What were the best and worst bolt guns of WW2?

briansmithwins said:

Although the Mosin does have a interrupter that’s supposed to prevent rim lock I’ve seen multiple Mosin have rim lock and require tools to get back into operation.

Naturally this happened during a rifle match, on the clock.

BSW

Click to expand...

Hmm, I've fired thousands of rounds thru mine without a problem.

Antihero said:

Hmm, I've fired thousands of rounds thru mine without a problem.

Click to expand...

I’m not doubting you and your experience with your Mosin. I’ve personally seen different rifles have stoppages from rim lock while firing. I’ve never seen or experienced rim lock with a SMLE.

BSW

briansmithwins said:

I’m not doubting you and your experience with your Mosin. I’ve personally seen different rifles have stoppages from rim lock while firing. I’ve never seen or experienced rim lock with a SMLE.

BSW

Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't take it in a mean way or anything, no worries

I do admit though I very much prefer my Enfield to my mosin

lysanderxiii said:

But, from a pure bayonet point of view, the spike bayonet is the best way to convert a rifle into a spear. Attempting to use the cutting edge of a knife bayonet to "chop" is useless, you don't have enough mass at the point of impact to do anything, so the knife edge of no value except to thin the blade down. Spike bayonets can be much larger in diameter for the same or less weight than a blade bayonet so are less prone to breaking, and they enter and withdraw easier.

This is why the French and the Russians kept them (both of whom were all about the bayonet and the attack), and the British No 4 when to a spike bayonet. Spears are best employed as stabbing weapons.

Click to expand...

I think we're talking past each other or I was not clear. The typical US style bayonet can also be used to cut limbs to clear a firing lane or to use as camouflage, cut other things, etc. So, I see that as a gain over a needle or screwdriver type. I'm not saying to chop with it attached to the rifle so much. However, that is part of bayonet drill as I recall.

792mauser said:

Truthfully they're all about equal.
Take a soldier from 1914 and give him a bolt rifle from 1945 and he'd be good. None of them were drastically different from the ww1 version each had.
All save the 6.5s like the Japs, swedes and Italians were overpowered.

The only "bad" one is the Mosin. And even that is at the low end of the good scale.


Some might be easier to use and recoil less, but they all fit the same general need.
Easy-ish to make, powerful, good range, good point blank range, smokeless and easy for the soldiers you conscripted to understand and use.

Click to expand...

Regarding the 1914 soldier and the 1945 rifle, I'd say the opposite combination is good to. The exception may be the guy who trained with an '03A3 or M1917 having to use the ladder on the earlier '03.

I'm not sure I agree with saying 6.5x55 is underpowered. I couldn't comment on the Italian 6.5 round, but with the Carcano carbine I was able to examine, I didn't like the sights.

With any of the Mosin variants, the biggest problem I see is they tend to be rough in ways that make them less user friendly. Something Stalin said about perfect being the enemy of good enough, plus quantity having a quality of its own. One Soviet soldier alone wouldn't have functioned nearly as well as the masses they fielded.

FL-NC said:

I don't have the extensive experience of some people with these older surplus rifles, but I have shot most of them. The 03A3 seems top-shelf to me, about equal with the Mauser, except that the Mauser has brutal recoil, IMO. The Japanese rifles I shot were hot garbage. Honorable mention for junk goes to the Mosin, which gets the consolation prize as the best bayonet handle. I've never heard anything good about the Italian Carcanos either. No idea how the French rifles performed. I'm not sure if anyone knows the answer to that.

Click to expand...

I agree that the '03A3 is top-shelf, but I rate the K98 up there with it. That surplus Turkish magnum crap didn't help the 8x57's reputation, and people forget the German service round probably ran ~2500fps to shoot to the sights.

I can't say I've examined a Japanese rifle I wanted to shoot. Just from what I've heard, I figure they didn't expect to need them beyond the next bonsai charge.

The one I'd want to carry into combat in WWII, if it had to be a bolt action: Lee-Enfield No. 4 MkI.
My favorite: M1903A3
Least favorite: Tie between Carcano and Arisaka.

briansmithwins said:

Although the Mosin does have a interrupter that’s supposed to prevent rim lock I’ve seen multiple Mosin have rim lock and require tools to get back into operation.

Click to expand...

Malfunctioning Interruptor/Ejector or Operator Headspace and Timing.

briansmithwins said:

I’m not doubting you and your experience with your Mosin. I’ve personally seen different rifles have stoppages from rim lock while firing. I’ve never seen or experienced rim lock with a SMLE.

BSW

Click to expand...

I have too. They were either I/E's that needed to be replaced, or Operator Headspace and Timing. I repaired the I/E's for the owners (keep a set in my Armorer's kit), and advised the others how to avoid rim lock and recommended a new I/E.

mustanger98 said:

I can't say I've examined a Japanese rifle I wanted to shoot. Just from what I've heard, I figure they didn't expect to need them beyond the next bonsai charge.

Click to expand...

So would that be small manicured trees attacking, or someone attacking small manicured trees? Either way the visual is amusing......

I'm going to go against the flow here and say that there wasn't anything wrong with either the Arisaka or the Carcano designs. I think I would have preferred both in their 6.5mm versions.

What we need to remember is that we can't just take a look at one example and judge everything off of that example. Carcano rifles have gotten a bad rap due to non-spec ammo. Arisaka (type 99) have gotten a really bad rap from the last ditch rifles! I would rather have had an Arisaka Type 38 than anything bolt action other than an Enfield or a 1917 Enfield. I'd also rather have enbloc clips than stripper clips, assuming I could get fresh enblocs as expected when the rifles were designed.

The Mauser design (as everyone expects me to say...) is fabulous (which features the Arisaka, 1903, etc. borrow), but even the early war produced rifles were not as accurate as other rifles! 8mm Mauser is more powerful than necessary (as is everything else except the 6.5s fielded by the Japanese in the early war and the Italians and maybe .303 [these are not underpowered cartridges, but everything else really is more than necessary]).

So... what's the best? If I was a grunt, I'd want an Enfield. No, I'd want a Garand, because the grunts carrying Garands had the best artillery and air support of the entire war, in addition to the most generous supply of other stuff too. If the only thing I was considering was my small arm as a grunt and I was limited to a bolt-action I'd want an Enfield in .303. I don't think it's the best rifle, but it's probably the best combat rifle on the list. I think the Type 38 was the best rifle, but if the government is paying for new rifles when the headspace changes, I'd like a SMLE or variant thereof.

My list, from best to worst if I, as a grunt, had my choice based on the rifle and nothing else would be the following:

1. SMLE and variants thereof. Ten shots, aperture sights, lower recoil. Don't care about "fast cycling".
2. Arisaka Type 38. Good rifle, low recoil.
3. Carcano in 6.5. Low recoil.
4. 1917 Enfield. Good sights
5. 1903a3. Good sights
5.5 Type 99 Arisaka. Loses the benefit of the 6.5 cartridge, but still a good, strong rifle.
6. 1903 accurate, but not my favorite sights.
7. Mauser. Good mechanical design, but firsthand accounts seem to highlight inaccuracy. Sights are not great.
8. Mosin. Sticky. Rimlock is a possibility. Accuracy seems to have been better than the Mauser though.

Did I miss any important ones? Let me know and I'll put them in.

All rifles on my list are considered without using last-ditch examples and problems. Also, you've got to consider CORRECT ammo (especially Carcano). When it comes right down to it, the significance of differences between the rifles issued to troops is basically irrelevant. If you armed Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan universally with Garands it would not have helped much. I would even argue that if you could magically arm Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan universally with M-16s it wouldn't matter either.

I'd like light weight, low recoil, and high capacity in a service rifle. Durability is low on that list, as is accuracy. Once you get "good enough" on durability and accuracy scales, the differences between the different bolt action rifles pales to insignificance.

I still like Mausers though. Well... I actually like all of the ones on the list!

Can we put the M39 (Finnish) Mosin on the list?

Note that most of the countries making heavy use of bolt-action rifles in WW2 had them as ancillary to other weapons, according to their tactical doctrines. For example, the British built their squads around the Bren, and the Germans built their squads around the MG-38 or -42. And the Russians relied on tank-riders armed with PPS submachine guns. The U.S. had a doctrine favoring individual riflemen, and of course they had semiautomatics. You have to look at the total mix of weapons in order to make any meaningful comparisons.

I have the MKIII and No.4 Enfields, a Mannlicher-Carcano Carbine, and a few Yugoslavina M48 Mauser copies. I would pick the MKIII* as the all around favorite of mine. The Carcano light, handy and accurate but suffer's from the magazine and an outdated round. The M48 is very well made I have umpteen number of surplus (Corrosive) rounds on stripper clips that shoot like brand new. Down side is the sights could have been better and the Mauser has a pretty stout recoil. I suggest a shooting jacket when you play with WWII bolt actions.

Terry G said:

I have the MKIII and No.4 Enfields, a Mannlicher-Carcano Carbine, and a few Yugoslavina M48 Mauser copies. I would pick the MKIII* as the all around favorite of mine. The Carcano light, handy and accurate but suffer's from the magazine and an outdated round. The M48 is very well made I have umpteen number of surplus (Corrosive) rounds on stripper clips that shoot like brand new. Down side is the sights could have been better and the Mauser has a pretty stout recoil. I suggest a shooting jacket when you play with WWII bolt actions.

Click to expand...

Nice collection of Mausers there Terry.

Mosin- you could argue this is the best because it was economical and fast to manufacture

Lee-Enfield- you could argue this is the best because it was built as a battle rifle, and remains a good battle rifle that saw service years after WWII

Mauser-you can argue this is the best because of its ultra-strong action, durability, and praise as the best bolt action ever devised

Obviously there are a ton more. The point I’m making is what reason is the rifle the best? Cost, fast production, being a proven battle weapon, quality, being a timeless design, being idiot proof??

The best were in use by countries that boasted 'armed neutrality' but were, in fact, engaged in subdued collaboration with Germany, namely Sweden and its '96 Mauser, and Switzerland with its K31.

The best among the combatants probably was the Lee Enfield. The worst was the Mosin, because while it may have been a better design than the Carcano, the Carcano at least offered a light rifle and a low recoil round.

I would consider only the early and mid war guns here.

The 03A3 and the #4Mk1 are in a dead heat as far as I can tell. The 03A3 has the advantage of Its rimless cartridge. I have owned two #4s and gotten an occasional rimlocks with both of them when loading with clips.The #4 is a slicker, faster action but Its ten round magazine's advantage is negated, in part, because it takes twice as long to reload it. Both have excellent sights. Both are accurate enough for their purpose, but I suspect the 03A3 would win a benchrest contest.

Worst? Carcano, hands down. The Mosins? Stiff, awkward, hard to manipulate the action. That short, stubby bolt handle should have looked like the sniper's bolt handle. Because it's so short there is little leverage to open the bolt on a sticky case.

And the Russians couldn't have cared less

Lots of deep thoughts here. I'm going to go with the majority in that I think they were basically equal. If I had to choose a favorite, I'd go with a Lee Enfield - either Mk. I or III. I also really like the Carcano. I think it had a lot "right". Some how the Italians just weren't able to pull it off. If we look at the "good enough" thought above, the M-38/91 had simple sights, was solid, hard for a poorly trained soldier to screw up, and the ballistics of the 7.35 x 51 is remarkably similar 7.62 x 39.

Every Carcano I've shot or handled has had a super slick action.

You do realize that the Yugo M48 was not manufactured until after WWII.


For bolt guns the No4 Enfields were the best, but the bayonet sucked.

The US was already upgrading to the M1Garand which really put a hurting on the Mauser rifles.

The Mosin 91/30 was just A slightly modified WWI rifle.
If the Stg44 wasn’t so late to the war, things may have been different. But it also weighed 11 lbs.


And let’s not forget that the French we’re still using Labels


And the US 1917 and the P14 Were good rifles too.


The Arasaka Type 99 was a very good rifle.


There were a few different Mausers on the battlefield, but the VZ24’s saw use on both side of the fighting. I like it better then the K98.


You also have to look at where these rifles were used and the weapons they were used against.

Well I'm partial to the Enfield for reasons repeatedly listed, but I have to agree with Lawrence of Arabia that when the bayonet is attached to the rifle that it is more likely to cause injury to the wielder than his target.

However it is a very good unsocial distancing tool for guarding prisoners.

Worst, well I've heard that the Arisaka sucked, however the bayonets may have been the nicest of WW2. They are blued, highly well crafted with teakwood grips and interesting crests.

I don't know why the Arisaka gets so much criticism, because, as I understand it, it is a Mauser clone. Even the Japanese decided the 6.5mm Arisaka cartridge wasn't too hot, and began switching to a 7.7mm round (they were less realistic about their industrial capacity than the Italians). But it has a strong action. IIRC, an American researcher after WWII found he could not blow up an Arisaka, because the barrel would blow out the front of the action before the firing chamber would burst. I would certainly take one before a Carcano, and from what I have read in this thread, before a Mosin or an 8mm Mauser too.

Worst safety of the bunch is a start, though the Mosin's is not much better. Ammo availablity even after WWII when it should have been plentiful, has always made it a reloader's gun, and indeed, many of the 6.5's were re-chambered to .257 Roberts.

In Shots Fired in Anger ($0.99 Kindle book and a great read for any gun nut) the author swaps to a hand picked 6.5 Arisaka after his sniper rifle is ruined by salt water exposure.

BSW

I was given a 7.35 Carcano by my cousin, who won it on a punchboard. I didn’t know what it was and I was perplexed by what I thought was a cutout for a detachable magazine, given how long the bolt was. Once I managed to source a box of ammo in clips I figured out how the thing worked. I was less than impressed by the complete unadjustability of the sights.

It was stolen in a burglary before I even shot up my three clips of ammo. I didn’t bother looking for a replacement. It unquestionably gets my vote for worst bolt gun of WW2.

Interesting how Japan and Italy wanted more powerful rifles while Germany was moving to the less powerful automatic (and everybody else was leaning that way.)

Jim Watson said:

Interesting how Japan and Italy wanted more powerful rifles while Germany was moving to the less powerful automatic (and everybody else was leaning that way.)

Click to expand...

One of the problems that both Italy and Japan (and Sweden, to a lesser extent) had was that their rifle cartridge was not powerful enough to make a good "heavy" machine gun round. By heavy, I don't mean a 50 cal, I mean the kind of gun that was usually, although not always, water-cooled, like the water-cooled Browning 30 cal. Those guns were supposed to put down fire at a 1,000 yards and more, and the 6.5mm rounds just weren't up to it. So all three countries wound up adopting more powerful rounds for that purpose. That meant they had one cartridge for rifles and light MGs, and one for heavy MGs. This was inconvenient and kind of a waste of industrial capacity.

The Japanese did the simple, straightforward thing for once, and began making a rifle and an LMG for the same new 7.7mm cartridge as their HMG. The Swedes tried making rifles for their new 8mm HMG cartridge, but they had made it so powerful that no one wanted to shoot the Mauser-type bolt action rifles made for it, and they were abandoned. The Italians, in order to keep costs down, just tried to improve the 6.5mm cartridge into 7.35mm, and did not try to make a new (and better) rifle for their 8mm Breda HMG round.

Only the Germans seem to have done the fundamental research into how infantrymen used their rifles that allowed them to realize that 1,000 yard or meter range was useless in an ordinary infantryman's rifle. That was the basic discovery that put them on the road to the assault rifle. Even the US Army did not grasp that when they developed the M-14, as I understand it.