Erwin, please stop being a complete Arse, get rid of that stupid signature and join in with the reat of the forum. If you cant do that, then please just leave. Youve been Trolling for months now and Im sure everyone is bored with it as I am.
Get back to WW2 man, this is after all what this site is about. Take your Malvinas arguments elsewhere please as it has just become more and more childish. Learn from your Mate Eagle who posts reasonable things.
By 1944 anyone in Europe with anything beside a G43 or M1 was completely outclassed. I’d surely rather go in with a G43 over a K98!
But also a brit did! (i don’t remember who,they are all the same thing for me 
).
please also give an advice to that guy,before he edits it!
It has been awhile since I’ve made a long post due to medical reasons. But my employer has finally given me voice control for my computer.
When this thread first started, I went down a range to test the Mauser in rapidfire has only had one charger. I decided that the best course of action would be to time how long it takes to go from an empty case in the chamber to the same state again having reloaded and fired five rounds. I did this three times with two attempts at 16 seconds and one of 17 this gives me a rough rate of fire of around 20 rpm, tops.
It should be noted that in the fifth round of the charger and into the magazine was harder than I anticipated due to the spring being stiff, and there being only just enough room in the magazine for five rounds it should also be noted that 20 rpm with a lee Enfield is a very leisurely rate of fire for a trained shooter.
I should also mention here that the best way to use a lee Enfield in rapidfire is to start with 10 rounds in the magazine, fire all 10, and then load five and fire five trying to get the second charger into the magazine in a hurry is hard and wastes time and since the magazine is designed for 10 rounds, loading it with five is very easy this also reduces the chance of a rim jam because the thumb can follow the fifth round into the magazine a fair distance and let the cartridges jump up sharply, thus ensuring that the rims are in the correct order.
With all due repsect to everyone’s choices due to national fervor or weapons you own the original question was one alluding to the best weapon for survivability in the field in 1944- post D-Day I imagine.
By that time bolt action rifles were completely outclassed and antiquated for use in the mobile fire fight scenarios that were occuring with greater frequency. No one can operate a bolt action long arm with greater rate of fire that a semi-auto. It cannot match the firepower of the G43 or M1. It can’t be loaded and made ready as fast. It has no advantage in range or accuracy. No one can deny this.
It’s swell to pick a favorite rifle for esoteric reasons but if you planned to stay alive in country in 1944-45 you’d be lame to pick any bolt action arm.
The marine professionals initially rejected the M1 rifle, and preferred the Springfield (very simiiliar to the k98) due to its enhanced accuracy and ammo conservation ( marine squads are armed with three BARS, and need most memembers of the squad to carry BAR magazines) and that the M1 rifle simply just caused ammo wastage with no appreciable increase in lethality.
Dude, that mindset was back on Guadalcanal in 1942 where the M1 was in such short supply the Marines HAD to equip with Springfield 03s. That ammo saving= bolt action rifles was an old fashioned BS myth that Gunnys from WW I believed in along with armchair generals! Works swell on the firing range but in combat 1944 it was all different. Why were German grunts clamoring for th STG 44 too if the old Mauser was so good? Trading fire-and-cock shots on both sides is/was fine at the early stages of the conflict. But by 1944 that was way over.
The question remains what would you and I and others reading this thread want in 1944 conditions to stay alive? By that time bolt action arms were SO 5 minutes ago. Would anyone honestly want to be in a squad of bolt action riflemen against a squad of M-1 or G43 equiped lads?
Read Hatcher’s Notebook p.139 for a really good explanation of why a semi-auto is desirable.
US post war studies and german pre-war studies showed the relative insignificance of the rifle in battle. A small percentage of bullet wounds were caused by rifle fire, only around 20-30%.
An american study done after the war showed that most US soldiers never fired their rifle in combat, and (this is similar to german study) that crew served weapons with two or more people dictated the fight and were far more active, firing all the time.
Another good thing about the garand was that the germans got used to hearing the distintive cling noise when the clip was ejected announcing you where out of ammo. Therefore alot of soliders would take a empty one with them. Fling the clip make the noise and wait for Jerry to stick his head up. Boom.
where did you here that? In the noise of combat, I don’t think the ping sound was that recognizable.
