What were the best and worst bolt guns of WW2?

Status
Not open for further replies.
[


I suppose that I just mentioned the Italians because they seemed to embrace surrender like they embraced soccer.
So why did so many such barrels get so corroded before arriving here?

Accounts I've actually read in books with accounts from UK troops have mentioned the individual Italian crunchie as a fairly good chap in an abysmal caste system divided ineffective leadership. The bore of the Carcono my father ( who landed in and fought in and from North Africa shortly after the Torch landings, in the USAAF [as shown on his DD-214]) purchased for me had a shootable but not pristine bore by visual examination at time of purchase that improved after vigorous cleaning with Outer's Nitro Solvent with its highly effective nitrobenzene solvent component.

I have no ethnic Italian in my ancestry, but imagine how things might have gone if reverence for the elitists in Italy mirrored that of their Japanese contemporaries.

To this day I do not and will not own any Japanese WWII era milsurp stuff. Too much up front and personal observations of US citizens who had been POW's of the Japanese during that conflict, and I'm not talking strictly physically, for me to want to own anything manufactured with that regime in power. Not dissing anyone else's interests, just YMMV. I can imagine what things may have occurred if Italy had a similar reverence of their elites who incubated low self worth of life among the non-elites. Both cultures used roughly less than fully modernized weaponry for land combat with quite different results for many reasons. The largest point of such difference was really in the quality, quantity, and tactical employment of the various SMG's manufactured by the Italians (and also issued to some other Axis troops), as well as some Italian pistols (Beretta 1934 vs Glisenti for example).
 
Last edited:
The Italian troops didn't lack for courage. Their ineffectiveness was more because they were poorly equipped and led even worse. Mechanization was lacking, many of their weapons wouldn't have passed other nations' muster in 1918, and communication throughout the military was so poor that Italian ships had to paint "candy" stripes on their decks to stop their own planes from strafing them.

But they were no cowards. When their backs were pushed to the wall at El Alamein and Stalingrad, they fought to the end against very poor odds.
 
Please tell me that this is a private and not professional meeting you've had with this rifle?
Not sure what you’re implying here. :confused:
I own more Mosins then the number of guns that most people own, but then I also own even more Mausers. I do like Enfields A little more then Mosins and Mauser, but have fewer of them.
Now when it comes to Enfields, I like the No1 MkIII more then the No4, but the No4 is the better rifle.
00B5E1FB-AA5B-41F3-95C4-9EF969519767.jpeg 4ED8BCD7-4DAE-4FF2-AE9E-9B934EBA14A7.jpeg
 
Gunny, my New England Westinghouse, with Finnish "SA" acceptance stamps, is cranky with steel cased ammo but fairly smooth with brass cases ammo. I'm thinking if anyone here would know why it's you;

Any thoughts?
The Finns used brass case ammo, due to the fact that it was more reliable then steel case ammo.
Just as many shooters today know that steel case ammunition is just not as reliable in modern firearms as brass case ammunition.
The Russians used steel case ammunition because it was cheap to manufacture.
I have four New England Westinghouse rifles, to of which are Finn market.
 
Gunny, thank you.
Next time I will pay the ammo and the ribs. If you let me shoot few rounds on it, wife wanted to visit LA long time ago.
Importing new from Germany was impossible few years ago.
I do still suffer the itchy for stg44.22 cal to compensate the lack of options.
Share more pics when you can.
I wish the rifle was mine.
Gunny, is that a real STG 44 you are holding in post # 43? I think I see the sliding mode of fire selector button in the pic. That thing looks "as issued!" We have three STG 44s in the museum.....but all three are in a deplorable condition, as opposed to our FG42s which are just the opposite.
Yes, it’s the real thing. It’s part of the LA. State Police Crime Lab reference library. I don’t know it’s history or how it made it’s way to the lab.
B3F0625C-2463-4E2D-B973-E56A56818DAA.jpeg
 
Remember that unlike most other service cartridges at this time, which had long since moved to spitzer bullets, the 6.5 Carcano still used the old-fashioned round nose jacketed bullet, the least effective type, perfectly designed to drill a neat, small hole. Combine this with being only .26 caliber, I wouldn't doubt it lacked stopping power by comparison.

Also remember Karamojo Bell switched from downing elephants with his 6.5X54mm M-S to using 7X57mm because he was no longer able to procure 6.5X54mm ammunition that met his quality standards, with milsurp ammo loaded with heavy for caliber round nose FMJ at least in the 7X57mm from what I've read. I'm not sure what bullet type and shape was in the 6.5X54mm M-S that did, and did not, meet his specifications.

