jad0110
Member
Very tough to choose, so many good ones.
For me though I'd have to say US Rifle, Caliber .30, M1 ...
For me though I'd have to say US Rifle, Caliber .30, M1 ...
favorite military rifle
- Thread starter scottbird
- Start date
- Status
jackblack86
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 125
I'll go with general George Patton's pick M1 garand second would go to no 4 mk 1
Of the 5 different types of WWI-WWII military rifles that I own, the Garand is my favorite.
But like others, the one I pull out of my safe to shoot is my favorite du jour.
The SKS, which barely qualifies, is the least.
The British Enfield and Mauser K98 are on the wish list and my favorite might change when I get one of those. But, they are not very high on the list at this time.
But like others, the one I pull out of my safe to shoot is my favorite du jour.
The SKS, which barely qualifies, is the least.
The British Enfield and Mauser K98 are on the wish list and my favorite might change when I get one of those. But, they are not very high on the list at this time.
txcookie
Member
Yugoslavia m48. It's just fun
tahunua001
Member
I like me some japanese rifles. I like cock on close actions. the japanese built strong actions, and had decently compact cartridges for their time. I love the safeties on them, when I first got them I didn't but they've really grown on me. I really wish somebody would resurrect the cartridges for modern sporter use to factory ammo could be had again.
my 3 japanese babies and my favorite daughter of the group.
my 3 japanese babies and my favorite daughter of the group.
russnagant
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2
Finn M28/30 and M1917. Both saw extensive use and weathered their prospective gauntlets well.
The 28/30's I have are all intact and still very good shooters, yet they're literal artifacts of history as they are full of character marks...absolutely love these rifles.
The M1917 is just a refined beast...6 rounds in the magazine, an action that has routinely been modified to chamber magnum rounds, a 26" barrel, a cock-on-closing bolt, a 5-groove barrel, and a rear aperture sight mounted just ahead of the receiver tang (resulting in a whopping 32" sight radius) combine to make this rifle an AWESOME military rifle well suited for hunting and competition shooting for milsurp collectors. Also, PPU loads milspec ammo that can be had for around $0.66 a round plus shipping from AIM Surplus.
The 28/30's I have are all intact and still very good shooters, yet they're literal artifacts of history as they are full of character marks...absolutely love these rifles.
The M1917 is just a refined beast...6 rounds in the magazine, an action that has routinely been modified to chamber magnum rounds, a 26" barrel, a cock-on-closing bolt, a 5-groove barrel, and a rear aperture sight mounted just ahead of the receiver tang (resulting in a whopping 32" sight radius) combine to make this rifle an AWESOME military rifle well suited for hunting and competition shooting for milsurp collectors. Also, PPU loads milspec ammo that can be had for around $0.66 a round plus shipping from AIM Surplus.
Zerodefect
member
The Germans sure loved ineffective technology.
Kaeto
Member
Yes they did
GBExpat
Member
If the gun pictured is the one that I suspect it to be, it was very effective ... it was a primary reason for the Germans being able to capture Festung Sevastopol.Zerodefect said:
Kaeto
Member
Those tracked mortars were very effective too. They were just a pain to transport.
The major problem with the railroad gun was that it took several days to set it up to fire.
The major problem with the railroad gun was that it took several days to set it up to fire.
Nom de Forum
Member
Possibly effective at demolition of fortifications but very inefficient. For the resources expended creating that monstrosity and logistics nightmare a great many bomber aircraft and bombs could have been fielded. Those aircraft would have been faster and more flexible in deployment, and would not have been contrary to the wisdom of not putting all your eggs in one basket. When a weapon is so demanding of resources it is detrimental to the overall war effort it ultimately is not effective. At Sevastopol the Germans would have been better served by a Group of Lancasters using Barnes' "Earthquake Bombs". Of course they did not have access to either. The Germans in WWII were military geniuses while simultaneously being Intelligence and Logistics morons.
GBExpat
Member
No doubt (DUH!), but efficiency, or the lack thereof, was not at question.NdF said:
Vern Humphrey
Member
And what good did THAT do them?
It only got them deeper into Russia, where much of their army was destroyed.
Nom de Forum
Member
Not being a question considered is a big part of why the Germans lost the war. The Krauts logistical efficiency was horrendous with its delays due to taking time for just one more trivial improvement or capability, and multitude of designs and parts incompatible variants of military equipment for the same missions. The artillery pictured above were more about Hitler's need to win a willie measuring contest than knowing how to be good at using willies.
GBExpat
Member
GBExpat said:
And another aspect that was not at question.Vern Humphrey said:
Nom de Forum
Member
And another aspect that was not at question.
Yup, not putting enough aspects up for question may be the simplest explanation for the Germans losing the war.
GBExpat
Member
NdF said:
Zerodefect posted a pic of a huge Krupp long-calibre cannon as an example of "ineffective technology".
I pointed out that the cannon enabled the Germans to reduce the defenses and capture Sevastopol and, so, it turned out to be rather effective for that purpose.
You jumped in with commentary about Efficiency ...
So, have fun commenting, again, on Efficiency ... perhaps someone will join you to discuss that subject.
Shanghai McCoy
Member
Hmmm, this thread seems to be drifting off it's tracks..?
GBExpat
Member
Yes it does.
Nom de Forum
Member
Zerodefect posted a pic of a huge Krupp long-calibre cannon as an example of "ineffective technology".
I pointed out that the cannon enabled the Germans to reduce the defenses and capture Sevastopol and, so, it turned out to be rather effective for that purpose.
You jumped in with commentary about Efficiency ...
So, have fun commenting, again, on Efficiency ... perhaps someone will join you to discuss that subject.
O.K., I think you are mistaking my posts as personal criticism. Yes it was effective at reducing the defenses and capture of Sevastopol. Why was it effective? Was it because it was an inherently effective weapon or was it effective primarily because of fortunate circumstances at the time of its deployment? I believe it was almost totally due to the later. Ask yourself: "How long would this weapon have remained effective if deployed against the British or Americans in Italy, France, or Germany?" It is not like you could have hid the thing in a railroad tunnel like Anzio Annie guns.
Last edited:
- Status