One of the many “garand ping” myths, I’m afraid. I’ve even seen people on the range not realise that their Garand had gone “ping”!
Ive never heard it from the horses mouth if thats what your getting at but ive heard it and read it loads of times. So if its a myth its a good one. However yea dont think it would work in a normandy like battle. Hell i would be surprised if you could heard the guy screaming next to you. A small clash of platoons maybe.
Bullshit. You can here the ping thru the ear covers. Plus it ejects from the top so I dont see how you could miss it. Maybe they just really wherent paying attention.
I might add this is a tactic that would work in close quarters. Your not going to hear is from 300yds away. Anyhow im convinced that it would work and that some have done it. Maybe we should write Mythbusters.
[quote=“Gen_Sandworm”]
Bullshit. You can here the ping thru the ear covers. Plus it ejects from the top so I dont see how you could miss it. Maybe they just really wherent paying attention. [/quote]
Seriously. Seen it happen. Of course you can hear it, but I’ve seen people shooting the rifle not notice it!
It’s probably worth adding that I (and I suspect quite a few other board members) am being taught to yell “magazine” when I run out of rounds and change magazines. I can’t help suspecting this may be a little more noticeable than a ping…
It’s probably worth adding that I (and I suspect quite a few other board members) am being taught to yell “magazine” when I run out of rounds and change magazines. I can’t help suspecting this may be a little more noticeable than a ping…[/quote]
And also to yell stoppage, when the rifle jammed as it invariably did…[/quote]
To be honest I was too busy to have time to think to yell stoppage, but while I think about it you’re quite right. Being very, very new REME TA I haven’t exactly fired a lot of rounds yet…
Hosenfield- that’s likely that actual rifle rounds were not a major wound causer in WW 2. But a rifle company is not actively engaged in manning crew weapons. They supported them often. If you are alluding to MGs they were not active all the time. You must remember once you open up a weapon like that it becomes the goal of every enemy soldier to kill you.
Often rifle fire was used to supress the enemy fire so part of the squad could use grenades or lastly move an LMG into place. Often times it was simply necessary to use suppressive firepower as we did in Vietnam and that’s where the M-1 outclassed any bolt action arm. We were able to expend massive amounts of rounds due to the fact that we could could get resupplied fast in most instances while Charlie had to wait for the Hanoi express to trot some down from the north.
On D-Day+60 for example, rifle companies moving in platoon and squad strengths inland in France at best had BARs with them since mobility was the key to their survival.
How many people never fired their rifle in combat may coincide with cooks, barbers, motor pool mechanics and whatnot too since all the support personnel were issues arms. Replacement companies, support batallions and mop up platoons moving in after an area is secured might never have a reason to fire for sure. I simply never interviewed or talked to anyone who never used their weapon in combat if they were in a combat zone.
I was in a recon outfit and we saw far less firefights than the average squad in Vietnam and everyone brought their weapon to bear to increase firepower when needed. If anybody woulda been NOT firing his weapon he woulda got is ass fragged!
Probably the M-1 Garand. Being a semi-auto, it is easier to keep the sights on target if follow up shots are needed or to sight in on additional targets after each hit.
I have fired the M-1 Garand (my brother’s) and my Lee-Enfields (both the No. 4 Mk I* and SMLE Mk III). I have not fired a Mauser 98k, but I have fired the Springfield Model 1903A3 (which I used to own many years ago). The 1903 Springfield was very similar to the Mauser 98k as it’s action was based on the Mauser design, but with some features carried over from the older Krag-Jorgensen such as the cocking piece and the round stem of the wing safety. I have not fired the Russian Mosin-Nagant M1891 yet, but plan to buy either a M91/30 or M44 in the near future.
The Lee-Enfields are the fastest of the bolt-actions and are enjoyable to shoot. My No. 4 Mk I* was made at the Long Branch Arsenal near Toronto, Canada in 1942 and my SMLE Mk III was made at a BSA (Birmingham Small Arms, Co.) controlled company near Birmingham in Shirley, England in 1940.
Enfield all the way
