What was the crappiest bolt action rifle during WWII?

Coyote Ugly said:
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;
Click to expand...

that's some trippy dope there, trooper
 
Kayser Sose said:
late war last ditch Japanese rifle; frickn CAST receiver, VERY rough finish, very unsafe and Allied troops were warned about Japanese rifles as a result.... IIRC.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the Cast receiver ones that were failing. Some stupid American troops took training rifles that were not meant to shoot anything other then blanks and fired live ammo through them resulting in explosions. The Cast receiver ones actually don't lock into the receiver but rather a extension of the barrel so there is no pressure on the cast itself. The late war Japanese Arisakas were crude but like the late war K98s they still worked.
 
Kayser Sose said:
late war last ditch Japanese rifle; frickn CAST receiver, VERY rough finish, very unsafe and Allied troops were warned about Japanese rifles as a result.... IIRC.
Click to expand...

Eaglelord17 said:
It wasn't the Cast receiver ones that were failing. Some stupid American troops took training rifles that were not meant to shoot anything other then blanks and fired live ammo through them resulting in explosions. The Cast receiver ones actually don't lock into the receiver but rather a extension of the barrel so there is no pressure on the cast itself. The late war Japanese Arisakas were crude but like the late war K98s they still worked.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I have a Special Naval Rifle - the one with the cast receiver. The forged steel bolt locks into a steel barrel extension. The bore is chrome lined. While remarkably crude, the rifle is intended to be fired. The barrel in not a Type 99 barrel; it is purpose made. The barrel assembly is pinned to the receiver. The rifle essentially duplicates a late Type 99 in style; fixed rear sight. But most parts are cast. In the barrel channel are characters for naka mura. I assume that this was the assembler.
The use of cast parts minimizes the need for machine tools.
I have no idea how this rifle got to Canada. I suppose that it could have reached the US as a souvenir, and then travelled north. It is in remarkably good condition.
 
infideleggwelder said:
the end result of facing the hordes with the antique weapons of which you speak was actually fairly successful. Korea proved the effectiveness of the trained , volunteer soldier with a bolt action rifle as compared to a seemingly relatively untrained conscript carrying a SKS. all you need to do is compare casualty rates from one side to the other. tactics played a very important role there as well. that being said, i think many commonwealth troops would have preferred a more modern semi automatic, but all the vets I have spoken to, they all said that there was always a shortage of ammo anyway, especially during major communist offensives. a semi auto would have been disastrous with the ammo supply issues during those times…..
Click to expand...



An RCR soldier during the Korean War, with an M1 carbine at his side. Does he look like he wants to throw this non-issue weapon it into the nearest trash can?



Do you really believe that this soldier wishes to discard his personal weapons for any bolt action rifle after surviving a few battles on the Korean Peninsula???

Your theories sir, are full of ****!!
 
Last edited:
What's with the potato masher style grenade below the pan drum of the DP-28? Is it some sort of Soviet anti tank grenade Brutus?

Maybe he was smiling because he had a good supply of rifle grenades & "vitamin pills."

I am sorry for making assumptions Vandoo66. I heard the MAS 49 was on par with the FAL or maybe even better. :p
 
Last edited:
Brutus said:


An RCR soldier during the Korean War, with an M1 carbine at his side. Does he look like he wants to throw this non-issue weapon it into the nearest trash can?



Do you really believe that this soldier wishes to discard his personal weapons for any bolt action rifle after surviving a few battles on the Korean Peninsula???

Your theories sir, are full of ****!!
Click to expand...

The RCR soldier pictured here is a member of the battalion recce platoon, during the Korean conflict the M1 Carbine was an issued weapon for these soldiers.
 
fraserdw said:
The RCR soldier pictured here is a member of the battalion recce platoon, during the Korean conflict the M1 Carbine was an issued weapon for these soldiers.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it very well might have been on a certain scale of issue. Because Canadians traded whiskey straight across for things that they wanted and needed to survive battle. Not because they got any help from Commonwealth sources in or out of theatre. Not a single bolt action rifle in these infantry pics.
 
You could say the K31 was the best; it was good enough to keep the Swiss out of WWII.

The M-N is a strong and reliable, but butt ugly, overly long and awkward to handle and operate and only 5 rounds in the mag. Gets my vote.
 
Brutus said:
Yeah, it very well might have been on a certain scale of issue. Because Canadians traded whiskey straight across for things that they wanted and needed to survive battle. Not because they got any help from Commonwealth sources in or out of theatre. Not a single bolt action rifle in these infantry pics.
Click to expand...

