The top 10 combat rifles

[Soren]

so if you want to be further demolished, please, go ahead and say you dont believe me

ROFLMAO!!

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by Soren

Really ?? Enlighten me please!

All I can say is I find it funny you disregard actual test illustrations of both rounds terminal ballistics, oh well...

Killing Power must be a function of work, rather than a function of Kinetic Energy. The reason is simple> KE= 1/2mv2 and a bullet does not continue to accelarate for long after it leaves the barrel, or if it does, it is only fractional compared to the initial velocity on leaving the barrel

Work is a function of momentum, where P=mv. Now if you compare the formaula for work, to the formaula for KE, you immedialy see that theffect of the mass is doubled, whilst the effect of the velocity is square rooted.

The problem with heavy projectiles is that they tend to have heavy recoils (again a function of work, and not KE) and will tend to lose velocity quite quickly. I never discussed, incidentally, the effect of range on the .45.


I sense a hint of lying here Parsifal! But to give you a chance show me just a SINGLE reference to the StG44 EVER being designated Mk43.

Watch who you call a liar you little twirp

One source....okay John Weeks, Small Arms, Orbis Publishing Page 29 & Armour Press . have scanned the relevant page and hopefully it will attach (not familiar on how to do that

My position hasn't changed at all. The K98k is a more accurate rifle, when you put a scope on it that is, otherwise it's the same, unless shooting at very long ranges where the K98k is better with iron sights as-well owing to its superior ballistics. Actually you'll find it very difficult to find any meaningful differences in accuracy between most of the rifles of WW2 if you're shooting them through iron sights.

So...are you arguing that the 98K was as accurate over open sights or not???

[renrich]

The only proof needed is that the FBI and many other law enforcement agencies quit the nine and went to the larger calibers. Why would they do it if not advantageous? My Ranger friend considers the nine inadequate relatively!

[Soren]

Watch who you call a liar you little twirp

ROFLMAO!!

One source....okay John Weeks, Small Arms, Orbis Publishing Page 29 & Armour Press . have scanned the relevant page and hopefully it will attach (not familiar on how to do that

Let me guess, another book from the late 60's right ? Get some more accurate & updated sources Parsifal.

I suggest that you take a look inside this book amongst many others: German Automatic Weapons of World War II by Robert Bruce from 1998. An excellent book.

In short however the Germans NEVER and I repeat NEVER designated the weapon Mk43 (Maschinen karabiner 43), the first prototypes were designated Mkb42(H) & Mkb42(W), which ironically stands for Maschinen Karabiner 42, the H standing for Haenel and the W for Walther, the two companies competing for the contract.

Mkb42(W)


Mkb42(H)


Haenel eventually won the rights and the MP-43 (Maschinen Pistole 43) rolled off the production lines.

MP-43


MP-43/1


MP-44


StG44(Exactly the same as the MP44, only diff. designation)


And here's a site you should read as-well Historic Firearm of the Month, February 2000, with sources listed at the bottom. I have the book by Peter Senich as-well his books on German Snipers, all excellent books.

From the site (And book):
"Most interesting is the change in nomenclature from the machine carbine to machine pistol, which had heretofore indicated a submachinegun suitable for use at short distances only. This terminology issue dates to the prewar period, when, in German military circles, a machine carbine came to mean a short, semiautomatic rifle without an automatic fire capability. Despite this, when the Heereswaffenamt specifications for a new multipurpose infantry shoulder arm were outlined in the late 1930's, the term machine carbine was believed to best characterize the idea. However, in early 1942, Adolf Hitler began to deeply involve himself in the development and introduction of new weapons. Apparently, Hitler expressed more than a little displeasure at the thought of introducing an entirely new weapon and cartridge, and ordered work to cease on the machine carbine program. Despite this, certain groups within the Heereswaffenamt were more interested in fielding effective weaponry than respecting the Fuhrer's unreasonable orders. Therefore, the project continued on a more or less covert basis, with all references to the MKb being dropped altogether, and work continued under the designations MP42 and MP43 - the idea being to convey that these referred to improvements in existing weapons. Hitler was eventually clued in as to the true nature of the MP43 project and ordered an immediate termination to the project. However, a "special series" limited to those quantities of guns and parts already in production was authorized in March 1943. The forces behind the intermediate rifle concept took a very liberal view of what was already "in production." As an epilogue, when faced with very positive combat evaluations of the MP43 from Russia, Hitler finally changed his views, and in September 1943, the project was given official blessing and could continue openly. "

Originally Posted by parsifal

So...are you arguing that the 98K was as accurate over open sights or not???

