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

Infantry Weapons of WWII

Discussion in 'The Guns Galore Section' started by Mutant Poodle, Apr 25, 2004.

  1. mr.bluenote

    mr.bluenote New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    Eh, yes, but I meant tumbles in the air - a kind of unstable bullet. I vaguely remember some talk about a French bullet (9mm, I think) that was supposed to tumble in mid-air and thus give the bullet the mentioned dum-dum effect.

    Green Berets? At 25 yards? That's about 25 meters, right?! Hmm, well, that sounds odd, unless of course they didn't shoot to kill in the first place. With all due respect, I really don't think that anybody with 7 shots to the main area (the body) would run very far. But ok, as you say, it was a rather extreme case, and a lot of adrenalin will do wonders...

    Well, it's all a bit academic, theory contra real life, I'd say, but very interesting and informative nonetheless.

    Best regards!

    - Bluenote.
     
  2. SgtBob

    SgtBob New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2003
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    via TanksinWW2
    I'll state right now this was a bad decision. Law Enforcement within the U.S. had almost totally abandoned the 9mm due to its mediocre performance. And this is with state-of-the-art hollow-point rounds that are not allowed for military use. The 9mm compares favorably (or should I say unfavorably) with the .38 caliber, the only real advantage being the extra rounds available with a semi-automatic.
     
  3. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    None that I've heard of. It would be a bad idea because a tumbling bullet would be very inaccurate, would generate more drag and thus have a shorter range, and you also couldn't predict which way it would be facing when it hit the target, so the target effects could vary dramatically.

    The only bullet known to tumble in the air is the current 62 grain NATO 5.56mm bullet if fired from an old M16A1 rifle with the 1 in 12 rifling twist designed for the original 55 grain bullet, as this is insufficient to stabilise the bullet. So the M16A2 and all other 5.56mm rifles have a faster twist to stabilise the heavier bullet. Official US Army advice is only to fire the 62 grain rounds from an M16A1 in an emergency as they are useless beyond 100 yards.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
     
  4. dave phpbb3

    dave phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    via TanksinWW2
    why does everyone say the m1 garand is the best gun of ww2 personally te lee efield 303 is th best its had a bigger magazine most likely more range and itwas smaller and lighter
     
  5. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    But it wasn't semi-automatic. This is a serious advantage of the Garand, for the average soldier who doesn't have a perfect aim.
     
  6. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    The Lee Enfield was good, and almost totally 'recruit-proof'. You could achieve high rates of fire with training, and you could fire it from the clip, while keeping the magazine full, just in case (!).

    However, the M1 Garand did have the higher rate of fire.

    Studies (like the German study that led to the Stg.44) showed that rate of fire over short distances was the most effective / preferable attribute for a weapon - far more useful in the majority of combat situations than slow, steady & accurate long-range fire.
     
  7. Greg Pitts

    Greg Pitts New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DFW Texas
    via TanksinWW2
    The Enfield is a good weapon but isn't it a bolt action rifle? The .303 is not quite up to par with the 30-06 round but it is good and it is the round that Colonel, oh darn, what was his name that built a bridge at Tsavo in Africa? He killed several lions with the .303, including the two famous "Lions of Tsavo" which are mounted and on disply at the Field Museum in Chicago.

    But a bolt action rifle just doesn't hold a candle to a semi automatic in combat. It is great on precision aimed fire but I'll take the Garand over the Enfield any time.
     
  8. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The big problem with automatic fire is the rate at which rounds are converted to empty cartridges.

    Using deliberate fire you can conserve rounds and make more shots count.

    One round one kill, or one round take three out of the battle.
     
  9. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    True, but the Garand wasn't automatic, it required the trigger to be pulled for each separate shot - hence semi-automatic. This made it easier to fire fast, accurate follow-up shots if you missed the first time, whereas with any bolt action you can't really maintain the aim while reloading.

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

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    The Garand was, for WW2 standards, generally superior.
    Smaller clip, heavier, required more mainanence, but in combat - lovely.

    We should remember that the Lee Enfield Mk.1 was in service with the British army since before WW1...
     
  11. dave phpbb3

    dave phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    via TanksinWW2
    imnotjust talkin abutthe m1 im on about the mk3 and 4 also the mk4 was used till 1990 were is was replaced by another sniper rifle.
    it had a range of a mile and it had a biggr caliber
     
  12. SgtBob

    SgtBob New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2003
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    via TanksinWW2
    On the general topic (but swerving in a different direction) does anyone know why the Browning .50 caliber machine gun requires pulling the action back twice to prepare in to fire? I don't know of any other weapon that requires more than once to chamber a round. In the M.P.'s, we never fired the .50's.
     
  13. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Lock and load? I always thought the expression was about this double action.
     
  14. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Lock and load is an american expression, which I believe is locking on a magazine then loading a round into the chamber. I am sure that I will be corrected if wrong.
     
  15. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, it sounds rational. But with a machine gun you don't lock a magazine, you lock the ammo belt; this could account for the first draw, loading the chamber then being the second.
     
  16. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Depends on the machinegun.

    Both the LMG (old bren gun) and LSW have magazines.
     
  17. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, but those are light machine guns. We are talking normal belt-fed heavies here, like the MG42 or the Vickers, or the Brownings. I believe the .50cal was the only machine gun that had this double retraction thing, though... Now I'm getting confused by my own theories. :-?
     
  18. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The caliber wasn't quoted but yes I don't know of a heavy mg with a mag.

    Could the double cocking be due to the spring needing stronger compression and therefore has to be double cocked?
     
  19. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    There have been various magazine-fed heavy MGs in the past. The French Hotchkiss was made in 13.2mm calibre (and used by the Japanese Navy as well as the French and others) and there was also the Breda M31 in the same calibre. Both had box magazines mounted above the gun.

    Tony Williams

    Edited to get right spelling for Hotchkiss!
     
  20. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Didn't know about those thanks.
     

Share This Page