Just what would be considered the best infantry combat rifle of WWII?

[SightNSqueeze]

It's a tough call. Almost all of the bolt action rifles had been pushed to the limit of their capabilities for ease of production, training and use in combat as manually repeating rifles in a mechanized war. Who can look at a Mauser k98, No.4, MK1 Enfield, M-1903/03A3, Mosin-Nagant Model 91/M-44/M-39 and determine which is better. Certainly, each has features over the others that are superior. My personal preference for a bolt action rifle would be an '03 Springfield with a scant or C-stock. However, I would not feel shorted by any of the others.

The M1 Garand would have to be compared to the Soviet M-38/40 Tokarov and German G-43. In that case, the M-1 would win hands down. The S-45 (early SKS) was not fielded until the last few days of World War II and may or may not have actually seen battle before Berlin fell, so we shouldn't count that. Other rifles that were in the same category were the MAS-44 and FN-49; too little or too late to judge.

Before we tout the benefits of semi-auto fire from an M1 Garand, consider that aimed sustained fire was the norm and rapid semi-auto fire was a last ditch option when your position was getting overrun. BAR's were used for suppression fire and SMG's were few with front line American infantry. Enfield armed British troops had a greater presence of Thompson and STEN submachine guns at the squad level, and BREN light machine guns that handled with the ease of a BAR and could be employed as a light machine gun due to its better cooling capabilities. Remember too that the Enfield had a bolt designed for fast operation and a magazine that was double the capacity of all other bolt action rifles. Likewise, German squads were well protected by MG-42s and 9mm MP-40 sub guns for both, the offense and to protect the flanks of the squad.

The remaining rifle, STG-44 (or MP-44 as it was later and erroneously designated) was in a category all its own. It was an excellent assault rifle that had no peer within its unique category until after the war in the form of the German designed Spanish made CEMTE, the German G-3, and Soviet AK-47, all of which borrowed heavily from the STG-44. British and American troops didn’t encounter the STG-44 until the sweeping Ardennes Offensive in December 1944. They were employed in enormous numbers prior to, and during the siege and Battle of Berlin.

[~Pvt Teague~]

The M1 Garand hands down

[gunadvocate]

M1 Garand

[Cobra46]

The M-1 Garand was/is a good weapon, well balanced, accurate, and dependable and # 1.

[big boomer]

M-1 and the BAR. Most squads had 1 BAR and it laid down the fire so the others could advance or find cover. PS as for being heavy the M-1 is so well balanced you don't notice it. I like the m-16 but it is not as easy to carry on your sling and it weighs half as much.

[adamhgkb]

the only complaint i hear about the garand is the "ping" it would make...........if i shoot my rifle a few times with no hearing protection on.........i couldnt hear a PING if my life depended on it so tell me how much did this ping matter??????????????

[rondog]

Originally Posted by adamhgkb

the only complaint i hear about the garand is the "ping" it would make...........if i shoot my rifle a few times with no hearing protection on.........i couldnt hear a PING if my life depended on it so tell me how much did this ping matter??????????????

You know, the legend is that when the enemy heard the PING, they knew that soldier's rifle was empty and they could charge him. But, I call BS on this, because the M1 can be reloaded very quickly, and what about all the other GI's around the empty M1 with their LOADED M1's? And just how often would the enemy be that close to even hear the PING, and have a chance to charge, especially with their ears ringing like crazy from all the gunfire? If I was an enemy soldier facing an M1, that PING wouldn't mean squat to me. JMHO.

And I vote for the M1, I love mine!

[TheJoker]

I'd gladly have 8 semi-automatic shots followed by a "ping" over 5 manually cycled shots with no "ping" any day. There are a number of authorities that claim the business about the "ping" getting soldiers shot is an urban legend.

[Kentucky Fan]

M1 Garand would probably still be useful in combat if designed today and there was just no comparison for it in WW2 iv never heard a veteran give 1 complaint abt the ole Garand except for the enemy who where getting mauled by the extremely powerful 30-06 bullets

[Farmer]

Well,
Just my 2 cents.

But most infantry units had almost as many different kinds of arms as grunts. So if you talk to the guys who used them they also had a different idea of what was best.

[twtalbot]

Originally Posted by rondog

You know, the legend is that when the enemy heard the PING, they knew that soldier's rifle was empty and they could charge him. But, I call BS on this, because the M1 can be reloaded very quickly, and what about all the other GI's around the empty M1 with their LOADED M1's? And just how often would the enemy be that close to even hear the PING, and have a chance to charge, especially with their ears ringing like crazy from all the gunfire? If I was an enemy soldier facing an M1, that PING wouldn't mean squat to me. JMHO.

And I vote for the M1, I love mine!

Right. A battlefield is way too noisy for anyone to notice a PING more than a few feet away, and it would be rare indeed for all the GIs in any particular place to all run dry at the same instant.

[raveneap]

M1 Garand - for sure

[White Death]

I would place the M1 Garand as the best autoloader for obvious reasons. Best bolt gun is a tie between the Finnish M39 and the British Rifle No. 4 Mk. 1, because the M39 is extremely accurate, but it has the inconvient bolt handle, the No. 4 Mk. 1 can be cycled by a trained soldier as fast or faster than a semi auto. For submachinegun I would pick the Finnish Sumoi K31, it is reliable and effective, it was so good that the Russians copied it and called it the PPSH-41. For machineguns MG42 or BAR, take your pick.

[Old Steve]

My father, who went through basic infantry training in 1914 at home in England, told me that 30 aimed rounds in a minute was the desired standard of proficency with the#1 rifle, and it was certainly accurate enough, so if a bolt action is the standard the SMLE was certainly the most effective, I can't picture any Mauser type action doing much better than half that. The Springfield 1903 was certainly an excellent weapon as was the M98, but rate of fire was the only essentail difference.

There were several semi-autos of various countries, but surely none was as available or as reliable or accurate as our M1 Garand, and the -06 cartridge was if anything too powerful. It was always there and it always worked.

I can't speak to the Soumi K31, but certainly the PPsh41 dominated the sub-machine gun class, most Russian infantry carried it as their only weapon, and it forced the German army to develop the MP44 as a counter.

Those WWII veterans I've known thought the BAR was too heavy, the magazine capacity too limited, and the absence of a replacable barrel crippling. The BREN was superior on all 3 counts, its BRNO Czech version using the rimless 8mm cartridge was better but not common, the Germans did use it, Japanese used a Chinese built copy that also worked very well.

The MG42 from Germany had advantages in many areas against the Browning 30, it was lighter, cheaper to make, and the barrel could be changed without tools in seconds, I think it the best of class. The Russians had several different machine guns, but I don't think they were as good as the MG42.

Short conclusion is that very good weapons were made in a great many different places.

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by SightNSqueeze

The remaining rifle, STG-44 (or MP-44 as it was later and erroneously designated) was in a category all its own. It was an excellent assault rifle that had no peer within its unique category until after the war in the form of the German designed Spanish made CEMTE, the German G-3, and Soviet AK-47, all of which borrowed heavily from the STG-44.

You don't want to make that claim, that the AK-47 borrowed heavily from the Sturmgewehr-44, if General Kalashnikov is in the room.

Kalashnikov maintains that he came up with the AK-47 all on his own, and there's evidence to support his claim. He was wounded out of combat in 1942, before the StG-44 was introduced on the Ostfront.

The AK wasn't his first attempt at a rifle firing the intermediate-power cartridge that is characteristic of all assault rifles. The 7.62x39 cartridge was in existence by 1944, and he designed a semi-auto battle rifle he himself admits was influenced by the M-1 Garand in that year. (His entry lost out to Simonov's SKS rifle.) That rifle led him to design a second assault rifle in 1946, and some of its features were incorporated into his AK-47.

As I see it, what the StG-44 and the AK-47 have in common are design concepts and requirements inherent in the assault mission, rather than mechanical commonality.

[Old Steve]

Cyrano is exactly right
The MP43-44 in its variants was easily the first modern assault rifle, in the sense of a lower power round that can reasonably be fired full-auto in a light rifle and with a selective fire capability, the AK47 was designed to essentially the same tactical requirement, but has nothing else in common with it. The MP43 was developed at Wehrmacht request because the PPsh41 completely outranged and outshot the MP38/40,(and every Russian had one) and the firing rate of the 98K wouldn't even get you into the game, as it was being played on the Russian front. The MP43 was a brilliant effort and showed the way to the future, but it was poorly finished and appeared in small numbers late in a war that was already lost.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by rondog

You know, the legend is that when the enemy heard the PING, they knew that soldier's rifle was empty and they could charge him. But, I call BS on this, because the M1 can be reloaded very quickly, and what about all the other GI's around the empty M1 with their LOADED M1's? And just how often would the enemy be that close to even hear the PING, and have a chance to charge, especially with their ears ringing like crazy from all the gunfire? If I was an enemy soldier facing an M1, that PING wouldn't mean squat to me. JMHO.

And I vote for the M1, I love mine!

Originally Posted by twtalbot

Right. A battlefield is way too noisy for anyone to notice a PING more than a few feet away, and it would be rare indeed for all the GIs in any particular place to all run dry at the same instant.

Be careful what you casually label a 'legend,' if you weren't there. My father thought the M1 was God's gift to infantrymen, and he used it enough to have a right to his opinion. But he told me that was its only failing.

It doesn't matter what was going on elsewhere. If a Japanese soldier were trying to get through a perimeter, I have no doubt he could and would have zeroed in on listening for a 'ping' directly in front of him, and slid a little closer each time he heard it.

Combat sets up situations that would be rejected as unrealistic in a movie. My dad told me about one night when one or more Japs managed to sneak a machine gun into the middle of their position (which was a rough circle), and intermittently lay down raking fire all around for what seemed like half the night, while they hugged the bottom of their fox holes and cussed. To add insult to injury, he/they packed it in before dawn--and managed to sneak back out again.

[Old Steve]

I went thru Navy Basic trng at San Diego in fall 1949, and my only contact with the M1 was a day at the Marine's Rose Canyon range, where we each fired 100 rounds under the guidance of Marine instructors who obviously thought very little of Navy competence in the use of firearms. They made note of the ping, but went on at some length on the inability to top up a magazine, and expressed satisifaction with the new M14 with the box magazine. This is the only serious criticism of the M1 I have ever heard. Marines tend to not blaze off 8 rounds, then reload. They don't like to face a new situation with only 2 or 3 in the box, and hate throwing away good ammunition.

Referring to SightNSqueez's comments on the MP44 in the Ardennes, I wonder if the reports might be of the FG42, the parachutists rifle, ordered by the Luftwaffe for paratroopers but never used, as after the losses at Crete were evaluated, the use of paratroops was essentially discontinued. According to British reports this was a superb weapon, selective fire full power 8mm with side feed magazine so it could be used prone, Features included a straight buttstock and raked pistol grip so it didn't climb, stopped closed in semi-auto and open bolt in full auto. According to the report 7000 of them were made and never issued, but in the winter of 1944 the Weremacht grabbed them and issued them immediately, so while numerically quite rare, they were very common on that front. Essentially they were the weight of an M1 and had the capabilities of the BREN. There were a lot of good ideas in Germany in those years that didn' go very far.

[travisg96]

I can see the "ping" from both sides. If you are close you are going to be so deafened by the 30-06 rounds to hear anything. but in a jungle there may be just enough cover to muffle the sound to make it tolerable. I believe the M-1 gave the best tactile advantage of any other rifle. Wish the K31 would have seen some action to give it some credibility.

[bobvonb]

Originally Posted by troy2000

... If a Japanese soldier were trying to get through a perimeter, I have no doubt he could and would have zeroed in on listening for a 'ping' directly in front of him, and slid a little closer each time he heard it. ...

could be, but he had to ignore the 8 loud bangs between the pings first. just doesn't seem very plausible to me.