Bolt Action Rifles.

[Lucas73]

I find it interesting that, the German standard issue K98k bolt action rifle had a 5 round magazine while its British counterpart the Lee_Enfield 1 mk4 had a 10 round magazine. Both of these weapons (minus small modifications) were used during world war one. I would have thought that with the changing face of warfare and the number of years between the two world conflicts that both Germany and Britain would have come up with a more effective weapon these. The British didn't even have a sub-machine gun design until the sten came out, a couple of years after the war started.
Imagine how much more effective the M1 Garrand would have been if it could have used a 10 or 12 round clip instead of an 8.

Anyway, anyone have anythoughts on this.......

[Dasbootz]

Imagine how much more effective the M1 Garrand would have been if it could have used a 10 or 12 round clip instead of an 8.

Sheesh... that's why the M-14 came right after the M1, right?

Cheers~!
Das

[Will]

I'm not expert on arms and armaments but surly the emphasis during the second war was more on submaschine guns (the Mp40) for example or the amazing feat in engineering the mg42 which put out a higher round of fire than anything else on the battlefield at the time. as I said i'm no expert so correct me if I'm wrong as far as bolt action rifles goes I can attest to the fact that the american springfield sniper rifle held only five rounds whilst it german counterpart the gewher 43 held 10 rounds also it seems to me that the effectiveness of a bolt action rifle isn't so much qaunitity as qaulity in other words it does'nt matter how many rounds the weapon holds it were you put them when you shoot it that matters-peace


Vergeissmeinicht

[Lucas73]

I agree with what you are saying, but i would add the point that all other things being equal ie. same number of men, skill, experience etc in a fire fight, the side with the most lead in the air at anyone time would be at an advantage, supressing fire being just as important as aimed fire. it would stand to reason that the weapon with the larger magazine capacity would be desirable, by either giving more time to apply pressure to the enemy before having to reload or applying more pressure for the same amount of time as he is able to. Your thoughts?
I realise that the Springfield had a 5 round magazine, but the Springfield was not the standard issue American rifle, the M1 was. I;m no expert either but i would harzard a guess and say that there were more K98k's and Lee_Enfields issued to soldiers as their primary weapon than the Springfield.
I agree with your point on sub machine guns, in ww2 they certainly came into their own, the tompson and mp40 imparticular, but i would say that the british failed to produce a sub-machine gun of the same quality as either of these two. your thought on this also?
Thanks for your reply

[Abwehr]

Even at the end of WW2 the vast majority of troops were equipped with bolt-action rifles. Submachineguns were regarded as not versatile enough for standard enlisted use by most armies.

[Lucas73]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to the best of my knowledge the m14 was not used during world war 2........

[Will]

hey Lucas,
My thoughts well as far as I can see,supressing fire is tantamount in a fire fight to be able to press an advantage an enemy with his head under cover does not have the time to shoot back at you, so the side with the most lead in the air is at an advantage, but even with this in mind aimed shots are what keeps the enemy down it is in this that the machine gun is adept the standard rifle as far as I can see is not really the best weapon to be using for this, but you are right in that magazine capacity can give one side or the other the upper-hand in some combat situations,
You are also right that the springfield was not standard issue its a sniper rifle (Snipers being a pet subject of mine) I don't know an awful lot about american issue equipment I do know however that the M1 was a good rifle for its purpose reliable and easy to maintain, as far as the thompson goes it is a good weapon however it only held twenty rounds which as you can appreciate can be problematic when fired automatically it empties too quickly, the sten although flimsy and likely to jam much more easily held 32, no the british did'nt produce a weapon eqaul in stregth to the mp40 or the thompson did you know also that the germans produced a new submashine gun called the gewher 42 and its distribution was limited to the waffen ss it was renowned for its innovative design and reliabilty, also although the british did'nt produce a submachine gun eqaul the lee enfeild stands even to this day as one of the best bolt action rifles ever to see service!-peace lucas


Vergeissmeinicht

[Rob S.]

Bolt action rifles are great for long range work, but there's a good reason why these, SMG's and semi-automatics aren't in regular service anymore.

SMG's only have the effective range of pistols. Good for police and covert ops but not good for army work. Semi-automatic rifles may see some service in sniping units but they are useless for the basic landser because of the extensive recoil of the powerful full-size round. Bolt-action rifles are perfect for snipers and are still in use as sniper rifles, but they are completely useless in town fighting as their rate of fire is terrible.

The Assault rifle takes the compact size and rapidity of SMG's and the range of rifles and combines them. Which is why everything else has phased out of regular service.

I think the Mp43/STG44 was probably the most revolutionary small arms development in ww2. The MG42 was awesome but Machine guns had already been around for awhile. Most infantry combat takes place at 300 meters or less, which makes the bolt action rifle nearly useless. Sub-machine guns generally lose their effectiveness at 100 meters.

[Dasbootz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to the best of my knowledge the m14 was not used during world war 2........

Yes... that is correct but as you can see, you did ask why a garand rifle with bigger ammo capacity wasn't introduced, right? The design of the M-14 was based on that of M1 Garand, in fact, the M-14 was just a M1 Garand rechambered to take the new Nato 7.62mm round and fitted with a new increased ammo clip. BTW, I wouldn't consider the Garand as a bolt action rifle & I'm sure most of us would agree to that, hence the wrong title of your post.

