What were the best and worst bolt guns of WW2?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Norma loads their 6.5X52mm Carcano ammunition to produce 360 fps higher muzzle velocity than their 6.5X50mm Japanese Arisaka ammunition, with the same 156 grain Alaska bullet. Chuck Hawks noted this 6.5X52mm load runs about 100 fps behind the 6.5X54mm M-S. This helps explain (to me) how my 6.5X52mm Carcano carbine was effective for me as my first hunting rifle. Wikipedia lists 2170 fps with the 162 FMJ from a 445mm (17.5 inch) barrel. Plus I could shoot it over and over and never complain about recoil fatigue even at age 13.

https://www.norma-ammunition.com/en...e?Caliber=6%252c5+Jap.%7C6%252c5+x+52+Carcano

https://www.chuckhawks.com/subscribers/rifle_cartridge_page/6-5x52.htm

Not all Carcano rifles and carbines were manufactured using gain twist rifling in their barrels. IIRC mine had a 1940 year of manufacture stamped. It had no bayonet but a lug was on the barrel. I understand these take a .268 bullet instead of. 264 which makes using non-milsurp ammo a bit of a dice roll. I only found milsurp ammo to use in mine at the time I had it.

Hornady some .267 160 grain SPRN 6.5mm bullets.

https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/product/productId/6185

Prvi Partizan offers some .268 123 grain RNSP 6.5mm bullets.

https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/product/productId/29101

And some .268 139 grain FMJBT bullets.

https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/product/productId/29100

Norma interestingly enough only offers (and I suppose uses) .264 6.5mm Alaska bullets.

https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/product/productId/29139
 
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.

The Finns never made receivers. They bought, and eventually made, barrels, made stocks, sights, and other bits. They modified magazines, and at one time tried to modify bolts and receivers for better feel and less sloppiness. This seemed like a good idea until the side wings they used got dirt in the recesses and proved almost impossible to clean.

The Finns never loved the Mosin, and would have loved to buy Mausers, but in the 1920s they were a poor country, and they’d inherited thousands and thousands of Mosins from their former overlords, so they stuck with them for the sake of economy. Eventually they optimized the design about as much as was possible.
 
Ho man this thread has legs.

Lets face it. The reason Lee Harvey Oswald was able to pick up a Carcano for under $20 was because the milsurp market was flooded with them. The Italians may have gone into WW1 with the largest navy in the Med, but subsequent exploits made them the stuff of comic opera.

Many of the rifles had never been fired and only dropped once.
 
Norma loads their 6.5X52mm Carcano ammunition to produce 360 fps higher muzzle velocity than their 6.5X50mm Japanese Arisaka ammunition, with the same 156 grain Alaska bullet. Chuck Hawks noted this 6.5X52mm load runs about 100 fps behind the 6.5X54mm M-S. This helps explain (to me) how my 6.5X52mm Carcano carbine was effective for me as my first hunting rifle. Wikipedia lists 2170 fps with the 162 FMJ from a 445mm (17.5 inch) barrel. Plus I could shoot it over and over and never complain about recoil fatigue even at age 13.

https://www.norma-ammunition.com/en-us/products/centerfire-rifle?Caliber=6%252c5+Jap.%7C6%252c5+x+52+Carcano

https://www.chuckhawks.com/subscribers/rifle_cartridge_page/6-5x52.htm

Not all Carcano rifles and carbines were manufactured using gain twist rifling in their barrels. IIRC mine had a 1940 year of manufacture stamped. It had no bayonet but a lug was on the barrel. I understand these take a .268 bullet instead of. 264 which makes using non-milsurp ammo a bit of a dice roll. I only found milsurp ammo to use in mine at the time I had it.

Hornady some .267 160 grain SPRN 6.5mm bullets.

https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/product/productId/6185

Prvi Partizan offers some .268 123 grain RNSP 6.5mm bullets.

https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/product/productId/29101

And some .268 139 grain FMJBT bullets.

https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/product/productId/29100

Norma interestingly enough only offers (and I suppose uses) .264 6.5mm Alaska bullets.

https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/product/productId/29139
If you want to see how good the Carcano COULD have been, look up the Japanese Navy Type 1 rifle- built by Beretta using a Carcano action, non-clip internal box magazine, chambered for 6.5 Jap. and looks like a T38 Arisaka from 5 feet away.

I actually saw one at an LGS once, years ago. It looked unfired and the fit and finish were better than any Carcano or Arisaka Ive ever seen- really nice gun!

