Top 10 Infantry rifles

[Ricky]

ricky - numbers do count simply because anybody can build small numbers of something that can be very good but never get used in large enough numbers to make a difference.

But numbers and ability are two different things.

one reason germany has so few best in class weapons is they never really got the bugs out before sending them into battle.

And that is a great reason why not to count it as the best

[Blaster]

Modern assault rifles dont use hi power rounds like ww2 era rifles did. Main reason is, that higher range does not worth more the lower recoil,weight,size of rifle,etc. U got modern semi auto rifles with more less similar long range atributes,but superior in much all of the rest.

I see. But the full auto or burst fire of modern rifles has to be an advantage for them, right?

Not at 900 yards.

Tim

Well, no, but for firefights at closer range, I'd think definitely. And it appears that closer range firefights are becoming more and more common nowadays if NATO decided to go with reduced power rifle rounds.

[sinissa]

As for the Sturmgewehr itself, it remained in use with the East German Nationale Volksarmee with the designation MPi.44 until it was eventually replaced with variants of the AK-47 assault rifle. The Volkspolizei used it until approximately 1962 when it was replaced by the PPSh-41. Other countries to use the StG44 after World War II included the CSSR[11] and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia[12], where units as the 63rd Paratroop Battalion were equipped with it until the 1980s,[13] when the rifles were ultimately transferred to Territorial Defense reserves or sold to friendly regimes in the Middle East and Africa.

Stg-44 is still on use on world battlefields,so there is not a valid point about quality of weapon. Serbian ammo industry "partizan" still produce 7.9x33Kurz,and over 425k produced pieces during the war does not go under "prototype" ,not used much ,etc. It was first,and true pioneer of modern assault rifle in WW2,concept adopted by all major powers after. All previus atempts was to make full auto weapon with full power round ( e.g. BAR).

[Hoosier]

So, sinessa, as I understand it, you have no qualms with the firearms that were selected, but only with their specific rankings within the Top Ten?

The Stg44 is represented there as is the AK-47. No injustice that I can see.

The M1 was a hiughly accurate, gas-operated semi-auto battle rifle chambered for a hi-powered cartridge intended to make every infantryman a RIFLEMAN.
I think you'll agree the StG and it's derived AK-47 were never designed with the same intent. Loose tolerances and short-ranged. Like a bush-carbine or somesuch. M4/M-16 is no different with the 5.56mm. Just built to much tighter tolerances resulting in a more accurate weapon.

There, we got that settled, eh?

Tim

[sinissa]

I really give up. I dont undestand what u tryed to say me now, that US army wanted to make RIFLEMANS and M1 is rifle, and StG-44 is not really rifle ,so M1 wins there? Wtf? Making anu infantryman to carry long range semi auto weapon is missed concept ,unlike StG-44, as we can see today. U newer provide one detail where is M1 best in world. Try disregard missed concept,and match it with semi auto rifles on world u will see how humble place M1 get compared with otter similar rifles. Only thing there is diference is number produced,and date entered service and it is it,notting more. If that is,reason for first place on the list ,just compare when and in what number is Ak-47 maded. Unbiased? I will not try to debate about this case anumore.

[dave]

Some imput

The Mauser 98 over the Lee-Enfield?? Sorry but wtf
The Mauser 98 in most forms as an infantry Rifle was unpractical, the 98 was far too long, the action is too stiff for practical combat,also the handle made it shocking to carry with any form of equipment as it would constantly snag. The K98Kar, is well frankly awful to shoot, the sight radius is far too short and the 5 round magazine was a constant hinderance.

The Lee-Enfield however, was well laid out in it's 1901 onwards format.
The action is smooth, magazine large and practical. The sight on the No.3 Mk etc, were ok but improved upon in the in the No.4. Admitedly the No.5 was short and viscious however it wasn't overly a bad rifle.

As it was once said during the First World War, the Germans had a good hunting rifle, the Americans and good target rifle, but the British had a real Battle rifle (not sure if the true word to word but its close enough)

Also I might add the EM-2 (British No.9 Mk.1 Rifle) to the List, probably the first effective bullpup assault rifle, which with it's 7mm cartidge out performed the 7.62x39 and later the .223, in 1950, however due to American insistance that NATO standard had to be American it lost out and was never issued.

On a final note, in Afghanistan combat ranges are now EXCEEDING 300-400 metres on a regular basis and as a result the British army are having the give old Sniper Rifles to the infantry and begin issuing the GPMG on Section level basis to counter this (Alas had we adopted the 7mm we could handle this)

[Hoosier]

I really give up. I dont undestand what u tryed to say me now, that US army wanted to make RIFLEMANS and M1 is rifle, and StG-44 is not really rifle ,so M1 wins there? Wtf? Making anu infantryman to carry long range semi auto weapon is missed concept ,unlike StG-44, as we can see today. U newer provide one detail where is M1 best in world. Try disregard missed concept,and match it with semi auto rifles on world u will see how humble place M1 get compared with otter similar rifles. Only thing there is diference is number produced,and date entered service and it is it,notting more. If that is,reason for first place on the list ,just compare when and in what number is Ak-47 maded. Unbiased? I will not try to debate about this case anumore.

Tim

[Hoosier]

On a final note, in Afghanistan combat ranges are now EXCEEDING 300-400 metres on a regular basis and as a result the British army are having the give old Sniper Rifles to the infantry and begin issuing the GPMG on Section level basis to counter this (Alas had we adopted the 7mm we could handle this)

Well, there you go.
Guess all the current fighting isn't close-range urban warfare after all...
now where's my M1A?

Tim

[2nd.Dragoon]

You got to give it to 'Young' Dave, he knows his rifles!
One of my friends was OC 'Small Arms' School in Palestine, he always carried an Enfield in the desert , said you could even knock fence posts in with one!