It was as accurate at all practical ranges and more accurate at very long ranges.

[parsifal]

Let me guess, another book from the late 60's right ? Get some more accurate & updated sources Parsifal.

Soren, John Weeks is an internationally recognized expert on small arms. I picked it because I thought it would be simple enough for you to understand. My version is a 1979 version incidentally. Also, the generally held concensus on how to conduct proper research is that the closer to the actual event, or item, in time, the more likley it is to be accurate. Later renditions on the same topic can perpetuate and accentuate an error from an earlier piece of research ion which that work is based. Im not saying that necessarily your quoted sources are suffering from this, what I am saying, my friend, is that your basic approach to reseach is incorrect. the closer to the actuall event of the work, the more reliable the source (as a general rule)


I suggest that you take a look inside this book amongst many others: German Automatic Weapons of World War II by Robert Bruce from 1998. An excellent book.

In short however the Germans NEVER and I repeat NEVER designated the weapon Mk43 (Maschinen karabiner 43), the first prototypes were designated Mkb42(H) & Mkb42(W), which ironically stands for Maschinen Karabiner 42, the H standing for Haenel and the W for Walther, the two companies competing for the contract.


Well I have presented evidence that suggests otherwise, which is good enough for me. We are talking about the same firearm soren, so no, i am not going to take up your offer and go and look again. I have better things to do frankly.


It was as accurate at all practical ranges and more accurate at very long ranges.[/QUOTE]

Again, Ive got evidence and experience to suggest that over open sights the 98k suffered in terms of accuracy, because of the poor sight radii of the sights, and the positioning of the sights on the firearm itself. Obviously I am never going to be able to convince you of this, but I dont accept your position. Its a mexican standoff. One last point, however, the enfield has not been withdrawn from service. It is no longer considered a first line weapon, but is still held in considerable numbers by most Commonwealth countries.; in places like India in particular, it was used as a main sidearm until the '70s at least. It is still used as a police issue and second line weapon, and is extensively used as a training weapon as well.

I dont think I am inclined to respond to any further replies from you on this issue. My background checks of you reveal that you have a bit of a history at this sort of never ending rubbish. Whilst I congratulate you on your obstinancy, this does not make for interesting and engaging conversation my friend. I have no wish to waste time on this issue much further, though I am sure we will cross swords again.

[fly boy]

ok heres my list
1ak-47 of corse
2 m-1 grand
3 m-16
4 m-4 carbine
5 mouser 98
6 mp43
7 spring field 1903
8 winchester
9 mousen megent
10 m-14

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

My understanding as well is that there was no Mk43.

There was however a MKb42. The MKb42 stands for [b]Maschinenkarabiner 1942,[b] which litterally translates to Machine Carbine.

There was also a MKb43 based off of the MP43, but as far as I know it was never actually produced except for prototypes (not sure if this is correct though).

However Soren and parsifal, you both need to tone it down a bit. You can discuss this reasonably. Dont get this thread closed either.

My question is this: Whenever a thread does get closed why is it usually a thread that Soren is involved in?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Thanks Wildcat. Do you know people in Adelaide. One of my best mates is Kev Reid, recently retired from the RAAF, a W/O, was a loadmaster serving in the C130 J sqn?

I see as usual that people are nominating the mauser. There is no easy way to put this, its a terrible gun, very nasty. Not outstandingly accurate (at least the 1935 98K, mostly because of the short sight radius), slow and cumbersome in the action, hard to build relatively, at the end of the war suffered from QA problems, small magazine.

The 98K was the standard issue weapon of the Wehrmacht

Whereas Allied soldiers were often only too willing to use other captured german weapons (like pistols smgs and the like) there are very few examples of the Mausers being employed in this way....reason, poor performance.....

The Mauser 98 was basically the AK-47 of its time, bought, licensed by dozens and dozens of countries. The Springfield is basically an Americanised Mauser, for example. It was just an increadibly successfull design, and the famous `98 Mauser system is still widely copied, its very good, strong and smooth indeed! The British planned to replaced the SMLE with a Mauser system bolt action rifle as well, but, WW1 intervened and they needed rifles fast, hence the SMLE stayed.

As to criticism like small magazine, short sight radius - I can`t really understand this, the Mauser 98 shares the 5 round clip magazine, relatively short sight distance with the majority of bolt action rifles of the time, so I don`t really get why to pick at the `98 because of that. It`s a nice, compact and handy, reliable bolt action rifle of which what, something like 100 million+ was built..?

Otherwise, I think the original thread starter`s list is very reasonable, and I can agree with it, though I am personally a great fan of the Steyr AUG, I can accept its historical importance is much less than these classic weapons, no matter how much I like the design itself.