I ran to the ATM, but it was gone when I got back........:(
 
Last edited:
I thought of another candidate for WWII dog; the 8mm Carcano.
I had heard of the type a long time ago but googling around just leaves me confused and doubtful.
It seems that Krieghoff converted some Carcanos to 8mm but (gave up on/brass did not want to bother) making an odd size enbloc clip, so they plugged the magazine well and turned out single shots likely for the Volkssturm.
It seems that somebody converted some Carcanos to 8mm and made or altered clips for them, AFTER THE WAR for sale to gullible Arabs.
It is reported that somebody in Germany converted some Carcanos to 8mm with clips for use, depending on your version, by Germans desperate for rifles, or by the few Italians left in close support of Germans who would benefit from common ammo supplies.
I saw a picture of a Krieghoff that had been sporterized, kind of like the Mauser based Forester's Rifle.
Examples of the others are lacking or evading my google.

Opinions differ, too.
Completely unsafe.
Not fully safe but better than no rifle if you are comparing combat casualties to occasional accidents, kind of like a low number '03 or '88.
As good as any.
 
By WWII bolt action rifles were all but obsolete. A big heavy bolt action is fine if you are laying in a WWI trench with a 1000 close buddies all day but too heavy for their rate of fire on the mobile battlefields of WWII. I can see how the mass of a P17 Enfield would do a nice job of taking some of the sting out of a 30-06 round when shot over the edge of a WWI trench... but it is not what "I" would have wanted to carry on the beaches of Normandy.

As far as power the 30-06 made sense in WWI. The power of the 30-06 would defeat a lot of WWI armor... and easily go through the side of a WWI tank. By WWII armor had advanced to the point that most armored vehicles would effectively stop a 30-06 round. So to me the penetration advantages of the 30-06 were greatly reduced while the disadvantages of carrying a heavier weapon and the extra punishment of the bolt action recoil remained making the 30-06 less than optimal as a WWII infantry cartridge. After shooting 20 rounds of 30-06 out of a bolt action I know I have had enough! Even when shooting them out of a heavy P17. The softer recoiling Garand really makes a huge difference in taming the punishment of the 30-06 cartridge but is also a heavy beast to carry.

My personal favorite WWII era bolt action and the one that I would want to carry if I had to carry a bolt action on a WWII battlefield is the Swedish m/38 Carbine in 6.5x55. The cartridge is a joy to shoot, plenty curate, plenty capable of a single shot kill and a fraction of the recoil of a 30-06. The m/38 is also the lightest WWII bolt action I own. I can easily shoot 100 rounds of 6.5 x 55 at the range and not feel beat up. I think this is a huge advantage over a 30-06, 7.62x45r, .303 or 8mm based bolt actions of the time.

I only own 30-06 (03A3, P17, and Garand), 8 x57 (Mauser, Hakiim), 7.62 x 54 (Mossin Nagant, and SVT-40), .303 (Enfield) and 6.5 x 55 (96, m/38 and AG/42 Ljungman) so I can't really compare the Japanese or Italian rifles but the Swedes are by far my favorite shooters of the bunch as well as being lighter, shorter and easier to carry. When I take all these out to the range the only real difference I notice is the softer recoil of the 6.5 x 55. The actual action on all of these rifles really isn't different enough to make a significant difference and to me seems more a matter of what works best is what you were trained on.

I have never been in battle, but the M1 carbine (or better yet an M2 carbine!) certainly seems like the weapon I would want to carry out of the common WWII rifles. The lighter weight, soft shooting and significantly more cartridges for a given volume / weight seems like it would be a huge advantage on the battlefield!

With the adoption of the M16 I believe the military came to much the same conclusions about the weight of the weapon, the number of cartridges that can be carried and the harshness of the recoil affecting the effectiveness of the infantry soldier... to me it seems like they went a little too far in the opposite direction when adopting the .222 / .223 based cartridge though and would have been better served with something closer to a .243 as a better compromise of effectiveness, weight and recoil.
 
Last edited:
By WWII bolt action rifles were all but obsolete. A big heavy bolt action is fine if you are laying in a WWI trench with a 1000 close buddies all day but too heavy for their rate of fire on the mobile battlefields of WWII. I can see how the mass of a P17 Enfield would do a nice job of taking some of the sting out of a 30-06 round when shot over the edge of a WWI trench... but it is not what "I" would have wanted to carry on the beaches of Normandy.