Cheers~!
Das

[Lucas73]

I am well aware that the M1 was not a bolt action rifle, i think you are missing the point of my post, maybe it is not clear so i will explain.
I mentioned that both Germany and England were still using the basic design that they were both using during the first world war, given the number of years between the two wars why hadn't they come up with a more effective weapon.
America obviously did some thinking with making a semi-auto their standard issue rifle. I was trying to point out that if America could come up with a weapon like this for their troops why couldn't England or Germany? Also I was trying to say that the M1 could have given its users even more of an advantage if it had a bigger magazine capacity.
So to recap just to make things clear for you, i was questioning the use of bolt action rifles by both Germany and England and standard issue equipment (hence the title of my post) where America had moved on to a semi-auto action.

[Dasbootz]

I am well aware that the M1 was not a bolt action rifle, i think you are missing the point of my post, maybe it is not clear so i will explain.
I mentioned that both Germany and England were still using the basic design that they were both using during the first world war, given the number of years between the two wars why hadn't they come up with a more effective weapon.
America obviously did some thinking with making a semi-auto their standard issue rifle. I was trying to point out that if America could come up with a weapon like this for their troops why couldn't England or Germany? Also I was trying to say that the M1 could have given its users even more of an advantage if it had a bigger magazine capacity.
So to recap just to make things clear for you, i was questioning the use of bolt action rifles by both Germany and England and standard issue equipment (hence the title of my post) where America had moved on to a semi-auto action.

Dear Lucas,
Forgive me for taking a few swipe at you as I was reading without my glasses on but I repeat myself... :) Anyway, I'm well aware of those points you've pointed out but I think that the fundamental reason why both the Tommies & the Gerries had not upgraded their rifle from one of bolt action to a semi-auto design like that of Garand could be due to the fact that both countries had a very large amount of those rifles left over from WW1 (due to over production & disarmament?).

As we all know, you have to set up the neccesary tooling jigs in factories in order to produce the weapons needed, and that is a culmination after the process of designing the weapon itself. Since it was a matter of time that both countries would face off with each other, the paramount importance of arming the soldiers as soon as possible, given the fact that both armies was expanding in size as they bring in more new recruits, might have surpass that of designing a new rifle.

Another reason could also be due to budget constraint... to arm that many men in such period of time, the logical & sensible thing to do would be to adopt & improved upon an existing design, rather than starting on a fresh sheet of paper. As the saying goes: "If it aint broke, why fix it?".

Cheers~!
Das

[LiL_Puma]

From what I've heard, John C. Garand spent his entire life from the end of the first world war to the forties designing the M1 Garand. Perhaps that's why it was such a superb weapon, and also why the only the Germans could produce something as close.

The British Sten Gun I'd have to say wasn't really a horrible design either. Modified Sten Guns continued service after the World War II, and I believe they were called Sterlings.

Also, rifles wern't completely useless in times of war. A primary difference between SubMachineguns and Bolt-Action Rilfes at the time was that SMGs used pistol-caliber bullets. Rifle rounds were more powerful and had a higher level of penetration than a SMG.

Concerning the MG42, it had its own unique purpose. For example, if a horde of troops were charging at you, you'd have to fire, duck, and reload with a bolt-action rifle. With a SMG, you'd press and hold the trigger, only to have most of your bullets fly out of direction. The MG42 was unique in that it had a rate of fire unparalled at the time, and like other machine guns fired rifle-caliber ammunition. You'd hold the trigger and spray bullets all around the chargers. Within seconds, your troubles are away.

- Puma

[mikerock]

Canadian patriotic tangent:

Garand was a Canadian!

Regards,
--Mike

[Dasbootz]

The British Sten Gun I'd have to say wasn't really a horrible design either. Modified Sten Guns continued service after the World War II, and I believe they were called Sterlings.
- Puma

Dear Puma,
A few years ago, I tried the MP38 SMG, MP40 SMG, Thompson SMG, Grease Gun SMG, Sten SMG & the Sterling SMG. I find that the MP38 SMG was rugged & very well made but the price was a bit too steep when compared to the MP40 which does perform as well as the 38.

Thompson was very rugged & dependable when compared to the Grease Gun which was horrible in its recoil & accuracy, I know because I was able to place a good grouping on my target at the range with the Thompson but not the Grease gun because of that.

As for the Sten, I like it a lot too... very rugged & dependable as did the Sterling but I would gripe about the Sterling's tendency to eject hot spent rounds onto me everytime. Strangely, I find that the Aussie version of the Sterling SMG with its top loading magazine didn't gave me such problem.

Of course, when you compare all of them against the de-facto anti-terrorist SMG of today - the HK MP5, I would opt for this piece of german engineered masterpiece, no doubts about it. It's just so light & versatile, accurate with not much recoil but for harder hitting power, I'd go for its sister - the UMP45 with the legendary stopping power of .45ACP round, similar to those used by the Thompson & M1911 pistol.

Cheers~!
Das

[Lucas73]

I have just finnished reading the Band of Brothers book, in it it mentions that one of easy coy sargents was able to take a file and work on the tripper housing of an M1 Garrand and make it fully automatic.