The top 10 combat rifles

[renrich]

Remarks about 9mm parabellum being more accurate and having the same effectiveness in combat as 45 ACP are not borne out by experience both in warfare and in law enforcement. Please show me how the 8x57 JS is superior to the 3006. So Germany had better gun designers than that fellow from Utah, name of Browning? Hmmmm!

[parsifal]

Hi renrich

I can understand your exasperation about the comments concerning the 45 cal. It was basically an elephant gun. Yanks used it to great effect in bunker busting. Its hard to believe that ther is any doubt about its effectiveness. i certainly dont have any, well, with one exception (being the adequacy of the magazine ...the number of rounds I mean).
I have to say, on the flip side, that I am an absolute follower of the browning. i never had any problems vis a viz the killing power of the 9mm (although I never killed anybody with it), and having 13 rounds up the spout is kinda cool. No-one that i know has ever criticized the browning. It is a very good pistol indeed. Another big advantage of the browning is that it used the same ammunition as that for the SMGs of the war, thereby easing logistic problems.

[fly boy]

Originally Posted by Torch

Speaking of M1's, I just bought a converted Garand in a .308,great shape,new barrel, had a smith check it over.i paid 625$ for it. I know it's not a collector piece but I have a ton of .308 that I need to shoot and this will be a fun rifle to do it in. looking forward to some range time.

nice buy torch the m1 rifle is semi auto rifle so it can pack a punch

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by fly boy

nice buy torch the m1 rifle is semi auto rifle so it can pack a punch

Adler, got another quote for your signature here . . . . .

[renrich]

Parsifal, I can certainly understand where you are coming from and I too have never shot anyone with either my Browning Hi power in 9mm or my two 1911s in 45ACP. However, most of the "experts" seem to think that the 45ACP is the weapon of choice for a more sure man-stopper. As you know the 45ACP was the caliber the Thompson gun was chambered in and some of the Stens were chambered in 45 also as well as the grease gun. I qualified with the 1911 and having quite a lot of handgun shooting experience including with the 41 and 44 magnum, I never found the 45 to be hard to handle. On paper, the 45 is superior to the 9mm and I understand that many of the special forces types in the Middle East are back to 1911 types in 45ACP. Strictly intuitive but I suspect that the Browning Hi Power would not be as reliable in the field as the 1911 but 13 in the mag is a lot more than 7 although a lot of the 1911 derivatives now have more mag cap.

[parsifal]

Hi Renrich

Well i know what i would do if i saw a man pointing a 45 at me. It would be "Yes sir, whatever you say sir!" But then again, i probably would do the same if a browning was being pointed at me as well

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by renrich

Parsifal, I can certainly understand where you are coming from and I too have never shot anyone with either my Browning Hi power in 9mm or my two 1911s in 45ACP. However, most of the "experts" seem to think that the 45ACP is the weapon of choice for a more sure man-stopper. As you know the 45ACP was the caliber the Thompson gun was chambered in and some of the Stens were chambered in 45 also as well as the grease gun. I qualified with the 1911 and having quite a lot of handgun shooting experience including with the 41 and 44 magnum, I never found the 45 to be hard to handle. On paper, the 45 is superior to the 9mm and I understand that many of the special forces types in the Middle East are back to 1911 types in 45ACP. Strictly intuitive but I suspect that the Browning Hi Power would not be as reliable in the field as the 1911 but 13 in the mag is a lot more than 7 although a lot of the 1911 derivatives now have more mag cap.

I am no Spec Ops expert, but from what I understand, you are quite correct in that a lot of the special forces prefer the .45ACP over the 9mm; true, it doesn't have the mag capacity that a 9mm does, but if it takes one round of .45 ball ammo, versus two rounds of 9mm, to neutralize a target, I think most operators would go with the .45. I know that Delta operators prefer the .45, and that most of them have customized versions, usually either a Baer or a Kimber.

[Soren]

But they were badly let down by their procurement machinery, which meant, of the big three (US, Brit and germany) they were relatively, the worst equipped forces for the most part.

Parsifal that just isn't true.

If you look at the amount of the MG-34, MG-42, MP-40, G-43 & StG.44's produced you'll realize that the German soldier was often the BEST equipped in the world. Now this coupled with the better training (Atleast up till late 44) is the reason behind the fact that everytime the numbers were equal the Germans always came out on top, something the Allied commanders stressed very much needed be taken into consideration before D-day, and they did. Patton mentions this as-well.