There was, the battalions that went to Korea with "Special FOrce", unit raised for that war only. CMHQ decided to arm troops who normally got Stens with carbines. The US Army supplied the carbines in training. The US offered full equipment to Canada (webbing, M1 Garands, Carbines, M1911 and BARs) but CMHQ only took the carbines. The US really wanted Canuck troops to use US kit as NATO was deciding on NATO arms at the time and the US figured if they converted the Canucks......
 
fraserdw said:
There was, the battalions that went to Korea with "Special FOrce", unit raised for that war only. CMHQ decided to arm troops who normally got Stens with carbines. The US Army supplied the carbines in training. The US offered full equipment to Canada (webbing, M1 Garands, Carbines, M1911 and BARs) but CMHQ only took the carbines. The US really wanted Canuck troops to use US kit as NATO was deciding on NATO arms at the time and the US figured if they converted the Canucks......
Click to expand...
Okay then. If what you say is true? Prove it??
 
Eaglelord17 said:
It wasn't the Cast receiver ones that were failing. Some stupid American troops took training rifles that were not meant to shoot anything other then blanks and fired live ammo through them resulting in explosions. The Cast receiver ones actually don't lock into the receiver but rather a extension of the barrel so there is no pressure on the cast itself. The late war Japanese Arisakas were crude but like the late war K98s they still worked.
Click to expand...

Quite so. However, to be fair to those yanks, those training rifles were clearly marked as training rifles and not to be fired...in Japanese. I'd say that expecting some Marine from Iowa who may have barely finished high school to be able to read the moon-runes may be a bit unreasonable, and the training rifles look similar enough to the untrained eye.

It's just unfortunate that the reputation of an absolutely stellar bolt action rifle was tarnished for so long because of rumors based on partly true anecdotes about a mistake that was made by people who didn't know better. It's getting better with the free and plentiful information available on the internet, but there's still a fair amount of ignorance. I will always, always defend the two WW2-era Arisakas as excellent bolt action rifles. The Type 38 was a wonderful jungle rifle - soft shooting, accurate enough and the round was light enough that more often than not, there wasn't a muzzle flash for the BAR man to use a reference point before hosing down an area. The Type 99 was quite powerful (essentially an un-rimmed .303 - I believe loading data is almost identical) and had chrome lined barrels - great for the jungle, and was also accurate enough. Both were built on stupidly strong actions and I would love to own one of each.

The late-war ones are indeed pretty no-frills, but so are late war K98's as well as almost all mid-war Mosin Nagants. My 1943 M38 has parts that lack finish (to the point where it rusts about five times quicker than my other rifles), the action is rough, and some illiterate probably made in in an afternoon but I can hit pretty much everything I've tired to shoot out to 300 meters or so if I do my part.
 
fraserdw said:
There was, the battalions that went to Korea with "Special FOrce", unit raised for that war only. CMHQ decided to arm troops who normally got Stens with carbines. The US Army supplied the carbines in training. The US offered full equipment to Canada (webbing, M1 Garands, Carbines, M1911 and BARs) but CMHQ only took the carbines. The US really wanted Canuck troops to use US kit as NATO was deciding on NATO arms at the time and the US figured if they converted the Canucks......
Click to expand...

The Cdn Army post WW2 was wedded to the British Army in most respects, incl organization, operational doctrine, dress, training and equipment. Our troops in Korea were initially part of a Commonwealth Bde led by the Brits, then the Commonwealth Div. Our NATO troops were also part of the BAOR until they moved south to the Black Forest region in 1970 following Trudeau's big defence reductions. I served in the Army from 1964 to 1996 and can attest that interoperability with the Brits was a driving theme until around 1970 when our NATO commitment was changed so dramatically.

Cdn troops did use a variety of US small arms in Korea, mostly on an unofficial basis. Our standard weaponry there was basically the same as in WW2, incl the No4 Lee-Enfield. Thompson SMGs which were used in Korea came from stocks which had been provided to the Chinese Nationalists during WW2 and which were used by the Chicoms in large numbers following the retreat of the Nationalists to Formosa, or Taiwan, after their defeat in the Chinese Civil war in the late 1940s.
 
all i`m saying is that the enfield gave a good account of itself right up through korea, Kapyong as an example(rocks doubled as grenades here) and there are accounts of them(a long branch in particular) being used against Canadians in Afghanistan. no where did i say that the troops would have thrown away an M1, but the regular soldier would not have had as easy access to an M1 and appropriate ammo as some here would have us believe, regardless of how much RUM(they were issued rum, not whisky) they may or may not have had.

but, this thread is about the crappiest bolt action of WW2, not would Commonwealth soldiers have tossed their No4s to grab an M1 in korea. Lee enfield not the crappiest either.
Money kept the Swiss out of WW2
done here
 
Last edited:
y2k said:
Didn`t Norway and Denmark use Krag Jorgensen rifles before they were occupied? I would place a Krag at worst WW2 rifle
Click to expand...

Krags were mentioned early on in this thread and I would have to agree. I think the designation "crappiest" is a bit unfair though. The Krag action is a beautiful clockwork piece. Just not suited to fast paced battle conditions.
 
All this talk about Korea. What I have read and seen on the history channel canadians were in small numbers and liked to be on the high ground and were supplied heavily with the Bren machine gun. But they did like the LE to engage the enemy from a great distance and when they would get close they would drop artilary on them and use machine guns to mow them down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom