Which was the better rifle?

G. F. Schleebenhorst said:
The Garand was a worthless piece of shit. Fundamental design flaw. If you have a brain you'll know exactly what that is.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the flaw is but I'm in complete agreement with Buffalo and E3R. I never knew about the design flaw because it, um, seems to be way overshadowed by the rifle's performance, in more than one conflict. Something that seems to have eluded your perception.
This isn't a case like the M16A1 that had a fatal design flaw that caused it to not operate. This flaw got many soldiers and Marines killed in Vietnam until they fixed it.
Since you seem to act like you know something, why don't you tell us what that flaw was, smart guy?

Who gives a shit if it had a fundamental design flaw? The flaw you speak of didn't seem to keep it from being a stellar performer. Some of the Marines that I know and were stationed with would agree with me.
 
Mauser 98K by far, I have taken my father's mauser to the shooting range a couple of times. It has dead accuracy, good handling, and is simply a better looking rifle.
 
USS Exeter said:
Mauser 98K by far, I have taken my father's Mauser to the shooting range a couple of times. It has dead accuracy, good handling, and is simply a better looking rifle.
Click to expand...

Sites suck in combat, the inverted V, and mid sight small notch makes it hard to sight in dark, rainy or cloudy conditions, on the range on a bright sunny day they work well, but combat doesn't always take place on bright sunny days, the Large aperture peep sight's of the Lee Enfield, 1914, 1917, and M-1 are far better sight all the way around, and square post front sight makes for better accuracy, and target acquisition, this combination beats the hell out of any open sight with a blade, or inverted blade.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
The only thing I have ever heard criticized about the Garand was the clip loading system that was employed, but I do not know of a situation in the real world were that was ever a factor in combat, and as I was taught by my uncles, who used the weapon in combat you always kept a few empty clips just for reloading loose ammunition, and the Garand can be fired single shot, you just have to know how to do it, and every one that I know, knows how to.

As usual you ignore the actual record of the weapon in favor of your wet dream fantasy of reality.

Now if the Enfield was such a great weapon, and the Garland was so crummy, why were the British Troops in Korea armed with M-1's?
Click to expand...

When did I even mention the Enfield?

You've still not mentioned the HORRIBLE design flaw.
 
G. F. Schleebenhorst said:
When did I even mention the Enfield?

You've still not mentioned the HORRIBLE design flaw.
Click to expand...

What that it works, the M-1 Garand is simply put the best rifle to come out of WWII, I have used one extensively, on the target range and in combat, it has good sights, it doesn't jamb, and it hits it's target hard, and can reach out as far as you can shoot, so just prove exactly how smart you think you are, Weapons were and are my business, my life depended on the knowledge of how to employ any weapon I found, I know the ins and out of almost every shoulder fired long arm ever made, and the greatest combat rifles in the world were the Lee Enfiels, the 1914 Enfield, the 1917 Enfield, the M-1 Garand, the AK-47, the M-14, the FAL, all have good sites, usable under all conditions, all are dead tough in any conditions, and will go bang when you pull the trigger, so big man what is your experience with weapons, have you ever had to depend on one to save you life, have you ever used one under extreme duress, shooting on the range is one thing, shooting in combat is a totally different animal, and the requirement for a good combat weapon are very stringent, most good target range guns fail miserably in the rigors of combat, so WEAPONS GREAT MASTER enlighten us with your great wisdom.
 
Hello Buffalo.

The rapid fire example alluded to by - someone - about rapid fire with the SMLE is most likely the record set by a Sergeant Snoxall of the British Army's School of Musketry. With an issue SMLE (not sure which variant) and issue ammo, he hit a twelve inch target at 300 yards thirty-eight (38) times in one minute. (Feel free to do a Google search for Sergeant Snoxall for more verification.)

For those not aware, a SMLE has a ten round magazine, so he had to reload six stripper clips of five rounds each in order to do this - with the clock running.

This is the record, by the way. I dare say it wasn't the good sergeant's first attempt at such a feat.

However, at that time, a British infantryman was expected to get fifteen hits from his rifle in one minute.