Also remember that the German doctrine revovled around the machine gun, the rifle squads only acting as supports - directly the opposite of the Allied doctrine.

Btw, you mention a Mk43 in your post, I'm not sure what you were refering to here cause the Germans fielded no such weapon.

As to the G-43, well I've held one quite a few times and its just as easily wielded as any other rifle, and its not that forward heavy really.

The StG.44 is a very nice rifle to hold, and I bet also to shoot, atleast it is according to all who've fired it.

As for the part about logistics, well we agree there. The Germans put out way too many different weapons and ammunition types really, and this cause some serious logistical problems.

Originally Posted by renrich

Remarks about 9mm parabellum being more accurate and having the same effectiveness in combat as 45 ACP are not borne out by experience both in warfare and in law enforcement.

Yes they are Renrich, and there are even CIA documents out there avaialble which show a completely similar effects on the target when hit by either of these rounds. Also you need to understand that both a pistol rounds and therefore they are NOT knock overs, there's simply waay to little energy. The force that is generated is just the same as the recoil you're feeling when shooting the gun (Every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction).

The 9x19mm Parabellum has always been more accurate, namely because it's allot more streamlined and flies faster.

Don't be fooled by Hollywood's film tricks Renrich.

Please show me how the 8x57 JS is superior to the 3006.

Sure. The 8x57 JS fires heavier, higher SD & BC bullets at higher velocities than the 30.06 is capable of, and esp. during WW2. Today the 30.06 fires lighter bullets at slightly higher velocities, that's it, when bullet weight increases the 8x57 JS takes over quickly.

So Germany had better gun designers than that fellow from Utah, name of Browning? Hmmmm!

Yes, one by the name of Paul Mauser. Mauser is perhaps the best gun designer of all time, the M98 action being the most widely copied in the world and still considered the best.

During the war Walther, Mauser, Krupp & Rheinmetall consistantly designed and produced better guns than anyone else, namely the below:

Smallarms:
K98k
MG-34
MG-42
FG-42
StG.44
Solothurn S18-1000

Larger guns:
30mm Mk108 & Mk103
75mm KwK/PaK42 L/70
88mm KwK36/FlaK 18/36 L/56
88mm KwK/PaK43 L/71
105mm LeFH 18/40 & 42
128mm PaK44 L/55 & L/60
150mm K-18
173mm K-18
210mm K-18

Just to name a few....

Now this having been said Parsifal rightly points out that Germany was the country of the three big ones which thought the least of logistics, and this did cause a lot of problems.

[renrich]

Soren, my manual says you are wrong. To begin with the 3006 case has more capacity than the 8x57JS. In practically every loading the 06 surpasses the 8 Mauser. With the 150 gr bullet, the 8mm gets a MV of 2899 fps with a chamber pressure of 49,030 psi chamber prssure. 06 gets 2906 fps with a lower chamber pressure of 48080. The 8 Mauser with 198 gr bullet gets 2440 fps with 47550 CP. 06 gets 2600 fps with 200 gr bullet and 46730 CP. I don't have data for heavier bullets for 8 Mauser. Since in the same weight and shape bullet the 06 is going to have a better BC and CD than the 8 Mauser it will also have better down range performance. As to your opinion on the 9 versus the 45 most experts don't support you. In fact I know of no authorities that give the 9 anything like the lethality of the 45 ACP. As for accuracy the 45 is inherently accurate. In a good handgun, it is renowned for accuracy. In fact I know a Ranger in Texas who can hit a target less than one foot in diameter 3 of 5 times at 225 yards with an accurised 1911 and handloads. Soren, do yourself a favor and look up John browning and the Paul Mauser of wiki. Get educated. I don't get any information from Hollywood.

[Soren]

I'm not the one who needs to educate myself here Renrich, I know how these things work. You on the other hand seriously need to educate yourself on the 8x57 JS Mauser as well as Paul Mauser!

The 30.06 has more case capacity yes, but the 8x57 JS has a larger diameter neck which means a larger surface area for the gasses to push on = higher velocities.

As for your manual, well which is it Renrich ? The full power European 8x57 JS loads will easily push a 150 gr bullet past 3,000 fps, and 200 gr ones past 2,700 fps.

