GunnyUSMC
Member
You do know that Savage was one of the largest producers of the No4 Enfield rifles.Then it would be the Springfield M1903, 'cause I'm not going into battle with any other country but my own . . .
You do know that Savage was one of the largest producers of the No4 Enfield rifles.Then it would be the Springfield M1903, 'cause I'm not going into battle with any other country but my own . . .
Wow, I had not realized what a huge advantage it is to NOT have a safety on your battle rifle.I can work a MAS 36 bolt faster than I can disengage a Mauser type safety, and can doing while bringing the rifle to the shoulder, something you cannot do with the bolt mounted safety. And, in cases where quiet is required, you can cycle the bolt just a quietly as snapping of any other safety...
The US Army did not use them. Which was the point. You don't get to choose what you get issued.You do know that Savage was one of the largest producers of the No4 Enfield rifles.
Non sequitur. Where did I state that it was an advantage to not have a manual safety. You implied it was slow to chamber a round with a bolt action, which is not true.Wow, I had not realized what a huge advantage it is to NOT have a safety on your battle rifle.
But I don't feel too bad about it since nobody except the French were smart enough to keep from using 'em.
Heck, even the French started screwing up. They put a safety on every rifle they issued after the MAS 36.
When they redesigned the MAS 36 into the FR F1 and FR F2 sniper rifles they even put a safety on them!
I guess modern French snipers aren't well trained and disciplined enough to "keep their snot-hooks off the trigger" unlike all those Vietnamese, Algerian, Moroccan, Thai(?) and French grunts.
Also, when did the Thais ever use MAS 36's?
Did they capture 'em in the Franco-Thai war?
So, did you consider the Mosin?The US Army did not use them. Which was the point. You don't get to choose what you get issued.
You need to know a little more about the guns and profession you speak of, or be a little more clear in your text.And, you do realize that most LEOs in this country carry a weapon with no manual safety, the only "safety" being the discipline of the person carrying.
.
If it were 1918, and that was what they handed me, also for that era the M1917, is a possibility, but since the title was "WW2" and "bolt action", that limits us to the M1903So, did you consider the Mosin?
If you, or some other agency, pulls the trigger on a Glock or an M&p revolver and there is a bullet in the chamber the weapon goes "bang" (also just about every revolver), the same thing happens with a MAS...similarly, both are equally 'safe' with an empty chamber. Oh, and the MAS is drop safe due to where the mass is on the trigger and sear, so saying it has no internal safety is not quite correct.You need to know a little more about the guns and profession you speak of, or be a little more clear in your text.
The MAS 36 has no safety, manual or internal.
Well even take that off the consideration; if you have to just imagine this is being considered in part of some crazy world where you're part of some neo-gladiator match. Point is don't get overly hung up on what the best rifle is from the perspective of the guy figuring out how to get everyone ammo, nor should the decision be based on "well I don't want to pick Mauser because I wouldn't be able to share ammo with all the guys near me/wouldn't want to fight for the Whermacht". You're purely looking at the rifle from the perspective of an individual using the gun, not an army trying to figure out what they want to issue.Then it would be the Springfield M1903, 'cause I'm not going into battle with any other country but my own . . .
Per the OP, this thread isn't about what was cheapest to manufacture or "ideal", it's about what you as an individual would actually want to carry into battle....I submit that this configuration was the ideal one for World War Two, and Italy was the only nation to really adopt a reality-based rifle design...
Per the OP, this thread isn't about what was cheapest to manufacture or "ideal", it's about what you as an individual would actually want to carry into battle.
Do you actually feel that the M38 is "ideal" compared to the Garand, STG-44, FG-42, M1 Carbine or pretty much any other WWII rifle?
Would you actually choose to carry one instead of a rifle where the designers wasted money on things like decent adjustable sights and a receiver made of weapons grade steel?
The truth is, I’m not a fan of the M38 carbine. They are just plan Jane, a pig without lipstick. Pretty much nothing to write home about to.Well... Per the OP, this thread is about bolt actions not Garands, STG-44s, FG-42s, or M1 Carbines either...
So, Gunny, did you not like the Italian rifles' sights? Or did you appreciate the sights? If you were a bottom-of-the-totem-pole grunt, would you like the simplicity of the fixed sights or despise the non-customizable aiming point?
For reference, I put the Carcanos near the top of my list, because of their simplicity (to the user), lack of weight, lower recoil, and en bloc clips. But I'm perfectly happy with fixed sights, and I know not everyone is.
The thing about Carcanos is, they’re not Crap. If people (myself included) name them as the “worst,” it’s only because some rifle has to be, and the Carcanos are, without doubt, the least inspiring of all the various combatants’ small arms. You pick one up and they feel “cheap and nasty.” Objectively, they work well enough, but they don’t have a very satisfying feel, they aren’t notable for accuracy, exceptional sturdiness, rate of fire, or great build quality. They also don’t, subjectively, hail from a country known for military prowess in any 20th century war, which might encourage someone picking one up to really appreciate the good points of the gun.
From a budget and logistics point of view the Carcano is entirely adequate. But I doubt a single person on the planet, given the opportunity to fondle, shoot, and examine Arisakas, Mausers, Enfields, Springfields, Mosins, MAS36s, Berthiers, Lebels, Mannlichers, Krags, and other rifles of the war, alongside Carcanos, would ever choose an M38, if asked to pick one to carry to the militia muster this afternoon.
Thank you for the info regarding French ships serving as escorts for US convoys. I had not heard of that before. Too bad you then ruined an otherwise constructive post with this insulting and condescending comment.There are many others, many half truths people spat from popular movies and youtube videos, please do all a favor and READ.
One thing you have to keep in mind is we judge by today. How they feel, shoot, and hold together in this country today.....and by the general examples found today.
I said this before in a mosin thread....pick up a "good" mosin, not one that was packed away by Olga 80 years ago to be handed to cannon fodder in some 1980's war that never came. I have one good mosin, and it is a very different animal over the others that I have. I have one good Carcano, same deal it is very different over the others.....worlds of order better in every way you can think of. If I handed these rifles to you it would with out any shadow of doubt change your view on them.
All that said what is it with the attn Carcano is getting now....hickock45 did a video on one not long ago as well. By looking at it mine LOOKS about like his does. It is just good looking, and elegant.
What people can't understand is soldiers get a good feeling about their personal weapon, if they feel they are being handed junk that will fail.....well that is a very bad thing all the way around. No country is going to want to hand out something that they know is going to fail. Some may argue the M16 deal on this one.....but I really think this is what happens when you get some idiot that thinks you can train anyone to be anything with a video tape.
Great excuse for being a jerk. You really don't get concept of "high road" do you?Sorry, some need a bit of insulting, and the only way to talk to them is to talk down to them....facts of life.
The thing about Carcanos is, they’re not Crap. If people (myself included) name them as the “worst,” it’s only because some rifle has to be, and the Carcanos are, without doubt, the least inspiring of all the various combatants’ small arms. You pick one up and they feel “cheap and nasty.” Objectively, they work well enough, but they don’t have a very satisfying feel, they aren’t notable for accuracy, exceptional sturdiness, rate of fire, or great build quality. They also don’t, subjectively, hail from a country known for military prowess in any 20th century war, which might encourage someone picking one up to really appreciate the good points of the gun.
From a budget and logistics point of view the Carcano is entirely adequate. But I doubt a single person on the planet, given the opportunity to fondle, shoot, and examine Arisakas, Mausers, Enfields, Springfields, Mosins, MAS36s, Berthiers, Lebels, Mannlichers, Krags, and other rifles of the war, alongside Carcanos, would ever choose an M38, if asked to pick one to carry to the militia muster this afternoon.
This.
Other than the Ross Rifle, I can't think of a single world war-era bolt action that flat out doesn't work. The Carcano works, it's just junky.