[Smeghead]

the PING from this was a give away that somebody was holding an empty gun and often led to bad things happening to them

I'm not sure whether the "noise problems" of the Garand are really all that significant a flaw. I have heard many people say that the "ping" of the Garand is a great drawback because it lets the enemy know where you are... But I have never actually heard of any WWII stories of American foxholes being charged by Germans who heard that ping and realised they were out of ammo. Are there any such stories?

Given that soldiers fight next to their buddies, I'd assume that the "ping" problem could be quite easily accounted for. Soldiers are trained to set down a constant stream of fire as a group by reloading at different times and covering each other as they reload. Not to mention how difficult it would be hearing a single "ping" over the sound of a battle... I think that the "ping" getting people killed is a bit of an urban myth, but I would be happy to read any stories to the contrary

the noise i was referring to is the godawful click click that you get when moving the safety although i have seen AKs that also have a loose magazine catch that allows the mag to rattle

that combination has got people killed more than once

Same with the AK, would a loud safety be a problem in the majority of combat situations? By the time you lift the weapon to your shoulder and switch the safety off, its probably only a few seconds until the weapon will be firing. The only situation I can see it regularily being a problem in is for when soldiers might want to sneak up close and silently. And even then, you can just walk around with the safety switched off.

It's not a problem unless you allow it to be exploited

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

All the reliable accounts I've heard about the *ping* from the M1 is states that it really couldn't be heard through all the other battle noises.

[sinissa]

Ya,ak click for safety is much louder.

[lynn1212]

as to the "M1 ping"- i grew up as did most baby boomers with a lot of WWII vets around but unlike many i was very interested in what they went through so i heard a lot of stories. people forget sometimes that there was a lot of house to house fighting as well as the battle of the bocage. in both cases it was very possible fro the ping of the ejected M1 mag to be heard. more that once i heard it mentioned as well as the trick of carrying an empty one to be thrown to fool the enemy. while it may not have been a constant danger the charger used in the M1 was a real issue both for the ping and because it prevented topping up the rifle. in a perfect world you would always have your rifle full and the selector set to the best setting as well as have lots of friendly fire to cover you but combat has a way of messing up perfect worlds. AK users did end up close to enemies with the safety on and got shot because of its noise and M1 users did get into trouble because of the ping. one guy is always out in front trying to sneak and peek. now and then they find more than they wanted and ended up all along and up close. times like that you really don't want either a ping or a clack clack. safeties are used in combat where there is brush, wait a minute vines or other things like bad footing. an AD caused by a trigger getting pulled at the wrong time can be deadly either by giving away your position or shooting one of your own or yourself.

[Gunter_Viezenz]

the main reason the M1 is considered so good is that it was the first semi auto battle rifle to be used in very large numbers and it was very good as well. accurate, hard hitting, dependable as a rock, and able to gain fire superiority with is high rate of fire. they were used as target rifles out to 1000 yds after the war and had a pretty good ability as a scoped sniper weapon. yes they were heavy but at the time they were designed an extra pound or two was considered an advantage in bayonet fighting as was any extra length.

Initially, the M1 Garand had a knack of jamming very easily. This was fixed in the late 1930s before America's entry into the war. It was a good thing they actually bothered properly testing the rifle beforehand.

Lets just quick answer me. In this forum i sow praises for Lee Enfield over a Kar98,but on the list is opposite. Explain.

And two months later I am here to offer a response. [thought you direction question to someone else]

The Karabiner 98 in its many variants was prodced since 1898 as the Gewhr 98 [rifle 98] and was in service in the Boer War, and WWI. It was later upgraded the the Karabiner 98 and saw service in Germany, Poland and at least a dozen other nation. It was later shortened agian to the Karabiner 98k the standard German rifle of WWII. The Poles also came up with an upgraded to the K98 [the wz. 29 or model 29] which was used along side the K98 as their main rifle in service. Both captured stocks were used by German units of WWII.

BTW the Springfield 1903, was based on.... you guess it the G98. I am sure there are other weapons based on it but I dont have time to do the research.

Furthermore, as I mentioned before prior to the start of WWI the British military was actually deciding on wether or not to adopt the G98 as their standard rifle and replace the Enfield. This was to the G98s usage by the Boers in the 2nd Boer War at the end of the 19th century. The idea was dropped when WWI started and it was economically, and militarily irresponsible to switch to a weapon which required new training for soliders, and completely new stocks of weapons.

In the end both were reliable, accuarte and used for extended period of time. All 3; M1903, K98k, and Enfield served as sniper rifles long into the 60s and beyond in many nations. They were all very accurate and only major difference was that the enfield's magazine had a capacity of 10 rounds instead of 5.

~note to self: you are at the end of page 4

[dave]

If people read before, I did give reasons as to why the Lee-Enfield was better than the Mauser 98

Many countries adopted the Mauser, it was a good, strong and accurate action, thats what sold it, people still believed in hitting targets at 1500 yards.

The SMLE changed that idea with emphasis on training for shooting at 300m in rapid fire.

Yes the Mauser can handle larger rounds however the lee-enfield will have put the second round downrange as the mauser is reloading after its first.

Mauser actions also lock up after rapid fire, the cock on open and forward locking lugs aid in making the bolt sticky after rapid fire whilst the Lee-Enfield stays smooth.

There are many more reasons why the Lee-Enfield is better, if you want more, just ask

On a note, the P13 was dropped due to the fact that it had a nasty habit of cooking off after a small number of rounds in rapid succession. It was only adopted as the P14 in .303 due the fact that the ROF couldn't keep up with the demand, by the time that American factories actually managed to get ready they were too late and there were enough Enfields to go around frontline units