The std. German rifle round during WW2, the 198gr Patr.sS, did 785 m/s in the K98k (600mm barrel), which was achieved at just 70% of the case's maximum pressure which is ~62,000 psi MAP. However the LW used the V-patr. (V stands for Verbessert which means Improved) which was the same round except loaded to much higher pressures, this round propelled the 198 gr sS projectile to 868 m/s through a 600mm barrel, which gives you a pretty good idea of the power of the 8x57 JS.

Check this out (All loads are below 56,000 psi MAP): Real Guns - Handload Data - 8x57mm JS Mauser

Other sites to check is reloadersnest.com, they have a lot of hot loads as-well.

As for the .45 ACP being a knock over, it's pure folklore and Hollywood deceit, people don't skip across the floor or fly backwards if hit by one, there's simply not enough force. The std. 9x19mm 124gr Parabellum round actually has a higher KE than the std. 230 gr .45 ACP round.

The std. .45 ACP round fires a 15g (230 gr) projectile at 260 m/s, which equals a kinetic energy of 507 Joules.

The std. 9mm Parabellum round fires a 8g (124 gr) projectile at 360 m/s which equals a kinetic energy of 518 Joules.

To no surprise these rounds are very similar to each other in terms energy brought to the target, and since both used FMJ bullet in the military so is their effect.

[parsifal]

Hi guys

Firstly, we are not debating for sheep stations here...its meant to be a friendly discussion, to try and expand our collective understanding of the issues. Just because someone does not agree with something, does not mean that we need to take them out the back and shoot them. Lively debate is a very good thing, but personalising the argument is goiing to achieve nothing except getting the thread closed down.

Now, Soren, I have to reply to some of the issues you have raised

[quote=Soren;345213]Parsifal that just isn't true.

If you look at the amount of the MG-34, MG-42, MP-40, G-43 & StG.44's produced you'll realize that the German soldier was often the BEST equipped in the world. Now this coupled with the better training (Atleast up till late 44) is the reason behind the fact that everytime the numbers were equal the Germans always came out on top, something the Allied commanders stressed very much needed be taken into consideration before D-day, and they did. Patton mentions this as-well.

Soren

You have not included the 98K in this reply, and this is the focus of my previous posts. I just disagree with you the 98K was superior to the equivalent allied weaponary, namely the Lee Enfield and the Garand. I am gooing to assume that you are conceding this point. If you have, then most of my job is done. The 98K production amounted to about 11000000 rifles, whilst MK43 and G-43 each accounted for about 300000 each, give or take. That means that the 98K was going to be encountered 95% of the time. And I have not included the disheartening and vast array of foreign castoffs that the wehrmacht was forced to rely on for a significant proportion of its forces. I know for example, that significant numbers of the Hungarian Mannlicher, the Czech version of the mauser, and the Austrian Steyrs, and mausers. The Germans were also forced to rely on some stocks of French weaponary, Bertiers in particular, which are sadly down the scale.

By way of example, the MK43 equipped the 1st & 12th SS Divs and the Fuhrer Escort brigade during the 1944 Ardenne offensive. The remainder of the formations were equipped with a few G-43s and mostly with 98Ks. For the record there were over 28 "other " formations involved in this offensive, in one way or another

I have no problem with the quality of the MGs and SMGs that you mention, but your assertion about quantity is very brave, and incorrect I think. I dont have figures for the SMGs, nor is it relevant to this thread, but I do know tha quantities of MG 34s and 42s. The Germans produced about 200000 34s, and about 750000 42s

By comparison, the british and CW built over 400000 brens and Vickers Berthiers (a very similar, not well known companion of the Bren). The British Army, includng the Dominions never came anywhere near being one third the size of the German army....Britain, for example never fielded more than about twelve divisions in NW Europe in 1944. It is just denying the facts to try and assert that the scale of issue per formation is going to be superior to in the wehrmacht. The coast defence formations in Holland, for example, in 1944, relied on some Schwarlozes and Maxims dating from long before WWI as their principal automatic weapon inventory.

Your assertion that the germans were the best trained in the world is true for anything up to 1943, but highly debateable after 1944. Your assertion that the Germans always came out on top when numbers were equal is also just not correct. I can think of many examples where this is just not true. And the fact that the germans were mostly outnumbered was also a factor in the battle. For a number of reasons the Allies were able to concentrate their forces at critical points of the front, and thereby achieve a superiority of numbers, Sometimes they didnt even need to do that, they just had the numbers. Doesnt matter, its all part of the equation, the attritional battle that Germany found herself locked into after 1942.

