shop. In transit the M-14 front sight loosened and dramatically changed the zero. In order to repair, the front sight retaining screw had to be tightened, using an Allen wrench. This tool was not supplied to the troops and the gun had to be tagged "unserviceable" (there was an army numbered tag for this) and returned to battalion repair. Battalion reports indicated that "X" number of rifles had been turned in (not indicating the problem), thus the assumption the M-14 was unsuitable for Jungle warfare.
Sorry for the novel.
Cheers

 

[Alonzo]

LOl wtf do these dumb polls accomplish.

Discussion amongst firearms owners.
Plus a lesson in historical firearms designs for those who think these polls are dumb.
Read and learn.
Cheers

 

[Epoxy7]

Quite some bias here! How you could *POSSIBLY* want a LE over this:

Is beyond me!

I'm a huge fan myself. . Of all the cool stuff that Klunk sometimes posts, his real STG44 is the one item that I really wish I could own.

 

[Epoxy7]

Trained troops were able to work with the firearm and their equipment efficiently throughout WW2...post war analysis indicated a lighter firearm aids in reducing soldier fatigue, though it would not improve the efficiency of the firearm. As mentioned all armies faced this.

Less weight helps. Less fatigue means a more alert soldier who can concentrate harder on hitting the target. In some cases on the Eastern front it meant the difference between life and death. Starving troops (Both sides practiced a scorched earth policy), sub -50 Celsius cold, and long distances often without the advantage of mechanized transport.

Although I'm sure the Russians and Germans would have appreciated the Garand a lot under those circumstances. It would have made excellent fire wood J/K.

Doesn't have a detachable magazine
True, though if the detachable magazine is damaged or lost you have, at worst, a single shot or a reduced capacity...not a true advantage in 1940. The M-1 carbine had a detachable mag, and troops were supplied with plenty of spares...though this little rifle fits into a whole different catagory.

-

Russian soldiers were issued 3 magazines with the SVT-40. Plus it fed by stripper clips. Don't forget on a battlefield with so many casualties you always have the possibility of picking something up from a fallen comrade, or enemy (the German's reissued the SVT-40 to their own troops whenever they captured these rifles).

Troops were trained to address this by conserving ammo rather then wasting ammo and it could be achieved easier then removing a magazine and "topping it up". The Johnson was one of the only semi-auto which could be "topped up", due to its Non-Detachable magazine design, rotary rather then enbloc, yet still Non-Detachable

The SVT-40 has a lock on the magazine so it won't fall out. Also a last shot hold open so you can top up without removing, load it with stripper clips, or release the mag and put in a new one.

It was a good rifle, but I really do think that we've been over exposed to American propaganda/hollywood.
Has no bearing in the analysis of firearms design.

No but it does on perception. IE the perception that the Garand was the best semi auto of WWII. Most people don't even know about the SVT-40 or the many rifles based on it's gas system/tilting block design.

 

[DOUGLAS D]

I'm still amazed that after 9 pages no one has dropped the "Why Boogie Woogie when you can Rock and Roll ?" line yet.

Whoops I guess I just did....

 

[Epoxy7]

I see what you're saying. I will concede that the Garand could potentially be wasteful on ammo. However, the manual of arms is one thing; in general practice soldiers should whenever possible conserve ammo. While the US supply system was good, it still would have taken time to get replenished at the front lines. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to know what US troops generally did it this particular situation we're discussing. If there was any lull, I know I would be pocketing the extra round or two. I could also make the point again about the MP44 having a fun switch could potentially lead to some wastage of ammo, but I tend to believe the Germans were taught the same disciplines.

I know you already know this but..the Germans designed the STG44 with a cartridge they could use in full auto while still maintaining control. This gave them the advantage of a rifle at general combat ranges and the advantages of a submachine gun up close. They learned how effective full auto was after the Russians taught them the hard way. At distance, semi auto rifle with 30 rounds. Up close controllable full auto trench sweeper. Wasted ammo maybe, but at least it would be downrange or if on full auto up close and personal. Unlike having to just pop a few here and there in order to reload.

Is there such a thing as excessive in war? It's worth making note however that the US knew this as early as the 1920's. The Garand even started out as a .276 calibre rifle, but in the end the calibre changeover never got approved.

It's interesting that those range contact stats are still more or less true to this day.

yup and yup

I've read the Russians ran into significant stock cracking problems with the SVT40 due to the arctic birch used. It also apparently suffered from vertical shot dispersion and had cycling issues because of the rimmed cartridge. To what extents this hampered use in combat I don't know.

Yup they ran into stock cracking issues. That was the trade off with the light arctic birch. Later when refurbishing the stocks they used the heavier stouter ones from the failed AVT models (full auto). I've heard the rumours of the vertical shot dispersion. Yet 50,000 sniper variants were made. I'll be testing mine out with a modern scope mount, scope and ammo. We'll see if it's still true.

In concept the SVT may be ahead of the Garand, but I think the Garand is way more reliable. Granted the US had a few more years to work out the kinks in their semi auto rifle than the Russians did.

