Northman999
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Yukon
M1 Garand, hands down!
Which Ww2 rifle would you have liked to use?
- Thread starter TGC
- Start date
As an 18 yr old sprog full of P&V I was more than happy to carry the 10lb+
FNC1. So a 9.5 lb Garand would be a happy burden considering it's firepower advantages over the 8.5lb No4 LE.
I think it was borderline criminal to saddle our infantry in Korea with the LE when confronted with the Chinese hordes where firepower was paramount. The only thing that saved our butts was an extra issue of BRENs plus the overwhelming superiority which we enjoyed in supporting artillery. Many of the troops did the sums themselves and picked up a Garand or M1/M2 carbine when the opportunity presented itself.
The infantryman's rifle is a moving feast which involves a continuing trade-off between weight and firepower. As fond as I am of the No4 LE,the Garand,and the FN each was an evolutionary advancement on the other. Not so sure about the M16/C7 "mouse gun" though. It does generate a lot more projectiles per pound of rifle and ammo,but comes up a little shy on lethality. Personally I think the Brits got it right with the short .280 round which they had to shelve in favor of the NATO standard 7.62x51.
FNC1. So a 9.5 lb Garand would be a happy burden considering it's firepower advantages over the 8.5lb No4 LE.
I think it was borderline criminal to saddle our infantry in Korea with the LE when confronted with the Chinese hordes where firepower was paramount. The only thing that saved our butts was an extra issue of BRENs plus the overwhelming superiority which we enjoyed in supporting artillery. Many of the troops did the sums themselves and picked up a Garand or M1/M2 carbine when the opportunity presented itself.
The infantryman's rifle is a moving feast which involves a continuing trade-off between weight and firepower. As fond as I am of the No4 LE,the Garand,and the FN each was an evolutionary advancement on the other. Not so sure about the M16/C7 "mouse gun" though. It does generate a lot more projectiles per pound of rifle and ammo,but comes up a little shy on lethality. Personally I think the Brits got it right with the short .280 round which they had to shelve in favor of the NATO standard 7.62x51.
StG 44 is not a rifle but an automatic assault rifle (would that still count ?)
If not, I would like to have my Kar98k with a 4x scope for those long range shots . I much prefer the weight difference of my Gewehr 98b (ww2 rebuild) compared to my Kar98k but if it has to be WW2 origin, my choice would be the Kar98k for rifles.
If not, I would like to have my Kar98k with a 4x scope for those long range shots . I much prefer the weight difference of my Gewehr 98b (ww2 rebuild) compared to my Kar98k but if it has to be WW2 origin, my choice would be the Kar98k for rifles.
It's a semi-automatic rifle with a OMFG look at all those Russians!!! button to be used only when needed.
- Location
- Lower Mainland BC
M1 Garand
You need to have a real accurate rifle like one of these. Hey, it worked for Lee Harvey.
I guess if I can't have an M1938 Carcano I'd settle for a Stg.44.
With optional Japanese scope.....................
On second thought............. A Longbranch Lee Enfield would be fine.........
Cheers
Bill
Been there, seen it, done it, got the T shirt and whole heartily agree with the gentleman. During my time I also humped a C2 for 18 months and with 20 rd mags you couldn't ask for a nicer gun!
With optional Japanese scope.....................
A side-mount ought to be a "must" on those Carc's
, given the stripper-clip-feed design....