Also remember that the German doctrine revovled around the machine gun, the rifle squads only acting as supports - directly the opposite of the Allied doctrine.

That is just not the case Soren. The heart of the firepower for the British squad was the Bren, the mortar, and to a lesser extent the PIAT. They relied on the SMG for close in fighting. Your assertion here is just not correct.

What the germans did do, was to combine the functions of Light and heavy MG into one piece of hardwar. Their MG 42s did the two jobs. This was an advantage

Btw, you mention a Mk43 in your post, I'm not sure what you were refering to here cause the Germans fielded no such weapon.

Mk43 stands for Maschinen Karabinier 43. Later models of the MK43 were renamed Sturmgewehr 44 (in English....Assault Rifle Model 1944). The design barely changed however.

As to the G-43, well I've held one quite a few times and its just as easily wielded as any other rifle, and its not that forward heavy really.

I am not conceding this point, but even if you are right, do you think the g-43 was greatly superior, or even equal to, the garand. It carries two more rounds in the magazine, thats about it from what i can see. i know this...I would rather 6000000 garands over 300000 G43s any day

The StG.44 is a very nice rifle to hold, and I bet also to shoot, atleast it is according to all who've fired it.

And this has what to do with procurement?????

As for the part about logistics, well we agree there. The Germans put out way too many different weapons and ammunition types really, and this cause some serious logistical problems.

[parsifal]

As for the .45 ACP being a knock over, it's pure folklore and Hollywood deceit, people don't skip across the floor or fly backwards if hit by one, there's simply not enough force. The std. 9x19mm 124gr Parabellum round actually has a higher KE than the std. 230 gr .45 ACP round.

The std. .45 ACP round fires a 15g (230 gr) projectile at 260 m/s, which equals a kinetic energy of 507 Joules.

The std. 9mm Parabellum round fires a 8g (124 gr) projectile at 360 m/s which equals a kinetic energy of 518 Joules.

To no surprise these rounds are very similar to each other in terms energy brought to the target, and since both used FMJ bullet in the military so is their effect.[/quote]

They may have similar amounts of energy brought to the target, but this is not a good indicator of killing power. Killing power is a function of work, not kinetic energy, and in the physics associated with work, the mass factor is much more important

[Soren]

Parsifal,

As a std. infantry rifle the K98k wasn't as good as the Garand, that is very true, it simply didn't have the same firepower. That we can definitely agree about. However compared to the Lee Enfield it's another matter entirely as the K98k was better in many ways, one of them was a longer effective range and better accuracy at long ranges. (There's a reason the Enfield was phased out and the Mauser still is used today)

Moving on...

The German doctrine revovled around the machine gun as the main squad weapon, the riflemen acting as support. The Allied doctrine was that the rifle was the main squad weapon, and the machine gun acted as support. You see the difference ?

Mk43 stands for Maschinen Karabinier 43. Later models of the MK43 were renamed Sturmgewehr 44 (in English....Assault Rifle Model 1944). The design barely changed however.

Parsifal there was no smallarm designated Mk43 by the Germans during WW2. The weapon you're talking about is the MP-43 (Maschinenpistole 43), which wasn't produced in as large a number as the StG44 (Sturmgewehr 44) of which 425,977 examples were built alone.

You can read about why it was called the MP-43 and later StG44 on wiki as-well: StG44 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 98K production amounted to about 11000000 rifles, whilst MK43 and G-43 each accounted for about 300000 each, give or take. That means that the 98K was going to be encountered 95% of the time.

You can't conclude that the K98k was going to be encountered 95% of the time by looking at numbers produced Parsifal. Remember that the K98k was being produced waay before WW2 even started and that a vast amount of countries bought litterally millions of examples.

Also keep in mind that the German army at its height numbered around 5.5 million.