I'll admit brain shots in elephants when the animals had seen few firearms to become fearful of is different than combat with humans carrying firearms, but there was plenty of stopping power in what he used, and how he used it.
 
Best WW2 bolt gun- No.4 Mk1 Enfield

Worst- M35 Carcano

Yeah, I agree, the Carcano is one balky, slow action, and whoever made the design so the clip falls out an open hole in the bottom of the action obviously never
spent a second in the Infantry. You hear a lot of disparaging remarks about the Italian Army of WWI and WWII, and I have absolutely no doubt that this very sub-par
infantry rifle is more than likely the origin of that attitude.
 
The No. 1 Mk III is more old-school. The receiver has multiple curved surfaces and took a lot of machining. Its got a distinctive look, and a clever (but intricate) method of stocking up.

The No. 4 Mk I is more practical with the aperture sight (although they used a few different ones during and after the war, some nice and some not so nice) and was “rationalized,” ie redesigned to make it cheaper and faster to produce, with a new and less skilled workforce. Hence features like the big slab-sided receiver.

The “best” Enfield might arguably be the No. 4 Mk II, with its improved and more consistent trigger. But this was a post WWII refinement, and I’ve always found it a bit hard to get excited about the 1950s Enfields, when by that point the FAL was the way of the future. But in Australia and England where semi-automatic rifles are much more restricted, the later Enfields enjoy a lot of appreciation.
 
I try not to get wrapped up in these things but

Implying the Italians simply surrendered slanders every USGI and allied soldier that fought them in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy. Lots of those guys got 6.5mm holes in them that say other wise.

… and yes there were places in North Africa that Vichy French resisted US landings and break through. They even resisted First Rangers....briefly.

-kBob
 
Gunny,

Admit it you like the older SMLE for their REAL bayonets!

also the STG 44 in the Florida Department of Law Enforcement library came from a little old lady that brought it in after Colonel hubby died because she did not want it cluttering up her closet any more...big crime gun there!

If you have not shot it yet let me encourage you to do so and to fire a few rounds semi before pushing through the Happy Button. The low cyclic rate and weight makes it obvious that it worked as planned. Despite all the online stories every former German Soldier I spoke to that used one liked it...except for the weight and lack of a bayonet.

-kBob
 
Remember that unlike most other service cartridges at this time, which had long since moved to spitzer bullets, the 6.5 Carcano still used the old-fashioned round nose jacketed bullet, the least effective type, perfectly designed to drill a neat, small hole. Combine this with being only .26 caliber, I wouldn't doubt it lacked stopping power by comparison.
Do what? This is what I meant by "spurious comparison". The 6.5mm Carcano rifle and cartridge were adopted in 1891. The only cartridge designers at the time were - consciously or unconsciously - black powder cartridge designers. In fact, the case for the Carcano was rather advanced - modern - for the time. Please note the 6.5mm Swede, the 6.5mm Dutch and the 6.5mm M-S were adopted in the same five year period and all those used bullets of around 10.1 grams (156 grains) at about the same velocity. Those rounds have been famous - especially the 6.5x55mm - for taking medium to large game (moose) since their adoption.

The Swedish round converted to a lighter round (nine grams or 140 grains) in 1941. This was about the time the Italian government decided to switch to 7.7mm. Which, for one reason or another (WWII comes to mind) the change was not promptly done. The Dutch round kept the heavy bullet through WWII as did the 6.5 M-S. Europeans still hunt and kill moose with a ballistically similar round. I cannot agree the Carcano was underpowered. The purpose was to shoot and kill or disable enemies of the realm. And it did when it hit.
 
Do what? This is what I meant by "spurious comparison". The 6.5mm Carcano rifle and cartridge were adopted in 1891. The only cartridge designers at the time were - consciously or unconsciously - black powder cartridge designers. In fact, the case for the Carcano was rather advanced - modern - for the time. Please note the 6.5mm Swede, the 6.5mm Dutch and the 6.5mm M-S were adopted in the same five year period and all those used bullets of around 10.1 grams (156 grains) at about the same velocity. Those rounds have been famous - especially the 6.5x55mm - for taking medium to large game (moose) since their adoption.

The Swedish round converted to a lighter round (nine grams or 140 grains) in 1941. This was about the time the Italian government decided to switch to 7.7mm. Which, for one reason or another (WWII comes to mind) the change was not promptly done. The Dutch round kept the heavy bullet through WWII as did the 6.5 M-S. Europeans still hunt and kill moose with a ballistically similar round. I cannot agree the Carcano was underpowered. The purpose was to shoot and kill or disable enemies of the realm. And it did when it hit.

Shooting moose with expanding round nose bullets is entirely different than shooting enemy soldiers with non-expanding round nose bullets. If the same hunters had to shoot their moose with round nose ball I doubt they would be pleased with the performance.

The adoption of spitzer bullets in some of the main cartridges used by the major nations:

8mm Lebel: 1898
8mm Mauser: 1903
6.5mm Arisaka: 1905
30-06: always (1906)
7.62x54R: 1908
303 British: 1910
7mm Mauser: 1913
7.5 French: always (1929)
8x56R Mannlicher: always (1930)

Yes, there were some stragglers who took much longer, or never were loaded with spitzer bullets. Including the 6.5 Carcano. But the round nose was already obsolete.

Round nose FMJ is relatively ineffective and that's what it was loaded with. Fact! From Dr. Martin Fackler, "Wounding patterns of military rifle bullets":

"The first full-metal-jacketed bullets (1885-1910) were over four calibres long and round-nosed. Typical of this bullet type are the 6.5 mm Carcano and the 30-40 Krag bullets; they penetrate tissue simulant travelling point-forward for 50 cm or more before significant yaw begins (Fackler, M.L., unpublished data, 1987). The very minimal wounding effect produced by these early round-nosed jacketed bullets was remarked upon by surgeons of the time (Kocher, Markins, Brunner, Abbott, LaGarde, etc.). Even those soldiers with through-and-through chest wounds in which the bullet missed the large vessels (but passed through the lung) would be fit to rejoin their units in a few weeks."


In fact, here you go! A test of the 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano, from the IWBA:

6GGdHtj.png

"As shown in the wound profile, they are extremely stable in their path through gelatin and soft tissue. Unless these bullets hit substantial bone, which upsets their stability and might cause them to deform or break, they typically cause small punctate entrance and exit wounds with minimal tissue disruption between the two. ... Historically, reports from many battlefields verified the minimal wounding caused by these long, round-nosed bullets. The most famous incidents occurred in India, where greatly outnumbered British soldiers found that their adversaries tended to continue their charge even after several hits in the torso."


So no, I would not discount all the stories about the round's lack of effectiveness. Maybe they were exaggerated as with the M1 Carbine. We can agree that it is a rifle and it can kill people. But the facts are that it was still one of the weaker service rounds of WW2, and that it was loaded with the worst possible bullet design. I consider this to support the idea it was relatively ineffective. Key word: relatively.

Also remember Karamojo Bell switched from downing elephants with his 6.5X54mm M-S to using 7X57mm because he was no longer able to procure 6.5X54mm ammunition that met his quality standards, with milsurp ammo loaded with heavy for caliber round nose FMJ at least in the 7X57mm from what I've read. I'm not sure what bullet type and shape was in the 6.5X54mm M-S that did, and did not, meet his specifications.

I'll admit brain shots in elephants when the animals had seen few firearms to become fearful of is different than combat with humans carrying firearms, but there was plenty of stopping power in what he used, and how he used it.

Of course, the deep, straight penetration seen above, which is bad for stopping humans, was good for reaching the brain of an elephant. A little .223 softpoint will cause far more damage to a human than 6.5 round nose ball... but much less to an elephant.
 
Battle Rifle?
Lee Enfield No. 4, Mk. 1.

Got one?
I saw a nice Ishapore on the rack once and now I've mentally trapped myself into passing up good LEs because it'd be so much funner if I didn't have to worry about hand loading or paying an arm and a leg for a shipment of ammo. Part of me realizes this is dumb and I should just get a gun if it feels good in my hands and I want it, another part of me just keeps screaming in for a penny in for a pound.
 
Shooting moose with expanding round nose bullets is entirely different than shooting enemy soldiers with non-expanding round nose bullets. If the same hunters had to shoot their moose with round nose ball I doubt they would be pleased with the performance.

The adoption of spitzer bullets in some of the main cartridges used by the major nations:

8mm Lebel: 1898
8mm Mauser: 1903
6.5mm Arisaka: 1905
30-06: always (1906)
7.62x54R: 1908
303 British: 1910
7mm Mauser: 1913
7.5 French: always (1929)
8x56R Mannlicher: always (1930)

Yes, there were some stragglers who took much longer, or never were loaded with spitzer bullets. Including the 6.5 Carcano. But the round nose was already obsolete.

