War winning weapons

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i've fired both a bolt action and a semi-auto, i cud get more control with the bolt action........................

[plan_D]

The Garand could get off more but that doesn't mean it's war winning. A well trained soldier gets enough off a bolt-action rifle, he doesn't fumble with the bolt he does it naturally.
The Germans up until 1944 were using bolt-action rifles, and up until 1942 they were winning. Would the STG.44 in 1940 made any difference? No.

[Lightning Guy]

Bolt-action works fine for distance shooting and is more accurate than a semi-auto (which is why most sniper rifles are bolt-action). The Garand was clearly the better weapon for close-in work and was more flexible (bolt actions can be difficult to work in anything other than a prone position). Other advantages include the larger magazine and that (when emptied) a fresh magazine was simply inserted rather than hand loading the individual rounds. However, the Garand should be considered war-winning for no other reason that the numbers produced. When it's production was ceased in 1950 more than 5.5 million had been made.

[plan_D]

The only reason the Springfield .03 was loaded individually was the scope didn't allow for the quick-mag. The Lee Enfield and K98 had quick-loaders which were 5 rounds on a clip which was inserted just like a Garands clip.
And Bolt Actions can be used in any position.

[cls12vg30]

All other arguments aside, I'm not saying the Garand was a war-winner, but given the choice I'd choose to go into battle with a semi-auto rifle over a bolt-action any day. The main thing the bolt-action has going for it, besides slightly better accuracy, is its inherent simplicity and the resultant reliablility.

[Lightning Guy]

5 rounds vs. 8 rounds. Advantage Garand. A bolt action can be used in a postion but its performance is hurt by trying to fire while standing or in firing from the hip. The Garand could be easily fired from any postion without having to move either hand. And again, 5.5 million rifles.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but that was up until 1950, just talk about the ones used in the war, and you don't fumble with a bolt action, whatever posistion you're in, a good soldier can empty a 5 round magazine in seconds, and he will **** it without loosing his aim, i found when firering a semi-auto, the kick was so much i had to wait to retake my aim, not so with the bolt action as i could retake my aim whilst reloading, and it didn't have a clip, the round went straight into the chamber.........................

[MP-Willow]

Ok on this I wil point out that the Grand had that nasty habbit of slamming the breach on your thumb if you are not carful. Also it is an atempt to get the fire power of the machine gun and the range of the rigle. I know that is the argumnt for the asult rifle, but when you think abot it the semi-auto rifle is the next step. You get the rate of fire but the Grand poped that clip and made that ping noise to let every one know you are out. As for wanting the Tompson, have you fred one? That 45 caliber round packs a lot and after a while your hands hurt like firing the colt 45 pistol. But the Tompson was good for the city fighting in Europe and the jungles.

But if I had my pick I would go for a BAR

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i would go for a bolt ation any day, and before you say "but the garand was better for street and jungle fighting", i would pick a stan for that.......................

[GermansRGeniuses]

I go with Stg.43/44. Best small arm of WWII.

[Lightning Guy]

So discount Garand production from 1945 until 1950 and you are still left with somewhere around 4 million rifles.

MP-Willow, the BAR was great for firepower but was a beast to lug around.

[plan_D]

A bolt-action rifle was also much easier to clear when it jammed. The fact that a Garand couldn't be reloaded mid-clip would make it difficult to clear.
You don't fire any rifle from the hip, unless you're stupid and want to completely miss everything.

GrG is right, the Stg. 44 was the best small arm of the war. The worlds first assault rifle. And it looks surprisingly like an AK-47 one, if not, the greatest assualt rifle of all time.

The fact is, if the American army were equipped with bolt-actions instead of semi-automatic rifles, the war would turn out the same.

[Crazy]

I tend to agree with you on all these points, plan_D. The war would have turned out virtually the same, with differences too minor to count. Besides, the American's weren't the only ones fighting the war. We had Moisin-Nagants and Lee-Enfields on our side as well.

The American's were still a large, potent force no matter which type of rifle they carried. Bolt-action or semi-auto, the actions of the troops wouldn't have changed much. Perhaps a few more losses because of the loss of semi-automatic fire, but perhaps a few more kills from a fewer amount of jams, and the ability to fix them when they occured

[Lightning Guy]

Well find a spirit medium and take it up with Patton.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the Stg. 44 was the best small arm of the war

very heavy however..................