Second Place Rifle of WW2

M-1

OK, yes, there may be a drawback with the capacity of the M-1 compared to others. Bear in mind that in a tactical situation the large capacity magazines of some nazi semi-auto rifles would lead to wasteful expenditures of ammunition...a disaster in a short ammunition supply condition. The so called limited capacity of the M-1 lends itself to accurate shooting, due to limited ammp capacity...meaning more dead nazis and japs...reality gentlemen, that is what the M-1 was built for. Oh, I almost forgot what a lot of guys bring up about the Garand...the infamous...PING!!!! Ok realistically, on a battlefield with a whole bunch of shooting going on do you really seriuosly beleive some nazi or jap would charge an American line after almost faintly hearing a PING...knowing that one soldier out of 100 has an empty Garand...not an issue in my estimation.
Reliability is also critical...the M-1 has the advantage here. Once agaion...bear in mind that it appears the Russians did not document failures of their primary S/A rifle; the same could be assumed with the nazis. On the other hand the US documented everything relating to the rifle and these documents are readily available. With this in mind is it logical to say the M-1 had severe problems...NO. Would it be safe to say the nazi and Russian SA rifles had problems...who knows, there is nothing that has been stated/written/produced by either regime to support.
All we have to go by is individual private usage of certain firearms in a non-life threatening situations (ie, TARGET PRACTICE opposed to WAR).
Not only did the M-1 rule the battlefields, but it has ruled the rifle ranges to this day
So...back to the question...what is the second place Semi-auto rifle of WW2?
Knowing fully well that the first place rifle is, the M-1 Garand.
The second place rifle IMHO would be...the Russian SVT-40.
A full power semi-auto rifle, with it's own set of deficiencies.
Cheers
 
Skippy said:
Claven2, you'd put the G/K43 first despite the propensity for breaking down?
I'd probably put the SVT before the G43, but I dont feel qualified to rate the Garand as I've never handled or shot one.
Click to expand...

The G/K43 series worked GREAT if you used the waxed steel cased issue German ammo it was designed for ;)
 
I have a g43 and a svt40, and when comparing both side by side the g43 does win, but barely. disassembly on the svt40 is better. but overall, emphises on overall, the g43 is better built.
 
Claven2 said:
The G/K43 series worked GREAT if you used the waxed steel cased issue German ammo it was designed for ;)
Click to expand...

Good point.
I definatly like the G43 a lot more, but always found my SVT a bit more reliable, too bad I dont have a case of NAZI ammo to play with.
 
If I'm allowed to pick a rifle which didn't see action in the ww2, then
Ljungman AG-42 is for me the best semi-auto rifle of that era.
It's so better than the other ones,
that I dare to say the second and third place be left vacant as a sign of respect and awarness.

From those weapons actualy used in ww2 battles, other rifles worth to praise here would be (not necessarily in this order) SKS and G43.

I would totaly dismiss Garand from that list.
Garand is a sorry excuse for a disapointing POS, especially from an economic power like US.


SVT's were only marginal rifles. The first series were punished by that powerfull cartridge in the sense that it was often breaking their receivers, as the bolt was locking in the receiver. That receiver had to be re-designed repeatedly to reach an acceptable reliability.
That is the reason SKS was introduced. But of course, there was that fashion of small cartridges to cover the gap between pistol cartridges used in SMG and large powerfull cartridges. Too bad both sides realized that in the middle of the war.
That is why I would regard SKS, STG44, M1 Carbine as weapons of a different class than SVT, FG, G43, but this is another story...
 
Last edited:
I have not used any of them, except for the AG42B, which was not used in WW2.

From what I have seen, I would not feel outguned carrying a #4 Mk1 or 2 Lee Enfield.............
 
Because Sweden did not fight in the last 200 years or so (since the Napoleonic wars).

Edit: The AG-42 was issued in Sweden but did not see action in military conflict in Swedish hands. After some of the manufacturing machines and tooling were sold outside Sweden, the rifle, with few modifications, under the name "Hackim" (sp?) in 6.5x55 and "Rashid" (sp?) in 7.62x39 was used at some minor extent in Middle East.
 
Last edited:
"...heavier than a Garand..." The Chopper isn't a rifle either.
"...that won the war..." Only in the minds of our Southern Cousins. To hear them talk there was nobody else fighting and the war didn't start until 1941. The firearm that won the war, was the Moisin-Nagant with some help from the PPSh smg carried by hordes of illiterate troopies.
The Johnson wasn't used much either. U.S. military tests showed it had nor gave no advantage over the M1 rifle. It wasn't used by the FSSF, despite the rumours. They used the Johnson LMG, but not the rifle.
None of the German semi-autos or the STG44 saw enough service to make a lick of difference. Too little. Too late.
There was no best or second best rifle. The troopies used what they got issued.
 
sunray said:
"...heavier than a Garand..." The Chopper isn't a rifle either.
"...that won the war..." Only in the minds of our Southern Cousins. To hear them talk there was nobody else fighting and the war didn't start until 1941. The firearm that won the war, was the Moisin-Nagant with some help from the PPSh smg carried by hordes of illiterate troopies.
Click to expand...