Numbers of most of the weapons used by the German army:
MG-34 = 354,020
MG-42 = 414,964
FG-42 = 7,000
StG.44 = 425,977
MP-43 & 43/1 = ~70,000
G-43 = 456,200
MP-40 = 1,000,000
G-41 = 122,997
P-38 = 1,200,000
MG-26 & 30(t) = 33,000
S2-100 MG30 = 10,000
MG-81 = 46,000
MP-35 = 40,000
MP-41 = 26,700
_______________________
In all: 4,206,858 (excluding the P-08 Luger and many other weapons)

K98k = ~7,000,000 (11,000,000 produced in all)

So we can assume that around 60% of the German army was equipped with the K98k, and although not the ideal std. infantry weapon it did afterall perform beautifully and was repected the heck out of by everyone in the conflict, remember this was gun which was used for popping heads out past 1,000 meters.

I am not conceding this point, but even if you are right, do you think the g-43 was greatly superior, or even equal to, the garand. It carries two more rounds in the magazine, thats about it from what i can see. i know this...I would rather 6000000 garands over 300000 G43s any day

The G-43 is not superior to the Garand but it's atleast its equal, having the advantage of two extra rounds and a interchangable magazine, something which will come in handy during combat, trust me.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by parsifal

They may have similar amounts of energy brought to the target, but this is not a good indicator of killing power. Killing power is a function of work, not kinetic energy, and in the physics associated with work, the mass factor is much more important

The .45 ACP makes slight larger entry hole that's really it. On the other hand the 9mm Parabellum penetrates better.

Here's the wound cavity for the Parabellum 9mm 124 gr FMj bullet:


And the .45 ACP 230 gr FMJ:


Note: The picture are not in similar scale, the illustration of the Parabellum is smaller.

These were the projectiles used by the military and as you can see there's no real difference in effectiveness overall, despite the larger temporary cavity created by the 9x19mm at what would be the back of the person if the front torso was hit. They're both just as lethal to a human, and trust me I know this. You have to aim at the right place to drop a man instantly with one of these rounds. For example hit a man right in the middle of the torso with a 9mm and the bullet will sever the spinal cord and the guy is incapacitated instantly. (And then there's the head which is the prime target in most situations when you have to use a sidearm in the military, or spec ops atleast)

[parsifal]

Hi Soren

The mauser over open sights was not a better weapon at long range to the Lee Enfield. The reason is that the Sights on the Mauser were exceedingly poor.

I have experience with both weapons, and should point out that i am a qualified QMG, which would allow me to move to the next phase of my training, which is to qualify as a sniper. What you are saying is just not a true statement. The lee Enfield can easily out perform the Mauser for accuracy at ranges beyond 200 metres. This has nothing to do with the guns performance, it has to do with the exceptionally poor positioning of the open sights, and the short radius of those sights.

Comments about the allied doctrine are just completely untrue. I have seen the Australian training manuls, which centred the squads firepower arond the squad MG (and other supporting arms. Your statment is just incorrect mate.

MK 43...oh yes there is. You are relying on a wikiapedia site to prove your point. right at this minute I have six hard copy books open on my desk, all of them referring to the MK-43. they secondarily refer to this weapon as the stg-44. The correct name is the MK-43. Sorry, but once again you are wrong. The assualt rifle we are both referring to is also known as the MK-43
I know the MP-43, and I am NOT referring to the MP-43

With regard to your next point, yes i can conclude that 95% of front line units were equipped with the 98K. Previously i advised you that the only units equipped with the MK-43 were 2.5 divs. Thats out of a total of 72 divs on the western front at the time. Assuming the units that did not participate in the offensive would not have been equipped with Germany's premier sidearm, that means 2.5/72 or 3.5% of the formations on the western front were equipped with the weapon you are referring to

Your refernece to 60% (with the remainder being met by the newer weapons) is just incorrect, because the total army returns are too low. The german armed forces actually amounting to 9.5 millions at their peak. even in late 1944 the amount of men in uniform amounted to 7.6 million. You cannot discount the LW Kriegsmarine, SS Replacement Army, and other paramilitaries just because they are notin the field grey. its a nonsense. My source for this, incidentally are the original Ersatzheer records, of which i have copies...It may be that 60% might just be right actually, but the difference is made up mostly by the foreign castoffs I referred to earlier, and not so much the wonder weapons that you would like to see there instead. So the quality of the German inventory is actually a lot lower than you think.

So we can at least agree that the G-43 is not more efficient than the garand, so...that means that the 6000000 garands produced during the war are going to have a much greater impact than the 300000 G-43s, or are we going to redraw the boundaries here as well???

Have run out of time, will reply to your later post concerning killing power a bit later. It is wrong as well I am afraid, because it does not understand the basic physics behind the theory.....