Wikepedia "Production difficulties delayed deliveries to the Army until September 1937. By September 1939, Springfield Armory had reached an output of 100 per day. Despite going into production status, design issues were not at an end. The barrel, gas cylinder, and front sight assembly were redesigned and entered production in early 1940. Existing "gas-trap" rifles were recalled and retrofitted mirroring problems with the earlier M1903 Springfield rifle that also had to be recalled and reworked approximately three years into production . Production of the Garand increased in 1940 despite these difficulties,[14] reaching 600 a day by 10 January 1941,[6] and the Army was fully equipped by the end of 1941.[15]"

The Russians were fielding the SVT-38 in 1939 during the Winter War against the Finns. The design changes learned from that conflict were integrated into the new rifle the SVT-40.

An estimated 70,000 SVT-40s were produced in 1940. By the time the German invasion began in June 1941, the SVT-40 was already in widespread use by the Red Army. 51,710 SVT-40 sniper variants were made.

From World Guns: "The SVT-40 had a somewhat controversial reputation. It was highly regarded by the enemies (Finns and Germans) and it was a very sought-after war trophy, re-issued to both German and Finnish troops. On the other hand, it was often considered unreliable and over-complicated by the Soviet troops (when comparing with old Mosin-Nagant rifles), but it was more to the poor training and maintenance, than to the rifle itself. Some better trained and educated Soviet troops, such as Sea Infantry (Marines, which always were some kind of elite in the Soviet army) used the SVT-40 with great deal of success".

At least no one's said anything about the Garand's "ping" giving away troop positions or I would have gotten out the beatin' stick!

Hahah. I would think the crack of the 30-06 would be a lot louder than the "ping"

 

[DOUGLAS D]

I'll stick to the Bren.
It's the only one of two choices as a LMG that could be run solo.

 

[TGC]

Well I see this poll hit the 300 vote mark, most votes of any of my polls, as its the weekend will let it rid, maybe the lee will be knocked out of third place,lol non of the fireARMS I LIKED MADE IT AT ALL lol. poll will be replaced in a short time wioth the best 3 and the winner will be?

 

[t-star]

read my line on the calcuim carbonate content- that's what caused the bolt on the m16 to weld shut b/c of the INCREASED PRESSURE of the round-that calcium carbonate was part of the powder- fact is, that the suppier was running short of powder, and subb'd some old cannon powder( which they had lots of) instead- the calcium carbonate supposedly increased the burn rate enough to use in the m16
the first m16s had a solid buttstock and were issued with NO cleaning rod- thse were suppid via the third echelon ( care package from home- and we shared - you'll often see the rod taped to the rifle on the right side)
as for the m14 having a loose front sight screw and being rendered unserviceable, it must have been an army thing- while it's not shown on the buttstock roster, there were 2 allen keys in each buttstock package, with different sized ends on each, and those fitted every allen screw in the rifle- but the guys in the field easily lost them- but when i got my isrealis, each one had a full complement including the allen keys -

 

[TGC]

well i see the mp 44 is starting toi catch up to the lee, maybetime will tell if the mp 44 will regain 3rd place.

 

[Satain]

Hot Dam it was a fun shoot!

 

[TGC]

Well does not look like the MP44 is going to retake 3 rd place, sad but the people have voted.

 

[redrommel]

Well does not look like the MP44 is going to retake 3 rd place, sad but the people have voted.

The people are silly. Lol!

I'm tempted to change my IP settings and keep voting for the MP44! (j/k)

 

[fat tony]

Johnson LMG - also ran LMG of WWII era, quite similar in layout to the FG 42 imo.

 

[NormanM]

Man, I don't see why so many people want the MG42. I mean, it has an insane RPM, it can mow down groups like nobodies business, and I think it was reliable... But it's 25 lbs! lol You really wanna be humpin that around all day? Also it spits out ammo like a son of a #####, which means you need to keep a lot on you. Hope you got a buddy to help with the weight of it all lol

The M1 is, what, 10-11 lbs? But the clips are just bits of metal, they won't encumber you much, only the rounds themselves. You could probably carry an M1 Garand, an M1911A1, and plenty of ammo for both and it wouldn't add up to an MG42 without any ammo with it. Just saying lol Then again this is a vote for best, not what you would bring with you if you headed out to war. STG is more weight effective than M1 though. Sacrifices range however... Eh, I could rant all day on this stuff. Fun to think about

 

[Cocked&Locked]

every single one of these weapons is a first class gun, and impossible to choose because they are different type and calibre. A sub machine gun would not be my first choice for 100 yard plus shooting, and neither would a bren gun be considered a rifle, so its impossible to choose with any real logic. They were all first class firearms for their type.

Agreed. I would take the LE over the garand, but the mg is belt fed unit, adn while it could be used in the lmg role, the bren was better. On the other hand, the mg could be used as a heavy mg where the bren wasn't suited.

The 44, well it started the change, but its less versitile then the le or garand in that they can be used at short range more effectively then it can be at long.

all are first class.

 

[Cocked&Locked]

Johnson LMG - also ran LMG of WWII era, quite similar in layout to the FG 42 imo.

best of the johnsons. It was short recoil op thougth, the FG wasn't, it was either gas or delayed blow back, i forget which