+1 :popCorn:
:evil:
 
Dr.Lector said:
If I'm allowed to pick a rifle which didn't see action in the ww2, then
Ljungman AG-42 is for me the best semi-auto rifle of that era.
It's so better than the other ones,
that I dare to say the second and third place be left vacant as a sign of respect and awarness.

I would totaly dismiss Garand from that list.
Garand is a sorry excuse for a disapointing POS, especially from an economic power like US.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it a lot harder to operate the Ljungman bolt in action, such as in chambering? I also understand that the WWII models had problems with rusting gas tubes. It is probably less ergonomic for close combat as well. You'd really want to carry one over a Garand?
 
Unregistered said:
Wasn't it a lot harder to operate the Ljungman bolt in action, such as in chambering? I also understand that the WWII models had problems with rusting gas tubes. It is probably less ergonomic for close combat as well. You'd really want to carry one over a Garand?
Click to expand...

I don't find it at all "harder to operate". It's not hard to get used to it.
I look at that double knob as ambidexterous, non-snug, and easier to operate with heavy gloves (Swedish winters are fukken cold, I can tell you that).
They may have had problems with the rusty tubes, I don't know if they fixed them when they mod'ed the guns for the "B" version. The oldest I had was one made in 1943 and the gas tube didn't show any signs of corrosion, but again, it may have been changed.
Let's remember that AG-42 was the first successfull military gun which adopted the gas-impingement system. It's called pioneering, the rest are copies. Eugene Stoner, the designer and the starter of the AR family, was so impressed with it, that he had several in his posession, including working test guns and prototypes. How he got them, I don't know, because in the late 40's and the 50's AG-42 was not sold as milsurp. He was so obsessed with it, that close friends of him during that time were joking saying that he was sleeping with the AG-42 under his bed.

Yes, less ergonomic for close combat, "probably".

Yes, if I had the choice between carry the Garand and carry the AG-42, I would go with the AG-42, without any hesitation.

However, I admit that out of consideration for the CGN fans of the Garand, I should have not used those harsh words when refering to it.
 
Last edited:
1) M-1 rifle.
2) M-1 rifle.
3) M-1 rifle.

Remember what The Colonel said:
If you don't have an M1903 Springfield, get one.
If you don't have an M1911 .45 auto, get one.
If you dont have an M1 rifle, get one. Better yet, if you can afford it, get two.
 
Oh I love that comment, "the M1 is a sorry POS" There are hundreds of thousands of japs, Italians, and germans who would debate that, But you can't ask them, because they all had .30 calibre holes in vital parts of their anatomy. Can't top up an M1? Simple answer to that, fire off the remaining rounds at the bad guys and shove in a fresh clip! I was ISSUED an M1 and I can ASSURE you that it's NOT a problem! Since you like to bad mouth the M1, just REMEMBER WHO INVENTED IT!;)

The G43 was issued in LIMITED numbers. They made MILLIONS of M1's!
Same goes for the SVT 40.
The sks is NOT a WW2 rifle and neither is the cartridge.
 
Waytago John Sukey!

I was ISSUED an FAL, but have been a recreational shooter for a long time. I have used and owned the M-1, the Kar 43 and the SVT-40, and that is the order I would rank them in.

My FIRST criterion is reliability, and there is NUTHIN' more reliable than a well-maintained M-1, with the possible exception of a bolt rifle, and we're not talking bolt rifles here. Sure, they're heavy, but you can shoot one all day long without hurting too badly. And they are damned accurate, especially if tuned just a little bit.

The G/K-43 is a ##### on disassembly/reassembly: lots of parts. But after you put it together, it should eat just about anything that looks like 8x57. The gas systems were purposely set up to handle under-pressure ammo, hence they are a continung curse to handloaders........ but they work very well with sub-spec ammo. With full-power loads and brass casing, they mangle brass, but the standard SmE and SmK loads were STEEL cased and so this was not much of a problem.

The SVT-40 has all the failings of the Saive system and has very light construction as well. This CAN be a drawback but is not necessarily so. It is long and scary-looking and very darned LOUD. With a little modification that SVT could have been one of the great designs of all time.

But there wasn't time. There was a war coming, and anybody with half a brain could see it. The USA was smart enough to employ a Canadian machine-tool designer who thought of what a machine was supposed to do, and then built the machine. John Garand designed a machine to handle .30-'06 cartridges and to fire them ACCURATELY. Okay, it was heavy. Can anybody show me an ACCURATE rifle that isn't?

M-1, G/K-43, SVT-40....... in that order.
 
I'd really have to go with the Garand as #1 (hands down); discount the SKS from #2 spot simply because field trials don't qualify in my books as being WWII, and go with the SVT-40 as #2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom