so what was the best ww2 rifle?

>>35128966
The Garand, the rest were upgrades of WW1 rifles or not issued in enough numbers to fully test and iron out any bugs.

>>35128966
if the STG or FG42 were more widely issued, they'd be ahead by a large margin but the Garand was there first and had a great edge over bolt guns

File: mannlicher_m1895.jpg (1MB, 2300x1267px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2300x1267px

>Man-Licker

If only for the fact that the poor thing got stuck working for Austria-Hungary in WW1 and Hungary again in WW2.

>>35129047
>the designs were too old or there weren't enough

Interesting criteria for "best". The war was 5 years, most guns don't go from concept to issue that quickly. If "developed and issued to everyone in a few years" is the benchmark the Garand fails.

>>35129047
Well, the STG 44 was in widespread use by the end of the war. It wasn't perfect, but the firepower advantage was non-trivial.

On a technicality, the M2 carbine was used briefly in the Pacific before the war ended. I suppose one of those with some 30-round magazines would be a handier alternative.

The FG-42 is also a good contender. It was rare, but they did make a couple thousand and they were classified as rifles, doubling in a support role. In a way it's analogous to cold war battle rifles. Was it good? Not enough data.

Then there's the Garand, I'd take it over any other infantry rifle used in big numbers (besides maybe the STG). Sights were good, capable caliber, easy to reload, semi-automatic. Yes the SVT-40 and G43 existed too, but they never worked very well.

As for bolt-actions? No. 4 Enfield.

>>35129205
Yes but by the time the war started the Garand was already in issue and in nearly universal issue by the time American boots touched ground in Europe (although not as universal in the Pacific).

So compared to the :
-SVT-40 (which couldn't be manufactured in very large numbers because Mosins were cheaper), -G41 and 43 (same deal and they never worked very well)
-FG-42 (only made 7k or so in total)
-STG (was made in numbers but right at the end of the war)

The Garand was in the war early, in large numbers and remained throughout. This is of course because they started developing it well before the war started, but never the less it was there more so than any of the others listed.

>>35129327
My point was the production numbers were irrelevant when judging the rifles on individual merit, which is how I interpreted the question. The FG42 is tits even if it had a minimal impact on the war and many of the early WW2 designs went on to become the basis for much better modern rifles, the same way WW1 rifles led to those versions.

File: 20170811_121008.jpg (3MB, 3764x814px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3764x814px

>>35129233
>As for bolt-actions? No. 4 Enfield.
Wrong.

File: 22285387_5e3dc45a2f_o.jpg (182KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1280x960px

>>35128966
This

>>35128966
M1

File: WWII_M1_Carbine.jpg (286KB, 1728x566px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1728x566px

>>35129035
And the runner up

File: hqdefault.jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

>>35129771

File: IMG_3804 small.jpg (336KB, 972x648px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 972x648px

41 Johnson.
take everything that made the M1 great, make it easier to manufacture, add an extra two rounds to the mag capacity and allow it to be topped off with the bolt still closed.

only real negative was the wimpy bayonet.

>>35129327
>The Garand was in the war early
>American
>early

>>35130901
>implying that the Garand was only issued to Americans

M1 Garand by a wide margin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irG1Q2hW2LI

>>35130127
So why didn't it pass muster?

>>35131031
The name alone should give you some indication as to why it never caught one; it arrived on the scene on the eve of the US entering the war, while the Garand had entered service 5 years earlier and was already in the hands of most frontline troops.

The Johnson rifle was too little, too late.

File: IMG_2432.jpg (1MB, 2525x2144px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2525x2144px

>>35131083
basically this, despite it's advantages, it wasn't a significant enough improvement over the garand to warrant replacement, especially when the US was already in full scale production of M1's

it was still an excellent design and some elements of it would be borrowed for some future designs you might be familiar with

>>35129035
Fpbp

>>35129683

>Chepo rifle made because France had no guns
>Best

>>35129047

>Gun had an enbloc system and no full tard because the US Army thought GIs were too dumb to manage anything more

>>35129327

If you were to compare guns by strategic impact then you are doing it wrong as you would need to compare the full arsenal of a nation and how it worked together. And the US did have a good rifle, probably the best mass issue but they had sub par SMG's, LMG's arriving too late, a crap Automatic Rifle, and a decent pistol.

>>35129233
Cold War rifles didn't come with scopes on them as standard. And they weren't bullpup, or at least pseudo-bullpuppy. The FG-42 is equivalent to a WW2 take on a post-CW EBR, it was stupid advanced for its time.

File: 1466088658253.jpg (155KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 720x540px

>>35133150

>bullpup is an advancement