What were the best and worst bolt guns of WW2?
- Thread starter The Exile
- Start date
- Status
Mosin77
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,586
The Garand (USA) outclasses them all. And also outclassed its SVT40 (Russian) and K/G43 (German) semi-auto rivals. Arguably the M1 Carbine (USA) may have been better still.
But if we’re sticking with bolts........ in combat I’d have to echo the prevailing majority and say the Enfield No. 4 (Great Britain) because it’s fast, has extra mag capacity, and also has aperture sights. The SMLE (No. 1 Mk III*) is basically the same gun only a slightly different look and has a conventional open sight. The French MAS36 probably comes in second (almost as fast, sights also aperture), but these didn’t see a lot of combat and couldn’t save the French army from being overwhelmed by tanks and superior generalship.
There’s precious little real world combat difference between a 7.7 Arisaka, a Mosin, a 1903, and a K98k.
The 6.5 Arisakas (Japan) have the advantages of the Mauser types with less recoil. The last ditch 7.7 type 99s are all good, solid guns. Maybe a bit ugly but still fine rifles in a fight.
The 03A3s (USA) have aperture sights which might put them slightly ahead of the others (but if you found yourself with one you’d curse it mightily because it means you could have had a Garand if you had the fortune to be in a different unit.)
The K98ks (Germany) kick hard, but not much harder than most of the other rifles, so this probably comes down to individual preference. They are robust and reliable with a satisfying action that encourages trust. They also have sights that are very precise but not the easiest to use in a hurry.
The Mosins (Russia) have the most variable quality control (a good one is a nice rifle, but one made in a hurry when the Germans were 30 miles from the capital can be ...underwhelming...) but probably the least satisfying action in terms of “feel.” They weren’t cheap to make or incredibly robust, just Russian: designed to pinch pennies at the outset in 1891. But they shoot, and are accurate (they’re sighted in for a fixed bayonet so if you don’t know this you might find yourself wondering why your rifle can’t hit the broad side of a barn.) I would not feel badly armed with one, unless I were facing enemies armed with Garands.
The Finnish Mosins are even more accurate, generally have better triggers and sometimes better magazines, and are not sighted in for a fixed bayonet. The M39 with its upgraded sights and semi-pistol grip stock makes for a very accurate rifle.
The Carcanos are not terrible rifles, but they’re crude feeling, and they rely on en-bloc clips which are hard to find nowadays, without which the rifle is useless. I’d say they’re my least favorite. They also get a bad rap because some of the surplus rifles commonly seen are actually Vetterli-Carcanos originally made for black powder, and were fitted with magazines and lined bores for the Carcano cartridge as a WWI emergency measure. These guns are known to blow up.
But if we’re sticking with bolts........ in combat I’d have to echo the prevailing majority and say the Enfield No. 4 (Great Britain) because it’s fast, has extra mag capacity, and also has aperture sights. The SMLE (No. 1 Mk III*) is basically the same gun only a slightly different look and has a conventional open sight. The French MAS36 probably comes in second (almost as fast, sights also aperture), but these didn’t see a lot of combat and couldn’t save the French army from being overwhelmed by tanks and superior generalship.
There’s precious little real world combat difference between a 7.7 Arisaka, a Mosin, a 1903, and a K98k.
The 6.5 Arisakas (Japan) have the advantages of the Mauser types with less recoil. The last ditch 7.7 type 99s are all good, solid guns. Maybe a bit ugly but still fine rifles in a fight.
The 03A3s (USA) have aperture sights which might put them slightly ahead of the others (but if you found yourself with one you’d curse it mightily because it means you could have had a Garand if you had the fortune to be in a different unit.)
The K98ks (Germany) kick hard, but not much harder than most of the other rifles, so this probably comes down to individual preference. They are robust and reliable with a satisfying action that encourages trust. They also have sights that are very precise but not the easiest to use in a hurry.
The Mosins (Russia) have the most variable quality control (a good one is a nice rifle, but one made in a hurry when the Germans were 30 miles from the capital can be ...underwhelming...) but probably the least satisfying action in terms of “feel.” They weren’t cheap to make or incredibly robust, just Russian: designed to pinch pennies at the outset in 1891. But they shoot, and are accurate (they’re sighted in for a fixed bayonet so if you don’t know this you might find yourself wondering why your rifle can’t hit the broad side of a barn.) I would not feel badly armed with one, unless I were facing enemies armed with Garands.
The Finnish Mosins are even more accurate, generally have better triggers and sometimes better magazines, and are not sighted in for a fixed bayonet. The M39 with its upgraded sights and semi-pistol grip stock makes for a very accurate rifle.
