Author Topic: Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98  (Read 4161 times)

Offline -tronski-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2825
Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98
« Reply #60 on: March 11, 2004, 11:01:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
the johnsons weren't liked because of the thin barrel that would actually bend fairly easily...  It was a pretty decent rifle tho.  I believe the marines used em and the bayonet mounting was kinda odd.

the .303 and the russian round were rimmed..  I have a perfect SMLE and nice naggant and neither are even close to the clean bore Garrand I have..  Garrands are very accurate and dependable and fire a full power load.  

I have jammed a SMLE but the bolt is very fast but..

You can't beat the Garrand for comfort, accuracy and ruggedness...  I believe also that we got very lucky on the design of this gun and it was a real marvel for the time.

Garrands still win matches...  It was kind of a sad day at camp perry when marines started to notice that the Garrand was actually outsxhooting their beloved 1903.

Mostly tho... the Garrand is just plain fun to shoot.   shooting the others from a bench with the stock steel butplates will give you a sore shoulder in not many rounds...  

Shooting 15 rounds is not a "mad minute" with the Garrand... shooting accurate at twice that many is childs play with a little practice.   As others have said here... we got lucky.

The M1 Carbine was a pretty lucky semi auto too... it was perhaps the first "assault" weapon even tho it was intended as a replacement for a pistol or an intermediate between pistol and Rifle....   It came in M2 version which was full auto capable with standard 15 round bottom fed magazine.

In my opinion... the firearms that the U.S. had in WWII that outclassed other weapons they oppossed were...

50 cal Browning

BAR

Garrand

M1 carbine

Thompson sub machine gun

Colt 1911 45 acp pistol.

lazs


I learnt to shoot using a SMLE so I'm heavily biased, but I would have to agree with Laz about the US small arms being quite superior especially late in the war.
Although I would think the german MG's (especially the MG-42) were far better than the 30 cal. and Bar as infantry support weapons. I know many of the germans used to scavenge the M-1 Carbines as a favourite weapon in the west.

 Tronsky
God created Arrakis to train the faithful

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98
« Reply #61 on: March 11, 2004, 11:35:13 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by polka
I've actually won a 100 yard open sight competition with a Lee Enfield #1 mkIII.
 


WOW a WHOLE FOOTBALL FIELD AWAY.....how is this possible....sorry I'm beeing a smart a ss.

I know a good Marine buddy of mine that won a national match.  His torphy was an engraved M1 Garand.  I still have to point out that the thinking during the time was that commanders didnt want their troops spraying and praying so many were actually reluctant to issue the garand (pacific early WWII)

It was a fine weapon and still is.  I found an internet site that sold them cheap.  Was about to pick one up for me and my dad till I read they had no recievers.  They only wanted 250$ for them.

Offline United

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2536
      • http://squadronspotlight.netfirms.com
Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98
« Reply #62 on: March 11, 2004, 11:39:39 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
A good read is about the battle of belleau woods during WWI.  The Marines first chance to fight gave the germans a real bloody nose and earned them a nickname still used today.

Isnt there a movie out about that battle?  I believe I watched it a while back.

Offline _Schadenfreude_

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98
« Reply #63 on: March 11, 2004, 11:58:08 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lasersailor184
That was the trick Lazs.  Most americans grew up in the back woods shooting .22's at squirrels.

Ww2 rolled around and they said here's a gun, go for the germans / japs.


Most germans or Japanese hadn't ever fired or fired a lot of guns before.  Thus they were at a disadvantage from the start.


lol guess dugout Doug MacArthur and his boys didn't get their quota of squirrels before surrendering to the Japanese......

Offline Morpheus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10152
Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98
« Reply #64 on: March 12, 2004, 12:32:48 AM »
Quote
Wasnt the Springfield based on the mauser action? Did we pay license fees for some time for the design?



Springfield was based on what is known as a "mauser style" action. That was it. It was the massive extractor and controled round feed that made the mauser so reliable.

The answer to your license fees is, No we did not have to pay. Actaully Mr Mauser (I cant remember his first name atm) developed the action himself. He went blind in one eye due a test fire. What happend was the case failed, the gasses blew back through the bolt and into his face, rendering him blind in one eye. He allowed all to use his design. There were more manufactures of the Mauser style rifles than one would ever wish to count. Many countries/militaries demanded the issue of this action due to its reliability and ease of use. It was built extensivly on both a commercial and military basis. In post WW2 years it was one of the most popular guns to "sporterize." I have a guide gun infact that I built in 458 Win mag based on a FN build mauser action. Also a few others.

Today, the rarest of rare of the 98's are the German Sniper rifles. An original matching numbers one will fetch near 6000 dollars today.

