What was the best semi-automatic rifle of WW2 ? Was it the US

>>33389525
Greatestbattleimplement.jpg

>>33389525
First of all, I haven't shot any of those 3.
But I would personally like the g43 or svt-40 more because I feel like they'd remind me of a vz58 in that I can top off removable mags with stripper clips, and stripper clips are a lot handier to have with. It gives a lot of options for reloading.
I've heard mixed things about the g43's reliability though. I guess I've heard similar with the svt, but less so. The garand sounds like it does it's job well, but the loading system is a huge turnoff for me.

>>33389525
It's the Garand. Looks cool, uses clips, kills things dead, comes with ping.

Lahti L-39

File: M1withBARmagazine.jpg (48KB, 800x599px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 800x599px

The Garand


(now with magazines)

>>33389525
M1
because there was a lot more of them

>>33389799
Kind of related

I would pay arm and leg for W.A.R.

Garand > SVT40 > horseshit > G43

>>33389525
Having shot all 3, I'd say the Garand. I like the sights the most, the leaf and post of the other 2 just aren't as nice. The G43 feels delicate but that might just be because of all I've heard about them beating their bolts to death. The SVT is probably my second favorite but I'm just not a fan of the sights or the disassembly process. The trigger group is a bitch to get out and put back in.

>>33389525
The M1 Garand, it was the only one to really see full scale production and get issued en mass, so not only did it maker more of an impact then the other two but it got all of its kinks worked out.

Mondragon :^)

>>33389525
Its simple really

>ping
vs
>click

I think we all know the answer here

>>33389888
>1,600,000 SVT's
>400,000 Kar 43's

>>33389894
Mondragon is WW1 era rifle

>>33389917
They made 6.25 million Garands over 20 years.

then the basic receiver and action went on in the M14. millions of more rifles for decades more.

>>33389525
Seeing as the Garand was (for the most part) standard issue I would say that in the war it was probably the most effective out of all of the semi auto rifles in WW2. The SVT-40 was actually on it's way to becoming standard issue before the USSR was invaded but they had to switch back to mostly Mosin production because they had to arm allot of people as fast as possible. I'd say that just comparing the average SVT to the average Garand that the Garand is probably more reliable but otherwise quality wise are probably pretty similar. Unfortunately we'll never be able to see, touch and shoot an SVT or Garand right off the line to make a more accurate comparison. Personally in battle i would rather have an SVT simply for the extra two rounds and no ping.

>>33389917
Compared to the 6.25 million M1s made and the relative number of troops fielded by the Russians vs American, the svt 40s didn't have as much of an impact

>>33389981
Soviets switched to AK in '47 so that is not really comparable

>>33390029
Technically they switched in the early 50s. And regardless, if the argument is about the impact a rifle had then having said rifled abandoned earlier than another comparable rifle is a point in the M1s favor if you ask me but a point in russian favor for being ahead of the curve of weapons development

>>33390029
sort of switched. there was also the SKS.

>>33389933
And it saw use until 49

Reminder that the SKS was fielded I limited quantities at the very end of the war.

Which makes it the best WWII gun.

>>33390511
>Which makes it the best WWII gun.
I would tend to agree 100%.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the G43 basically eat itself alive in very short order?

>>33390576
When it actuality worked

>>33389525
The M1941 Johnson.

But of the ones you listed I'm gonna have to say the SVT, even if the Soviets botched the implementation of it a little.

>>33390625
>1941-1945
>recoil operated rifles

Costanza.png

>tfw you cut up a Garand with a torch

>>33390511
>>33390528

I have to agree.

I'm a huge M1 fan, but the SKS was pretty much the perfect gun for WWII. It's a shame it showed up too late.

>>33389525
The Garand, although the SVT is fairly impressive.

>>33389525
T20E2 (M1 Garand with BAR mags) > G43 > SVT-40 > M1 Garand.

File: 14c.jpg (24KB, 207x253px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 207x253px

>>33390864
>G43 better than the Garand in any way

File: 1480177552233.jpg (41KB, 552x680px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 552x680px

>>33389991
>i would rather have an SVT simply for the extra two rounds and no ping
>i would rather have...no ping

I get the extra two rounds but seriously the ping got exactly zero people killed ever except in fuddlore.

File: 21091b3ee9b223f3ce6d12a2c0dd3680.jpg (62KB, 604x454px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 604x454px

M1 Carbine 30 Caliber. Small, light, efficient. No 'PING' when it runs empty, easy to carry a good supply of rounds, cartridge was plenty sufficient for its intended purpose, gimme one of those folding paratrooper stocks with the vertical grip, grenades to throw in socks smothered in grease, a cigar and you're GTG.

>>33390893
>>33390909
I know that in a battle in WW2 the ping doesn't really matter but I think nowadays with how iconic the ping is it's more likely that it could possibly fuck you over. Still very unlikely but still a possibility.

I think it's funny how in an alternate history the US would basically have adopted the M14 in 1930. Garand wanted to use BAR mags instead of clips and White's trial rifle's gas system was much better than the gas trap or last-minute piston the M1 used.

