Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

WW2 Semi-Automatics

Discussion in 'The Guns Galore Section' started by dave phpbb3, Dec 2, 2006.

  1. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    I didn't say hit ratio - that's different. The measure of hit probability I'm referring to is the practical one in combat - the probability of hitting a target which is exposed for a brief period of time.

    At the end of WW2 the British army did some research into this, including practical tests. They got hold of an bunch of soldiers and had them shooting at infantry targets at various distances with a Lee Enfield, a Bren and a Sten. They found that the probability of hitting a man at 200 yards was 60% with a single Bren shot, 90% with a four-round burst. With a rested Sten at the same range, the respective figures were 40% and 68%. When shooting at moving targets at short range, the Sten scored more than twice as many hits when firing bursts than it did when firing in semi-auto.

    The conclusions of the study were these:

    1. Rifle and Bren shooting is generally so poor that the real accuracy of these weapons is never used.

    2. Rifles and Brens are rarely used at long ranges except by snipers.

    3. For semi-skilled troops, automatic weapons are disproportionally better than single shot

    4. The advantage of automatic over single shot is increased by battle conditions.

    Tony Williams
    Homepage: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
     
  2. lynn1212

    lynn1212 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    upstate NY USA
    via TanksinWW2
    huh?

    talk about mixing apples and oranges. the bren and the smle were full powered battle weapons firing the .303 while the sten used the 9mm. since nobody can hit much of anything past 100 yds with a 9mm of course spray and pray is going to look better at 200 yds. there was no listing of results for the smle i noticed too. from my experence with smle, m03 springfield, m1917 enfield, and a few other WWII battle rifles i had no trouble at all hitting man sized targets at 200 yds from any reasonable position. i can't say the same thing about my 9mm carbine. given a couple of ranging shots sure but first round hits much past 150 yds are a some of the time thing unless i reset the sights which of course screws up closer shots. you cannot mix handheld weapons with bipod or tripod supported ones either and expect to get any useful results. there are no full powered full auto battle rifles that i am aware of that can be held on a target after the second or third round when fired from an unsupported position so in reality you are just making noise and wasting ammo. with a few exceptions there are almost no m14 type rifles still in common use as full auto weapons. there's a reason for that. even with 5.56mm auto rifles most of the rounds fired auto are wasted. that's the reason burst triggers are becoming common even with such markmanship centered outfits as the usmc.
     
  3. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    I was focusing on the difference between semi-auto and full-auto with the same weapon, which is why I didn't give the Lee Enfield results. However, the Lee (unrested) achieved a 57% hit rate against the 200 yard target; the comparable unrested figures for the Sten were 31% single-shot, 40% 4-round burst (incidentally, I don't consider a four-round aimed burst to be "spray and pray").

    Against a moving target at short range, the Lee scored an average of 1.3 hits per run, the Bren (semi-auto) 1.4 hits, Bren (bursts) 1.2 hits (!), Sten (semi-auto) 2.0, Sten (burst) 4.4 hits.

    The conclusions seemed to be that the Sten did surprisingly well at 200 yards, and trounced the rest in the short-range moving target test. The undoubtedly superior accuracy of the Lee and Bren was rarely used at long-range.

    Postwar surveys showed that 75% of small arms battles were fought within 200 yards range (90% within 300 yards), and aimed shots rarely hit their targets at ranges of more than 100 yards (except for snipers, of course). In those circumstances, the Sten was a better weapon overall than the Lee. Give the Sten a bit longer range and accuracy and it would be better than the Lee at eveything except sniping.

    These tests presumably influenced British thinking, since their planned new postwar rifle, the bullpup EM-2 in 7x43, combined the compact dimensions and auto fire of the Sten with the long-range capability of the Lee. A shame about that.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
     
  4. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    From the results of a post-war British study of the StG 44:
    Code:
    Range      Rectangle covered in inches   Firing mode
    in yards   Horizontal   Vertical
    25          1,5          2,6             Single shot
                2,8          1,7             Automatic
    50          1,9          4,5             Single shot
                6,3          6,6             Automatic
    75          4,4          5,3             Single shot
               15,6          8,6             Automatic
    100         2,6         11,0             Single shot
               20,7         12,0             Automatic
     
  5. Greg Pitts

    Greg Pitts New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DFW Texas
    via TanksinWW2
    Re: huh?

    Why is it I feel we have another real rifleman here?

    You are right on!

    All the best!

    - Greg

    :smok:
     
  6. dave phpbb3

    dave phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    via TanksinWW2
    Re: huh?


    Define a real rifleman?
    If you you're implying someone who uses bolt action or semi-autos then I could class as a rifleman seeing as I use .303s and .22s

    But tbh It doesn't change Tony's point, if you fire a 3 round controlled burst it has a higher chance of hitting it's target in the short space it is revealed, Semi-Autos are almost as fast but the average person fires once the kick has resettled to get best accuracy which slows shooting speeds down, but with an automatic the 3 round is bassically out of the barrel by the time the full force of the kick is felt.
     
  7. lynn1212

    lynn1212 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    upstate NY USA
    via TanksinWW2
    overlooking a problem with pistol caliber weapons

    there's another factor with pistol caliber weapons that is perhaps the main reason that sub guns are now restricted for general military use. they are soft kicking and easy to shoot but they lack muzzle energy. at 200 or even 100 yds what would be only concealment to a full power load becomes cover in many cases. there's also the problem with poor "stopping power" the 9mm has only a so so rep as a manstopper with expanding slugs at close range. with FMJ ammo at 200 yds its really lame.
     
  8. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    Re: overlooking a problem with pistol caliber weapons

    Which is why the British came up with the EM-2 - a selective-fire gun as compact as an SMG (with stock unfolded) yet offering the range of a rifle.

    Having said that , in the tests I referred to they also set up a target, consisting of 3/4" deal planks covered by two layers of webbing, at 300 yards and fired at it with the Sten. The hits all went straight through. The 9mm may not have been a stopper at that distance, but it was certainly a killer.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
     
  9. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    Re: huh?

    All my centrefire rifle shooting was with bolt-action .303s and 7.62mms.

    I also did a lot of shooting with .22 RF target rifles which were single-shot - does that make me even more of a rifleman than one who uses a magazine-fed bolt action? :)

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
     
  10. dave phpbb3

    dave phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    via TanksinWW2
    Re: huh?

    Exactly what I do, well I used to do .22RF Target Shooting with Single shot rifles but moved to the "dark side" by chaing to Sporting Rifle.
     
  11. Greg Pitts

    Greg Pitts New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DFW Texas
    via TanksinWW2
    Re: huh?

    Actually Tony, I was beginning to wonder if you had ever fired a weapon.

    ;)

    I rest easy now knowing that you have, and that you are not speaking solely from what others have told you or what you may have read in a book.

    Still, full auto hand held weapons are, in my opinion as I stated earlier, the epitomy of stupidity.

    To each his own.

    - Greg

    :smok:
     
  12. JCalhoun

    JCalhoun New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mobile, Alabama- Heart of Dixie
    via TanksinWW2
    Each type serves a purpose. That being said, I'd rather take my chances against an average soldier with an Enfield/Mauser than an average soldier soldier with a BREN/BAR.

    While the hit ratio (bullets per hit) is much lower with full auto the hit probability is much higher.
     
  13. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    And dont forget supressing fire effect,any full auto weapon is much betther for that role.
     

Share This Page