A few of the early 1903 springfeilds underwent 2 heat treatings. These are of the most dangerous to shoot today. As they are very brittle. They are fine by ww2 standard military rounds go. But what was happening is GI's were bringing them home and sporterizing them. Using comercial ammo in them, or reloads which was much "hotter" than standard military or "ball" ammo. They were blowing them up left and right. This also happend during the war and was documented in many cases. All due to bad heat treating and brittle actions. I forget the "cut off" date for when this was corrected but the info is out there for those who wish to know. You can check to see if a gun is before or after the cut off date by the serial number naturally.


This is what I call a sweet piece of military history. This is a pic I took of a good friend who works at our store here. He is with out a doubt the most knowledgeable man of all things military I have never known. This is him with his just finished German MG-34. The receiver was welded and is totally inoperable. If this weren't the case this gun would be worth upwards of 30,000 dollars today IF AND ONLY IF it were on the books and had the correct papers. A fully operational gun that is in full auto. People are now designing prints and parts to convert many of the old "de-milled" machine guns into semi-auto. To do this, the prints and plans must be approved by the good ol ATF to be leagal and legit. Otherwise it MUST be welded and deamed inoperable to be leagal. What good is this? It allowed others to see today what the soilders of yesterday had to fight with. Its also plain old cool to look at and toy with :D



[/IMG] :D

Please excuse my spelling and gramar as I am all too tired:p

Too much Aces High will do that to a guy:o
If you don't receive Jesus Christ, you don't receive the gift of righteousness.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98
« Reply #65 on: March 12, 2004, 02:56:54 AM »
this is a multi-quote message (you've been warned ;))
Quote
Originally posted by Batz
But they weren't under direct control of the Nazis either. (well not until Torch when the Nazis occupied all of France.)

Vichy was allowed to keep its Navy and its territories. Vichy may have and did it collaborate with the Nazis but thats not the same thing. Poland, the Baltic States etc were examples of nations directly under control of the Nazis.


Well ... after a good rest I'm in a better shape to explain my point of view .

In fact instead of Free I would have used : autonomous a term who describe better (IMO) the relationship between Vichy and the German.

Quote
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Batz
 All their resistance did was kill of good men, their own and Brit and US, the nazis still ocupied. They new it was going to take place, that to me make them fighting back seem so sensless, either way the nazi ended  up taking over the rest of france.


Sure it was senseless as a lot of war events :(

Quote
Originally posted by Batz
So? All the British attacks Vichy did was kill good men (1000 killed on 1 ship). War is ugly. The Nazis occupied Southern France to be in postion for a possible invasion of Southerrn France from North Africa. Torch forced the Nazis hand. Had it failed Southern France may not have been occupied.


I doubt it wouldn't have happen (but I've nothing to back my thought) IMO the german wanted to get ride of the sanctuary south of France was.

On the subject of Torch  Général Noguèsand Amiral Mchelier  who were in command at this time  choose to resist the invasion by fidel to the vichy regime.
Others like Général Béthouart choose to help the landing and escaped death sentence for treason because of Patton's troop were fast.
Because of the secret around Torch the free french and de Gaulle were not aware of the operation a fact that leaded to the conflicts there was between de Gaulle and Roosevelt (among other reason).

The next battle was the Kasserine Pass battle and El Alamein were French troop were fighting with the allied ,so far the US were enemy only for 3 days...

Offline Rino

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8495
Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98
« Reply #66 on: March 12, 2004, 03:55:31 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
lol guess dugout Doug MacArthur and his boys didn't get their quota of squirrels before surrendering to the Japanese......


     Nice glass mansion you're living in there Schadenfreude...
do the words Malayasia and Singapore ring any bells?  In fact,
I believe it wasn't until 1944 that the English inflected a serious
defeat on the Japanese.

     I also don't recall MacArthur surrendering, must be getting old.
80th FS Headhunters
PHAN
Proud veteran of the Cola Wars

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98
« Reply #67 on: March 12, 2004, 04:07:26 AM »
Quote
I doubt it wouldn't have happen (but I've nothing to back my thought) IMO the german wanted to get ride of the sanctuary south of France was.


 Of course at the first threat of any European invasion Germany would have invaded Southern France. In fact Hitler threatened Petain that Germany would invade Vichy if his troops did not resist the allied landings in North Africa.

At the time of the armistice between Vichy and Germany, Germany allowed Vichy to keep its fleet and colonies. Vichy lived under Nazi threat and of course Vichy collaborated but it was still autonomous especially compared to the situations in the eastern countries. Under threat or under pressure maybe a better phrase.