Also funny to think how outdated the M14 was in the mid 1950s. It was basically an amalgam of rifle designs from the late '20s.

Not an M14 hater, BTW. I own an old M1A.

>>33389525
G43 is obviously the worst out of the three. I feel inclined to choose the svt because I feel I would be more comfortable with the ergonomics and manual of arms but then again I'd rather have 3006 rather than 54r.

>>33390909
>No "PING" when they're empty

Please don't tell me you're one of those autists that think the enemy would listen for the ping

>>33391146
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE*PING*EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
"Did you hear zat Franz?"
"Ja, he is out of ammo!"

>>33391146
Do your research. There are accounts of U.S. Soldiers throwing clips to get enemies to attack. Although I agree it is not something that would have happened often it did happen. If anything it could potentially give away position but that's it considering the quick reloading duration.

>>33391278
I imagine it would be hard to hear much of anything after firing 8mm mauser/7mmjap. Not to mention your buddies doing it next to you plus machine guns shredding away plus artillery and mortars.
If it was quiet and they suddenly heard a ping out of nowhere I just can't imagine anyway being stupid enough to charge.
Besides US troops usually had their entire squad with them likely armed with fully loaded rifles carbines and SMGs.
I just don't know that this worked the way most people seem to think it did.

>>33391382
Again, not often, but according to first hand accounts it did "happen." I have a difficult time imagining it myself I am simply going off the words of the men that were there. I believe the accounts I read were those in Japan in which suicide attacks may have been prevalent.

SKS

Can someone here explain to me why the g43 is the worst out of the three, aside from there being not a lot of them?

>>33390935
If the enemy hears your gunfire they aren't going to be able to run fast enough to do anything about the ping before you can reload, that's fucking stupid as shit, they are far more likely to run at the long pause of you trying to fumble with clips on your svt.

>>33391498
Besides being unreliable and overly complicated it was also made of bad materials. So much so that it was more or less expected they would be themselves to death in short order simply by firing standard ammunition.

>>33391534
*beat themselves to death

File: Firearm Valhalla Front Cover.jpg (188KB, 371x596px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 371x596px

>>33389525
Here's how I see the SVT vs M1 argument, because they both have advantages and disadvantages.

>Weight
SVT-40
>Sights
M1 Rifle
>Capacity
SVT-40
>Reload speed
M1 Rifle
>Compactness
M1 Rifle (shorter overall length)
>Ammo
SVT-40 (adjustable gas comes standard)
>Felt recoil
SVT-40 (Compensator comes standard)
>Ease of maintenance
M1 Rifle (I find the M1 to be easier to detail strip/clean than the SVT)
>Accuracy
M1 Rifle (SVT is known to have verticle dispersion at a distance.)
>Reliability
Tough one. SVT has adjustable gas so if things get dirty you can always open things up. The M1 is known to be rugged though however the op rod has a tendency to bend more than it's supposed to. The op rod comes bent from the factory, but a lot of use can cause issues in the long-term.
>PING!
M1 Rifle
>ZA STALINA!
SVT-40

So you can make your own decision. If I was sent back to WWII and could choose either one, I would be happy with either, but I think I'd gravitate towards the M1 even though it's substantially heavier. Love the sights, love the handling, love the quick en bloc clips for reloading, but I'd be perfectly happy with the SVT-40 as well.

Pic semi-related. Those are rifles I actually once proudly owned, and also some blatant shilling. Legit though, I mention my fellow 'Kommandos' in the dedication section. I didn't put '/k/ommandos' because I didn't want to make it blatantly obvious for more casual readers. Also, thanks to those who got the book when I gave that free promotion from March 14-16, and doubly thanks to those who bought the paperback. You guys are absolutely awesome. I love you /k/unts.

>>33389525
In terms of actually impacting the war: The M1 hands down for the simple reason that they made enough of them. The best technical rifle was probably the SVT-40.

>>33393050
If not for Operation Barbarossa (basically the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany), the SVT-40 would have become the first standard-issue semi-auto rifle instead of the M1. The Russians were consistently making about twice as many Tokarev rifles as America was making Garand rifles until about 1942. The 3,000,000th M1 Rifle was produced sometime around D-Day if memory serves, meanwhile if the USSR had been making SVTs as much as they'd have liked, they would have had about 6,000,000 at the time. Their goal was 2,000,000 a year by I think 1942, but then Summer 1941 hit, and well... yeah... last half of 1941 was MISERABLE for the Soviets.

>>33389525
Ag-42b

>>33391382
>I just don't know that this worked the way most people seem to think it did

Most people neglect the "entire fucking squad or at the very least three or four armed guys crouched down next to you" thing.

>>33390909

I like the 30 carbine round for a plinker but I think it's quite lacking in military use. It's a pretty anemic loading to begin with and the mandated FMJ bullets do it even less justice. 30 carbine would make a much better submachinegun round than a rifle round.

My grandfather has a quality hardware M1 that Ive put a bunch of rounds through. I think if I were going to war it would be at the end of my list of era appropriate weapons to carry.