Round nose FMJ is relatively ineffective and that's what it was loaded with. Fact! From Dr. Martin Fackler, "Wounding patterns of military rifle bullets":

"The first full-metal-jacketed bullets (1885-1910) were over four calibres long and round-nosed. Typical of this bullet type are the 6.5 mm Carcano and the 30-40 Krag bullets; they penetrate tissue simulant travelling point-forward for 50 cm or more before significant yaw begins (Fackler, M.L., unpublished data, 1987). The very minimal wounding effect produced by these early round-nosed jacketed bullets was remarked upon by surgeons of the time (Kocher, Markins, Brunner, Abbott, LaGarde, etc.). Even those soldiers with through-and-through chest wounds in which the bullet missed the large vessels (but passed through the lung) would be fit to rejoin their units in a few weeks."


In fact, here you go! A test of the 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano, from the IWBA:

View attachment 918056

"As shown in the wound profile, they are extremely stable in their path through gelatin and soft tissue. Unless these bullets hit substantial bone, which upsets their stability and might cause them to deform or break, they typically cause small punctate entrance and exit wounds with minimal tissue disruption between the two. ... Historically, reports from many battlefields verified the minimal wounding caused by these long, round-nosed bullets. The most famous incidents occurred in India, where greatly outnumbered British soldiers found that their adversaries tended to continue their charge even after several hits in the torso."


So no, I would not discount all the stories about the round's lack of effectiveness. Maybe they were exaggerated as with the M1 Carbine. We can agree that it is a rifle and it can kill people. But the facts are that it was still one of the weaker service rounds of WW2, and that it was loaded with the worst possible bullet design. I consider this to support the idea it was relatively ineffective. Key word: relatively.



Of course, the deep, straight penetration seen above, which is bad for stopping humans, was good for reaching the brain of an elephant. A little .223 softpoint will cause far more damage to a human than 6.5 round nose ball... but much less to an elephant.
The brain of humans wouldn't require near as much penetration, so no such extreme precision in shot placement avoiding bone as elephants. In fact, head shots striking bone should be as effective as other shots striking bone on humans, such as ribs for example. Those obsolete heavy for caliber full metal jacket round nose bullets properly placed worked as well for me in the Texas Hill Country in the 1970's as they did in Dallas in the 1960's with proper shot placement (disregarding any grassy knolls).

Location, location, location applies, and probably would have with the 6.5X55mm cartridges, 6.5X50mm cartridges, 6.5X53mm cartridges, and so on. But we also know absent campaigns in Ethiopia and Sudan as examples, a wounded crunchie tied up on average 7 additional troops behind the lines at that period in time. I don't think I've seen figures on how many support personnel a dead crunchie (and / or any land combat troop) tied up but I believe we can agree that any such activity only really engaged support personnel after enemy resistance in an area effectively ceased, for all practical purposes. Do you understand this with the .223 / 5.56mm example and design, and have you never seen any videos of ivory poachers downing elephants with a fusillade of fully automatic fire from one or more weapons designed for 5.56mm cartridges, avoiding the skull? Also 7.62X39mm?

I'm unsure about the references to British soldiers in India with regard to the 6.5X52mm cartridge. Which of such battlefields had either side of the combatants involved using the 6.5X52mm Carcano cartridge during those battles? More specificity would be helpful.

Horses for courses. Have you ever firsthand hunted with FMJ RN 6.5X52mm cartridges?
 
Last edited:
Is the topic of this thread about the performance of ammunition, or witch was the best and worst bolt action rifle of WWII? :confused:
Gentlemen, if the preference of 6.5 ammunition is that important to y’all, please start a new thread.
 
The magazine spring/follower system it still pretty simple for the time. There are just two flat springs and three parts.
The most complicated part of the action is the interrupter and that is still pretty simple.

Oh! The bayonet lug on the rifle it the front sight on the 91/30.
And the action is very smooth even with the short bolt handle. Most people have never fired a non refurbished 91/30. Most of the refurbished rifles need some work on the extractor so that they don’t stick.
View attachment 917845 View attachment 917846

Now pull out a 98K mag innerds and lets do a simple side by side photo....we can let the peanut gallery decide what is more complex.

I don't remember screws in my 98k....or pins....or....

Also people that put down the mosin have not played with a nice clean version. Now I am not saying it is a fantastic system, but if everything is matched up and in real good shape, the action is pretty darn crisp.
 
As I recall, the French forces in North Africa were brought on as "allies" after we landed there. o_O
Not sure how helpful they were overall in the campaign but at least they probably carried their bolt action rifles there.

For logistics they are likely supplied with american arms.....good question however.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top