To the others (I can't be bothered to go back and find out who they were),

As to the Brit attacks on the Vichy fleet. The Commander in Chief of the French Navy, Admiral Darlan, had promised the British that the Vichy fleet would be scuttled if there was any chance of it falling into German hands. The Brits attacked the fleet at Oran regardless, killing many Frenchmen.

When the allies landed at Oran the French initially resisted until Clark negotiated a cease-fire with Admiral Darlan (C-in-C of Vichy forces). It was Vichy troops at Oran that had been attacked by the Brits. It was these troops that put up the only determined resistance to the Allied landings during Torch. At Casablanca the Vichy ships never even left the harbor. Even so they were still engaged and knocked out by US Navy warships. So it wasn’t like the allies were just wading ashore with smiles and a handshake.



As proof of the Vichy navy men's intentions to scuttle; when the Germans made moves against Vichy ships at Toulon the French honored their promises and scuttled many ships like the Strasbourg pictured above.

But it seems some are just looking for an excuse to bash the French. I will leave you to it.

Offline Naso

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1535
      • http://www.4stormo.it
Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98
« Reply #68 on: March 12, 2004, 04:52:36 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Batz

But it seems some are just looking for an excuse to bash the French. I will leave you to it.


How dare you to join this bashful discussion with some ...... some... DISGUSTING, mere facts !!!! :mad:

Go back in your Ivory tower of culture, (bleach!!) and stop disturbing this lovely bashing session started with a pen.. err.. rifle measures contest.


;)

Offline Dowding

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6867
      • http://www.psys07629.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/272/index.html
Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98
« Reply #69 on: March 12, 2004, 05:22:26 AM »
Quote
As to the Brit attacks on the Vichy fleet. The Commander in Chief of the French Navy, Admiral Darlan, had promised the British that the Vichy fleet would be scuttled if there was any chance of it falling into German hands. The Brits attacked the fleet at Oran regardless, killing many Frenchmen.


Nope. The Fleet at Oran was making ready to set sail prior to the British fleet getting there, depite these assurances. That's why the attack was initiated. If that fleet had managed to get to sea before the task force got there the whole course of the war would have been different. British Naval domination in the Med would have been neutered and North Africa would have been lost.

Do you really think the Royal Navy blew them out of the water for the fun of it? A fleet about to scuttle does not make itself ready to sail when it knows a task force has been sent to deal with it. it was a terrible decision, but it needed to be taken.
War! Never been so much fun. War! Never been so much fun! Go to your brother, Kill him with your gun, Leave him lying in his uniform, Dying in the sun.

Offline -tronski-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2825
Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98
« Reply #70 on: March 12, 2004, 06:32:54 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by United
Isnt there a movie out about that battle?  I believe I watched it a while back.


I think it's Lost Battalion with Rick Schroder
 IMDB

 Tronsky
God created Arrakis to train the faithful

Offline _Schadenfreude_

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98
« Reply #71 on: March 12, 2004, 06:51:23 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by MJHerman
I don't know if a Lee could match the ROF of a Garand, but I do know that when the Germans first encountered the BEF in 1914 at Mons (I think), the British infantry were keeping up a sufficiently fast rate of fire from their Enfields that the Germans thought they were under machine gun fire.


Anyway the killers at section level are the crew served weapons, both the Bristish and the Germans had excellent mg's in the Bren and MG34/42.

For America who didn't have a decent lmg the Garand was more important.

Offline _Schadenfreude_

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98
« Reply #72 on: March 12, 2004, 06:57:22 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Rino
Nice glass mansion you're living in there Schadenfreude...
do the words Malayasia and Singapore ring any bells?  In fact,
I believe it wasn't until 1944 that the English inflected a serious
defeat on the Japanese.

     I also don't recall MacArthur surrendering, must be getting old.



lol little American getting angry when it is pointed out that the French do not have the market cornered when it comes to surrendering in droves.....I believe that the name "Dugout Doug" came from the troops under his command? I also Believe Doug high tailed it to Australia leaving his men to suffer the Bataan Death March after Corregidor fell?

Wtg for American leadership in war...........

Offline Vermillion

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4012
Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98
« Reply #73 on: March 12, 2004, 07:07:03 AM »
The Garand was hands down the best standard infantry weapon of the war.

In fact I've been wanting to pick up a new M-14 from Springfield for the past couple of years.  Very pricey though, when the base models start at $1,500 and go UP from there.

I was going to get one this year, but I ended up getting married, and sadly have no control over my own money anymore ;)

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98
« Reply #74 on: March 12, 2004, 07:48:10 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Umm, the STG was not the greatest gun of WW2.  Not even close.


While it was the first Assault Rifle, it by no means was the greatest assault rifle ever.


Heck, even the M1 carbine was better then it.


Coherent thought does not seem to be your strong side.