Back to the original question: I'd go with the SMLE. The 98 Mauser is a delightful rifle, well engineered and nearly handmade by serious craftsmen. It fires a good, solid round with suitable power for hunting most game and battle. However, it is just not the fighting rifle the SMLE is. Slightly off the question but already mentioned, the '03 Springfield is a very good weapon; in my opinion superior to the Mauser as a fighting weapon. The Springfield is easily the most accurate of the three rifles, but again, it's not the fighting rifle the SMLE is.

By the way, Buffalo, are you aware Alvin York preferred the Springfield with the open sights? He found the open sights easier to use, the peep sights blocked too much field of vision, in his opinion. And they were probably the sort of sights he grew up shooting.

As for the Garand's 'great design flaw', I can think of several. However, they are only problems viewed from the perspective of more modern rifles. When it was first issued, the Garand was the most advanced fighting rifle in the world, bar none and end of discussion. It has been superceeded, but that doesn't change the fact in its day, it was the King Kong Daddy of fighting rifles. I'll take mine to most any fight I'm invited to.
 
By the way, Buffalo, are you aware Alvin York preferred the Springfield with the open sights? He found the open sights easier to use, the peep sights blocked too much field of vision, in his opinion. And they were probably the sort of sights he grew up shooting.
Click to expand...

Yes, a personnel preference of his, he was a cousin of mine through my Grandmother on my fathers side, never got to shoot with him, was to young, but listened to the adults talk and compare their favorite guns.

But the peep sight is still by far to best sight for combat under all lighting conditions, and the Lee, 1914 and the 1917 are better combat guns, and the military changed the sites on the 1903 to peep sites.

The M1903 became the M1903/A3. The most noticeable visual difference in the M1903/A3 was the replacement of the barrel-mounted rear sight with a smaller, simpler "peep" rear sight mounted on the rear of the receiver.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
What that it works, the M-1 Garand is simply put the best rifle to come out of WWII, I have used one extensively, on the target range and in combat, it has good sights, it doesn't jamb, and it hits it's target hard, and can reach out as far as you can shoot, so just prove exactly how smart you think you are, Weapons were and are my business, my life depended on the knowledge of how to employ any weapon I found, I know the ins and out of almost every shoulder fired long arm ever made, and the greatest combat rifles in the world were the Lee Enfiels, the 1914 Enfield, the 1917 Enfield, the M-1 Garand, the AK-47, the M-14, the FAL, all have good sites, usable under all conditions, all are dead tough in any conditions, and will go bang when you pull the trigger, so big man what is your experience with weapons, have you ever had to depend on one to save you life, have you ever used one under extreme duress
Click to expand...

No, no, no, and no to all those questions, I've barely even looked at one and yet I know what the fundamental design flaw is and you, mr. grizzled, don't, which I find surprising to say the least.
 
In point of fact, Buffalo, I prefer the peep sight myself. I have an old Marlin 39 with buckhorn sights and while I can more or less hit with them, it's an uphill battle. (No pun intended.)

I am also a fan of the 1917 Eddystone. I currently have three in the armory, but only one is original. (The other two were sporterized long before I got them, one in .35 Whelen and the other in an 'improved' .30-06 version.)

As for the ideal combat sight, I'm starting to think something in the nature of a holographic aimpoint type thing might be the ticket. Where it is very precise, a peep sight does restrict one's field of view. The current drawback to the aimpoint things is a relative fragility, but that's a technological problem.

I didn't say it before, but I concur with you about well aimed and fired shots. The best way to suppress hostile fire is to stop the hostile. Besides, Momma taught me frugality.

By way of introduction, I was a sergeant of Marines (U. S.) in my misspent youth and my first issue rifle was a Winchester made "U. S. Rifle, M-14, caliber 7.62". I've worked some twenty-five years now as a federal lawman and been a student of firearms all my life. I've had a 1911 or variant thereof in my custody since I was sixteen years old. My opinions are forged from doing a lot of stuff and interviewing guys who did more. I may be wrong at times, but I'm not in doubt.
 
G. F. Schleebenhorst said:
No, no, no, and no to all those questions, I've barely even looked at one and yet I know what the fundamental design flaw is and you, mr. grizzled, don't, which I find surprising to say the least.
Click to expand...

