Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98

[Tumor]

Originally posted by straffo
My god how do you learn history in the US ????

It's a part of YOUR history and you even had an CVL-24 named USS Belleau Wood during WWII and still have a Belleau wood ship (type unknown to me)

I'm sure the US Army been suppressing the Belleau Wood story for decades now? (snicker).

[Dune]

M1 Carbines are cute.  But I sure wouldn't want to have one as my main long gun.

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Rino
Just FYI, the Lost Battalion is not about Belleau Wood, it's
another story altogether, a very good one.

Ahhh...can't get it right everytime

Originally posted by Rino
The Americans did have the M1919 series from Browning, air
cooled, belt fed 30-06 caliber.  I'd take it over the Bren anyday
of the week.

Bren's an extremely fine weapon and very accurate..and you can keep it mobile far easier than the 30 cal like when supporting an assault, however obviously the Bren only had a 30 round mag, and could be a bugger of a thing to maintain, but was also very reliable.

Originally posted by lazs2
dune... I agree..  The mg 34/42 were superior weapons.. we had nothing like them.   From What I have heard the Bren is a fine gun too.

Verm... you know that because of the gas system and operating rods the Garrand is more accurate and rugged than the M14?

tronski... the SMLE that I have is an australian armory one that was, so far as I could tell... unfired.  It is mint.   I paid a whopping $100 for it.

lazs

Bloody hell a hundred bucks!

They used to churn them out at the Lithgow small arms factory since WW1, a total of about 700,000.

Lithgow also used to make our SLR's (L1A1). Both bloody good rifles....

 Tronsky

[MrCoffee]

Originally posted by GScholz
Yes, of course. The US won the war alone, and won because of the Garand, and Germany really lost because of the terrible performance of the StG44.

The US and western allies embraced the battle rifle concept, and didn't develop an assault rifle until after experience in the Vietnam War showed what a failure the battle rifle concept really was. The Russians developed one of the best assault rifles in existence two years after the end of WWII ... The AK47, the same weapon that proved its superiority over US weapons in the Vietnam War.




I'm going to have to call BS on this one.

Weapon            Cartridge              Nominal    Case      Bullet     Muzzle     Muzzle energy
                                         Caliber    Length    weight     velocity   in joules
                                         in mm                in grams   in m/sec

US M1 Carbine     .30 US Carbine         7.62       33        7.1        549        1074    

Haenel StG 44     7.92mm Intermediate    7.92       33        7.8        686        1829  

AK47              7.62mm M1943           7.62       39        7.4        715        1892

(Image removed from quote.)

7.92mm Kurz




(Image removed from quote.)

.30 M1 carbine cartridge




It is pretty clear that the StG44 had 80% more muzzle energy than the US M1 Carbine, and that the StG44 is much more comparable to the AK-47 in power. Now, you can always argue that the AK47 isn't very accurate, but it is a very effective infantry weapon and the same goes for the StG44.

My father's service weapon back in the '60s was a US M1 Carbine. He says it was accurate the first couple of rounds, but after that accuracy was terrible. Because of the low quality steel used, the barrel would bend due to the heat of just a couple of rounds fired. [/B]

Just wanted to add that the .30 m1 carbine round is not the same as the 308 round used in the m1 garand and m1a1 (m-14).

[lazs2]

Ok.. let's get this in perspective.   The info GS gives is correct.   the M1 carbine has more energy at 50 yards than a .357 magnum has at the muzzle tho.   It is the very first "assault rifle" if you use the defenition of a select fire lightweight rifle using ammo that is between full power and istol rounds.   It is NOT a modern assualt weapon.   It is not a design that is copied by any current assualt rifle but it is the concept.  

On a side note.. the original M1 carbine was slated to use the .351 self loader Winchester round which was a larger more powerful round.   It would be very close to the Ak in power.  It was not felt to be needed.

MANY people here in the states own and shoot M1 carbines... I have owned half a dozen..   The barrels are very good steel and I have never seen one "bend" after any amount of shooting.   they are more accurate than an sks or Ak47 which are called "pumpkin" guns here.   The M2 would probly destroy barrels.. I have heard this is so.

No matter what... The Garrand proved it's accuracy and reliability on the battlefield millions of times and over a long period of time... It is said that the Soviet and the Johnson were fine arms but they had problems even tho they weren't used much... even the M1 carbine got fired millions of times and was loved by troops.

Would agree with dune tho... I wouldn't want it for my main battel rifle with exceptions... I would'nt want a 97 pump gun or a thompson either except in jungle against small japs at short range.   The South Vietnamese used the M1 and M2 carbin up into the 60's and never complained about it's power or reliability.