The Carcanos are not terrible rifles, but they’re crude feeling, and they rely on en-bloc clips which are hard to find nowadays, without which the rifle is useless. I’d say they’re my least favorite. They also get a bad rap because some of the surplus rifles commonly seen are actually Vetterli-Carcanos originally made for black powder, and were fitted with magazines and lined bores for the Carcano cartridge as a WWI emergency measure. These guns are known to blow up.
Jim Watson
Member
But they, like the Italians and Germans tried to make the change after they were already at war and had to use them all, two rifle/MG calibers and the previous 7.7 MG. Not to mention the IJN Lewis gun.
Germans, Italians, and Soviets used a lot of SMGs. The Carcano wasn't a whole lot of rifle but Roy Dunlap wrote that everybody liked the Beretta subguns.
Monac
Member
Oh, that's right, didn't the Japanese Army have both semi-rimmed and rimless 7.7mm ammunition? (Like you say, the Navy 7.7mm round was a .303 copy for use in aircraft-mounted Lewis guns). "Did the simple, straighforward thing for once" - what was I smoking?!
Jim Watson
Member
I wonder if we had all the .30 M1 flushed out of the system by wartime.
tark
Member
The type 99 Arisaka, in my opinion, was closely behind the #4Mk1 and the 03A3. The early ones, not the "Last Ditch" guns. They were the simple, easy to manufacture, had the fewest parts needing heat treating...and were made from high grade steel. Their strength is legendary. That much maligned safety is actually very easy to silently remove from any position. I will never understand WHY it got such a bad reputation. Finally, the Japanese were the first to realize that chrome plating the bore and chamber makes the gun virtually impervious to the rusting from corrosive ammo.
Jim Watson
Member
I get the impression that the Mauser got to be something for the guys humping MG ammo to guard the flanks with.
tark
Member
There is a big difference between "substitute standard" and "last ditch".. The "last ditch" type 99s were nothing more or less than an attempt to manufacture a less expensive gun that still met standards of military use. They should properly be called "substitute standard". And these guns still had to pass proof. I have one, it functions well and is just as accurate as my early type 99. Despite the unplated bore, the crude front and rear sights, the lack of an upper handguard and the cobby finish and tacked and glued on butt plate.
To be perfectly honest, the 03A3 is a "substitute standard" rifle. It is a full blown attempt to make on 03 Springfield as quickly and cheaply as possible, while still meeting all requirements for military service. It is full of cheap, stamped parts replacing finely machined ones.
Nobody has ever called the 03A3 a "last ditch" rifle.
Last edited:
Random 8
Member
I'm going to swim with piranhas and reply without reading all the other replies. My personal ranking of rifles common to the beligerent nations, taking into account combat effectiveness based on doctrine of nation of origin, durability, ease/cost of production, goes as follows.
1. #4Mk1
2. Mosin Nagant Finnish Variants
3. Mauser K98
4. Springfield M1903A3
5. Soviet M91-30
6. Arisaka T99
7. Both variants of Carcano
The Enfield, Finn Mosin, K98, Springfield were all highly refined designs, representing about the best possible efficiency that could be wrung from the basic design, and honestly all very, very close as a combat arm. I give the Enfield top marks based soley on magazine capacity. I give the T-99 low marks for the very crude sights and the fact that the cartridge was overpowered for the size of the rifle and the typical Japanese serviceman, as well as the crude bolt and safety. The design was rushed to issue lacking improvements necessary to be an elite rifle, I believe it was a step backwards from the T38. M91-30, while a very serviceable arm, likewise lacks significant modernization to qualify with the elites. The Carcano is...well...still a Carcano. I did not consider the MAS 36, or other rifles which served in small quantities as I have little experience or information on them.
1. #4Mk1
2. Mosin Nagant Finnish Variants
3. Mauser K98
4. Springfield M1903A3
5. Soviet M91-30
6. Arisaka T99
7. Both variants of Carcano
The Enfield, Finn Mosin, K98, Springfield were all highly refined designs, representing about the best possible efficiency that could be wrung from the basic design, and honestly all very, very close as a combat arm. I give the Enfield top marks based soley on magazine capacity. I give the T-99 low marks for the very crude sights and the fact that the cartridge was overpowered for the size of the rifle and the typical Japanese serviceman, as well as the crude bolt and safety. The design was rushed to issue lacking improvements necessary to be an elite rifle, I believe it was a step backwards from the T38. M91-30, while a very serviceable arm, likewise lacks significant modernization to qualify with the elites. The Carcano is...well...still a Carcano. I did not consider the MAS 36, or other rifles which served in small quantities as I have little experience or information on them.
The usefulness of bayonets in combat outside trench fighting in WWII was well demonstrated by last-ditch banzai charges. Battlefield kill ratios during even early island hopping campaigns tell the story at the point when all effective resistance ended.
Their utility against unarmed civilians in spots like Nanking for example was very, very different where indomitable fighting spirit with less than top notch small arms was surpassed by indomitable brutality in the face of lack of ability to fight back on a grand scale.
My first rifle was a Carcano carbine my dad bought for me for all A's to accompany him deer hunting with his SMLE. I specialized in CNS shots, and they're still my preference. We could not find any 6.5X52mm ammo other than milsurp FMJ in the 1970's, but he used Remington Core-Lokt in his .303. We both used the issued iron sights our rifles came equipped with. The felt recoil (or lack of it) in my carbine fit me well vs his SMLE, both with metal buttplates. Recoil pads? What are y'all talkin' about?
Their utility against unarmed civilians in spots like Nanking for example was very, very different where indomitable fighting spirit with less than top notch small arms was surpassed by indomitable brutality in the face of lack of ability to fight back on a grand scale.
My first rifle was a Carcano carbine my dad bought for me for all A's to accompany him deer hunting with his SMLE. I specialized in CNS shots, and they're still my preference. We could not find any 6.5X52mm ammo other than milsurp FMJ in the 1970's, but he used Remington Core-Lokt in his .303. We both used the issued iron sights our rifles came equipped with. The felt recoil (or lack of it) in my carbine fit me well vs his SMLE, both with metal buttplates. Recoil pads? What are y'all talkin' about?
Last edited:
tark
Member
Yes we should, they are the best of the breed!!!
1.Swiss K31( same era)
2.K98
3. 1903- 1903-A3
4. SMLE No. 4 Mark I
5.The rest
...and I am not sure when or why we would ever leave out the M1 from any discussion like this. Like asking who had the best break open shotgun at the OK corral... kind of misses the story
2.K98
3. 1903- 1903-A3
4. SMLE No. 4 Mark I
5.The rest
...and I am not sure when or why we would ever leave out the M1 from any discussion like this. Like asking who had the best break open shotgun at the OK corral... kind of misses the story
Last edited:
One note about the UK .303 cartridge and fully automatic weapons, since those entered the discussion. While Bren guns were modified from its Czechoslovakian ancestor, air cooled tank (and maybe some other uses?) Besa guns retained the 8X57mm cartridge they were originally designed to use.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besa_machine_gun
The UK rifle cartridge caliber logistics required two different cartridges, similar to the Japanese and Italians, not to mention lend-lease equipment using .45 ACP & .30-06 Springfield.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besa_machine_gun
The UK rifle cartridge caliber logistics required two different cartridges, similar to the Japanese and Italians, not to mention lend-lease equipment using .45 ACP & .30-06 Springfield.
I think the number of Carcano rifles purchased and used to good effect by Finnish troops in all the WW2 era conflicts the Finnish troops engaged in against troops primarily armed with Moisin Nagant and 8X57mm Mauser bolt action rifles speak to not so much the tool used, but how tools are used (from individual crunchies on up) makes a difference. Keep in mind the beginning of the Winter War vs the USSR mass production and employment of submachine guns.
Also note Axis troops used numerous light machine guns beyond the MG34 &MG42, since those entered the discussion previously; in particular the Czechoslovakian ones in the same lineage as the Bren gun. Plus the classic (but then-not-yet antique) Danish Madsen, with both detachable box magazines and belts.
Also note Axis troops used numerous light machine guns beyond the MG34 &MG42, since those entered the discussion previously; in particular the Czechoslovakian ones in the same lineage as the Bren gun. Plus the classic (but then-not-yet antique) Danish Madsen, with both detachable box magazines and belts.
Last edited:
On behalf of the mosin trigger:
I have a sowjet mosin, the long one. Stock is horrible, bolt action sucks, trigger feels like ....
Then i started practising quite a bit with this rifle. Now i can manipulate the action without any problems, the cartridge will feed every time. It is not as smooth as i am used to, but its ok. And the trigger? Still gives the impression that there is sand somewhere where it shouldnt be. Its neither smooth nor crisp. But it allows for precise shooting once you get used to it. Pulling the trigger requires a different procedure but then a shotgun trigger differs from a two stage trigger (the thing with the two triggers) so who cares.
I have a sowjet mosin, the long one. Stock is horrible, bolt action sucks, trigger feels like ....
Then i started practising quite a bit with this rifle. Now i can manipulate the action without any problems, the cartridge will feed every time. It is not as smooth as i am used to, but its ok. And the trigger? Still gives the impression that there is sand somewhere where it shouldnt be. Its neither smooth nor crisp. But it allows for precise shooting once you get used to it. Pulling the trigger requires a different procedure but then a shotgun trigger differs from a two stage trigger (the thing with the two triggers) so who cares.
I dunno the true strength of Carcano actions relative to Arisakas, but I do know some Carcanos were reworked to chamber and fire 8X57mmJS ammunition. Beyond ammunition availability the Carcano was difficult to mount scopes on but I've seen current scout rifle type scopes that would have been adapted to my half stock carbine.
The milsurp rifle my father purchased for me came with a single brass en-bloc clip. Some boxes of milsurp ammo he purchased for me was loaded with round nose FMJ, some with spitzer FMJ, and some came pre-loaded in en-bloc clips in the box. As a freshly minted 13 year old 7th Grader, I was able to easily reload and re-use those en-bloc clips whether brass or steel.
The milsurp rifle my father purchased for me came with a single brass en-bloc clip. Some boxes of milsurp ammo he purchased for me was loaded with round nose FMJ, some with spitzer FMJ, and some came pre-loaded in en-bloc clips in the box. As a freshly minted 13 year old 7th Grader, I was able to easily reload and re-use those en-bloc clips whether brass or steel.
Mosin Bubba
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,936
Any of the Mauser derivatives would be my pick for best. They may not have been as fast as an Enfield, but they are hell for strong. As a soldier, I'd probably prefer the lighter kick and smoother bolt of an Enfield, but if I was supplying an army, I'd appreciate a rifle that could handle the hotter loads I'd want in all my ~30 cal machine guns.
The Mosin design is worse than both the Mauser and Enfield but if you took the time to do them right, you could still manufacture a good rifle. Look at the Finn Mosins, or the '30s hex receivers. The biggest problem with the Mosins isn't the design IMO, it's that the Russians were terribly stretched for rifles in both world wars and churned out millions of rush-job guns out of necessity.
The Carcano was pretty much the worst of all worlds. Very long, saddled with a cartridge about as powerful as a 30-30, and never built to a particularly high standard. Like others have said, Italy tried fixing this in the late 30s, but just ran out of time and money to do it. With the exception of their navy, Italy was just not ready for war by 1940. Their tanks, planes, artillery, small arms, etc were all a day late and a dollar short.
The Swedish Mausers are fantastic. Long like all the Gewehrs, but the build quality is A+.
The Mosin design is worse than both the Mauser and Enfield but if you took the time to do them right, you could still manufacture a good rifle. Look at the Finn Mosins, or the '30s hex receivers. The biggest problem with the Mosins isn't the design IMO, it's that the Russians were terribly stretched for rifles in both world wars and churned out millions of rush-job guns out of necessity.
The Carcano was pretty much the worst of all worlds. Very long, saddled with a cartridge about as powerful as a 30-30, and never built to a particularly high standard. Like others have said, Italy tried fixing this in the late 30s, but just ran out of time and money to do it. With the exception of their navy, Italy was just not ready for war by 1940. Their tanks, planes, artillery, small arms, etc were all a day late and a dollar short.
The Swedish Mausers are fantastic. Long like all the Gewehrs, but the build quality is A+.
Last edited:
Mosin Bubba
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,936
I read that the British were designing 8mm semi-auto rifles as late as 1944 and presumably intended for 8mm to replace the 303 entirely for their next series of small arms. Doubt it was because of the ballistics, so much as no rim + already in the system.
Of course they got a hold of the Sturmgewehr shortly after that and it changed the whole course.
GunnyUSMC
Member
I’ve got a bandolier of the British 8mm ammo.
GunnyUSMC
Member
The Swiss K31 is a nice rifle and a great shooter from the bench, but it’s heavy and chunky.
I have two right now. I had six at one time.
I have two right now. I had six at one time.
GunnyUSMC
Member
Many have mentioned that Russian Mosins have rough actions. This is most likely because all they have ever fired are your basic run of the mill refurbished rifle. Most of the refurbished rifles have poorly fitted extractors.
I have several non refurbished Mosins that have very smooth action.
I have several non refurbished Mosins that have very smooth action.
Shanghai McCoy
Member
I've often read that the Finn Mosin rifles are better due to the improvements. So what all did they do to make them so much better?
Jim Watson
Member
You can still buy German headstamped 8x56R ammo, too; although they eventually made the Hungarians chamber in 8x57 and otherwise modify the rifle to look and handle like a Mauser.
I don't guess the Greeks lasted long enough for us to have an appreciation of the Mannlicher Schoenauer as an infantry rifle. I know the Dutch didn't put their 6.5x53R Mannlichers to a lot of use. A good many of those were rebored to .303 so the Dutch in exile would have something to shoot.
Did the Finns MAKE MNs? I thought they just refurbed and rebuilt Russian actions.
I don't guess the Greeks lasted long enough for us to have an appreciation of the Mannlicher Schoenauer as an infantry rifle. I know the Dutch didn't put their 6.5x53R Mannlichers to a lot of use. A good many of those were rebored to .303 so the Dutch in exile would have something to shoot.
Did the Finns MAKE MNs? I thought they just refurbed and rebuilt Russian actions.
- Status
Similar threads