[parsifal]

Der Adler

I dont want the thread closed down. I hear you, and wont let my comments get out of hand again on this thread. I got angry when I was accused of being a liar, and when i saw other people being verbally bullied.

I have been told by some cooler heads that the best way of dealing with this situation is to ignore the inflammatory posts, this is what i intend to do

Its obvious to me that the references to MP-43, and MK-43, and Stg 44 are, for practical purposes, refernces to the same design. There is little further to be gained by further arguing that strand of the debate in my opinion.

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

The Mauser 98 was basically the AK-47 of its time, bought, licensed by dozens and dozens of countries. The Springfield is basically an Americanised Mauser, for example. It was just an increadibly successfull design, and the famous `98 Mauser system is still widely copied, its very good, strong and smooth indeed! The British planned to replaced the SMLE with a Mauser system bolt action rifle as well, but, WW1 intervened and they needed rifles fast, hence the SMLE stayed.

The SMLE was planned to be replaced during WWI principally because of the rough handling it had received with the Boers. Basically the british were terrible shots. Having made the decision to stay with the Enfield, the British concentrated on improving the marksmanship of the tommys. After Mons, there was never any doubt in the british minds that the decision to stay with the Enfield was the right one


As to criticism like small magazine, short sight radius - I can`t really understand this, the Mauser 98 shares the 5 round clip magazine, relatively short sight distance with the majority of bolt action rifles of the time, so I don`t really get why to pick at the `98 because of that. It`s a nice, compact and handy, reliable bolt action rifle of which what, something like 100 million+ was built..?

The sight distance argument is a relatively minor issue (although you wouldnt believe that from my previous posts). The five round clip size is okay when compared to most contemporaries, eg the Berthier, the Mannlicher Carcano, the Lebel, and the Moisin Nagant (to name the main opponents). Against the Enfield, with its ten round magazine, and higher rate of fire (good as the action was in the 98k), the enfield was about twice as fast in terms of its effective rate of fire.

Agree with you about the shortlist, although some of the newer weapons have not been included, probably because they are not so well known

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Its obvious to me that the references to MP-43, and MK-43, and Stg 44 are, for practical purposes, refernces to the same design. There is little further to be gained by further arguing that strand of the debate in my opinion.

Agreed; as far as I'm concerned, an Stg44 is an Stg44 is an Stg44. Arguing about the many permutations of it's nomenclature is pretty pointless. I will always like the Stg44 because it was the first true assault rifle, designed as such from it's inception. It is, if nothing else, the grandaddy of the AK, M16, G36, and FN-FAL.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

My question is this: Whenever a thread does get closed why is it usually a thread that Soren is involved in?[/b]

Because I stand by what I say perhaps ??

[Soren]

Whereas Allied soldiers were often only too willing to use other captured german weapons (like pistols smgs and the like) there are very few examples of the Mausers being employed in this way....reason, poor performance.....

Pure fabrication!

There's a freakin reason it's the most copied rifle of all time !! It's an excellent performer which frequently kicked the ass of the SMLE in combat, and mostly because of its longer effective range.

[Glider]

Sorry Soren but this posting is rubbish.
There is no doubt that the British at least often used German SMG's in fact it was the policy of the Essex Regiment to dump Stens and replace them with German MP's.
There is also no doubt that the Allies did not use the Mauser 98, the Americans because the Garrand Rifle was a major improvement in combat over any bolt action rifle.
The British because the Lee Enfield was a better rifle. With a faster rate of fire and double the ammunition it had clear advantages.
As for the range question. All three rifles were more than accurate enough for normal combat ranges and as for maximum ranges there was nothing in it but its worth noting that the Lee Enfield Sniper is considered to be a classic.

I haven't used the Mauser but I have fired the Lee Enfield at 700 yards with good results.
It was fitted with peep sights not the normal iron or telescopic sights.

[parsifal]

Something to keep in mind as well, the overall impact of sidearms as a whole was actually quite minor. I have read somewhere some years ago about a study made in the US on the origins of battlefield casualties in WWII. Something like over 50% of casualties were the result of artillery, with small arms like rifles etc only accounting for something like 10% of casualties. I cant verify this claim, because I cant remember the source, but I know that I read the thing somewhere, and the study appeared credible to me.

Facts are that Infantry weapons are primarily defensive, and Infantry has two main functions in life, to keep the enemy Infantry away from ones own killing machines, and to occupy enemy territiry. There are a lot of other functions as well, I know, but these are the defined chief functions of the Infantry force