In my opinion.... the M1 carbine was the concept gun for the "assault rifle" and the German gun was the insperation for modern assault rifles.

lazs

[Fishu]

Since when a semi-auto carbine has been an assault rifle?
M1 was semi-fire and far from assault rifle of any kind, it was to be an easier gun to handle than Garand and offer better firepower than M1911.
Preferably for troops operating behind the lines.
Selective fire came with the M2 Carbine.

[Westy]

What was so different about the StG44, other than "coin" the term "assault rifle" and looking just like a modern day weapon - the AK-47?  It appears to me that older guns such as theThompson M1928A1 or Browning BAR essentially did the same thing. They were, I guess, just not German nor as "cool" looking?

[Boroda]

Americans didn't have a decent infantry weapon after WWII until M-16. With M-14 they repeated a Soviet experience with SVT/AVT-40...

AVT-40 had to be used only as semiauto, due to low accuracy, high ammo consumption and low barrel endurance.

SVT was much cheaper and easy to manufacture then 1891/1930 Mosin three-line rifle, but it was abandoned and Mosin rifle was still manufactured in million quantities.

At the same time my Father, who was a Navy cadet since 1943 was in an "istrebitel'niy batallion" in Yaroslavl' where their college was evacuated, and had a rusty Arisaka rifle imported during WWI. It was not blued and turned rusty in the evening after being cleaned and oiled in the morning...

Russian army was the first to have an Automat, close to a concept of StG or Kalashnikov. Fedorov's automat was adopted in 1916 and used Arisaka 6.5mm cartridge. It was signed off duty in 1927 in favour of (surprise! surprise!) Mosin's 1891 bolt action rifle, Dragoon version...

We have a similar discussion in our Russian forum, and one guy brought a link:

http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/0/archive/697/697651.htm

Guards Rifle regiment was supposed to have 1008 bolt-action 1891/1930 rifles, 344 PPSh submachine guns and 788 SVTs. It's surprising: the regulation was issued in 1943 when SVT was officially not manufactured.

To Aper: Миша, ты на дев-лист до сих пор подписан? Говорят ты сейчас в Австралии? Давненько мы не виделись... Эстель вот в аську стучится, говорит давно мы глинтвейну не пили...

[MrCoffee]

Originally posted by GScholz
I think that is pretty obvious MrCoffee.


... and the Garand uses .30-06 not .308.

M19102 .308
M19106 .30-06

Pretty sure the one I shot was a .308.



Matter of fact, I remember the box said M118 ball.

[Rino]

Originally posted by Fishu
Since when a semi-auto carbine has been an assault rifle?
M1 was semi-fire and far from assault rifle of any kind, it was to be an easier gun to handle than Garand and offer better firepower than M1911.
Preferably for troops operating behind the lines.
Selective fire came with the M2 Carbine.

     Everything I've ever read about the M1 Carbine was that it
was designed as a replacement for pistols for mostly rear area
troops and officers.  Other folks obviously felt it was a worthwhile
weapon, so they picked it up.

[VOR]

the .308 is not a military caliber. The .308 is actually just the civilian version of the 7.62mm NATO round (they are not interchangeable, just like the .223 and 5.56mm N

No offense, but that will be your little secret.

[MrCoffee]

Well Im sure it was a .308 but not sure wich one to be honest. Memory could be off.

[MrCoffee]

Scholz, Im willing to say that it was an m118 because I remember the ammo box said so.

[Vermillion]

Umm Gscholz.....

the .308 is the EXACT same round as the 7.62 mm NATO, and the .223 is the EXACT same round as the 5.56 mm NATO.

I know because I own weapons which shoot those rounds.

[Westy]

GScholz I don't know much about firearms.  Especially when compared to apparant knowlege many in this topic have. I know more about flintlocks and percussion firearms than I do 20th century guns.  My post was a legitimate question.
 Essentially I'm asking if the StG44 was really revolutionary. Much like the Spencer repeating rifle was in the mid 1800's  to the single shot percussion fire-arm? Or was the StG44 a minor refinement of existing technology?

 I will freely admit that my prior posts final comment was indeed a bit sarcastic in that some folks seem to feel that if was WWII German; it *must* had to have been better.

 But rest assured. There's no national pride hurt or lost here. I'm merely curious.

 AFAIK the AK-47 was just about the world's best firearm around due to it's stopping power, overall simplicity and outstanding durability. Again, from what I'd heard. I've never owned or fired one....  I have fired the M-14 and loved that rifle.  If you don't like that one either it won't matter and I'll still be able to sleep tonight