Well desk jockey who has never used the weapon in combat, or in competition, please enlighten us with your brilliance, I have used both the M-1 and the M-14 under fire, and they work under all conditions, so please tell us why we should have got or ass kicked for having a substandard weapon.

Me I used those weapons, I survived with those weapons, and I shot competition with those weapons, what have you done? I can take those weapons apart blindfolded and put them back together again, and never remove the blind fold, yes oh wise and brilliant one please tell us what you perceive as their faults, and I will laugh my ass of at your stupidity.

I will also invite you to chose the weapon of your choice from the era of WWII, and invite you to a match, and we will see just who wins.

Three matches;

1. Mad Minuet,

Shots fired, target scored.

2. NRA High Power course;

Standing, 200 yds., slow-fire (10 shots in 10 minutes)
Sitting or kneeling, 200 yds., rapid-fire (10 shots in 60 seconds)
Prone, 300 yds., rapid-fire (10 shots in 70 seconds)
Prone, slow-fire, (20 shots in 20 minutes)

3. The Combat Walk.

And lets see just how good you really are, and how well you can handle a bolt action against a Semi Auto.

Personally I think your just jerking off.
 
I don't care about real-world usage, the point is that when they were designing that rifle they completely overlooked something that even a complete idiot could have spotted.

If you can't tell me what it is then you have your brain on the wrong way round.
 
You don't have to have even looked at one of these things in real life to know what's basically wrong with it. I am astounded that after you two macho men supposedly handled these things for years, you don't know what I am talking about.

You must either be blind or stupid. Choose one, and I shall read your choice when I come back later.
 
Well, Buffalo and Echo3, I'll make it unanimous. Schleebenhorst is an empty bag of hot air. I guess that's not totally empty. Bag of hot air.

As long as we're talking about combat rifles, do you two guys prefer the full power rounds or the intermediate rounds for a primary combat rifle?
 
G. F. Schleebenhorst said:
You don't have to have even looked at one of these things in real life to know what's basically wrong with it. I am astounded that after you two macho men supposedly handled these things for years, you don't know what I am talking about.

You must either be blind or stupid. Choose one, and I shall read your choice when I come back later.
Click to expand...

More of the mental jerking off.
 
Archie said:
Well, Buffalo and Echo3, I'll make it unanimous. Schleebenhorst is an empty bag of hot air. I guess that's not totally empty. Bag of hot air.

As long as we're talking about combat rifles, do you two guys prefer the full power rounds or the intermediate rounds for a primary combat rifle?
Click to expand...


Me I prefer the M-14 and the 7.62x51mm, it stops them now, and has excellent knock down compared to the 5.56x45mm. it shoots through barriers well, and can really reach out.

It weight helps steady it, when your heart is racing, and the adrenaline is pumping, for real world it works well.

When I was first in basic they issued the M-16, we were the first cycle to train with them, I really thought I had it made, it was light the recoil was nil, it handled fast, but after I went to Nam, I changed my mind, there were time when the 5.56 just didn't have the penetration power, even a curtain of grass was enough to deflect the bullets, were a 7.62 would plow through and reach the target. if some one was in a grass hooch, you had a hard time getting to them, the M-60 and the M-14 went through the walls no problem.


Now I know that most engagements take place at ranges under 150 meters, there is a intermediate round that I do like, but there are still times that you need to reach out and touch some one.

6.8 X 43mm Remington...

It's basically a miniature .270 in the old obsolete 30 Remington Case (.422 Case Head Diamter) that's trimmed to 43mm OAL. The head diameter is between the .223 and 7.62X39 Russian.

The 6.8 used 270 caliber (.277”) diameter bullets. Nominal bullet weight is 115 grains for a velocity of 2650 from a 16.5” barrel.

The cartridge was originally a military development and cartridge head size is identical with the 30 Remington. Its purpose is to provide better wound capabilities than the 5.56. At this time its future in the military arena is uncertain. I consider it an accurate, light recoiling, and a 300 yard deer cartridge provided the right bullets are used, just a little change to 6.5 and I think it would be ideal, great ballistic coefficient, for great down range energy and penetration, and enough frontal section that it would knock a man down when hit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top