As far as power the 30-06 made sense in WWI. The power of the 30-06 would defeat a lot of WWI armor... and easily go through the side of a WWI tank. By WWII armor had advanced to the point that most armored vehicles would effectively stop a 30-06 round. So to me the penetration advantages of the 30-06 were greatly reduced while the disadvantages of carrying a heavier weapon and the extra punishment of the bolt action recoil remained making the 30-06 less than optimal as an infantry cartridge. After shooting 20 rounds of 30-06 out of a bolt action I know I have had enough! Even when shooting them out of a heavy P17. The softer recoiling Garand really makes a huge difference in taming the punishment of the 30-06 cartridge but is also a heavy beast to carry.

My personal favorite WWII bolt action and the one that I would want to carry if I had to carry a bolt action on a WWII battlefield is the Swedish m/38 Carbine in 6.5x55. The cartridge is a joy to shoot, plenty curate, plenty capable of a single shot kill and a fraction of the recoil of a 30-06. The m/38 is also the lightest WWII bolt action I own. I can easily shoot 100 rounds of 6.5 x 55 at the range and not feel beat up. I think this is a huge advantage over a 30-06, 7.62x45r, .303 or 8mm based bolt actions of the time.

I only own 30-06 (03A3, P17, and Garand), 7.62 x 54 (Mossin Nagant, and SVT-40), .303 (Enfield) and 6.5 x 55 (96, m/38 and AG/42 Ljungman) so I can't really compare the Japanese or Italian rifles but the Swedes are by far my favorite shooters of the bunch as well as being lighter, shorter and easier to carry. When I take all these out to the range the only real difference I notice is the softer recoil of the 6.5 x 55. The actual action on all of these rifles really isn't different enough to make a significant difference and to me seems more a matter of what works best is what you were trained on.

I have never been in battle, but the M1 carbine (or better yet an M2 carbine!) certainly seems like the weapon I would want to carry out of the common WWII rifles. The lighter weight, soft shooting and significantly more cartridges for a given volume / weight seems like it would be a huge advantage on the battlefield!

With the adoption of the M14 I believe the military came to much the same conclusions about the weight of the weapon, the number of cartridges that can be carried and the harshness of the recoil affecting the effectiveness of the infantry soldier... to me it seems like they went a little too far in the opposite direction when adopting the .222 / .223 based cartridge though and would have been better served with something closer to a .243 as a better compromise of effectiveness, weight and recoil.
Sweden didn’t fight in WWII so, their rifles don’t count. :neener:
 
...and I am not sure when or why we would ever leave out the M1 from any discussion like this.
A look at the thread title will answer that. It's not a bolt action. It is understood by all in this discussion that it was superior to the bolts, though the No. 4 Mk1 gives it a run for the money.
 
I would say the worst by far are the late war japanese Arisaka's. The early and pre war examples however are excellent rifles. Mosins vary wildly in workmanship, but they are all good functional rifles. The rifles made in the late 30's and up until the war are nicely made rifles. The Carcano's are pretty low on the ladder in my opinion.

I think the best was the No 4 Lee Enfield, followed closely by the American M1917.
 
Well this is all subjective anyway, if I ever woke to find myself dropped into the WWII Bolt Actions Attack! video game I would want to be carrying a M 1903A3 US rifle. I know I know and I have shot most of what has been listed so far, heard all the arguements but the 03A3 in a C stock is just "my" bolt action rifle. Yeah I know Lee Enfield more bang, easier bolt, Mauser less extra stuff and all that but the 03A3 with a good pistol grip just fits....and makes a pretty good bayonet holder as well.

Oh and I forgot to add...
my Dad could so beat up your Dad,
my dog would so win,
Neither Batman Nor Superman but the mighty Thor
… and Mary Ann you moron!

-kBob
 
By WWII bolt action rifles were all but obsolete.

Long before that. Everybody knew what was needed. Mr Garand had out a 20x.30 semiautomatic in 1920 and he wasn't the first. Just that getting a workable design and paying for it with post war recession and then a depression was a little harder than you might have thought.

Apropos which, I wonder why Mr Browning didn't get in the infantry rifle game. 1911, BAR, MG, seems he skipped a niche. Maybe he didn't think anybody would pay him for it.
 
Jim,

I suspect it was because during John Moses' adult life the US government bought pistols, auto rifles and true machine guns from out side vendors, but rifles came from US Springfield arsenal... hard to compete with a government monopoly.

at least there was some interest in his Remington long recoil rifles before, during, and after WWI. I always wondered if Kalashnikov ever saw that safety and the .30 Remington Cartridge.....

-kBob
 
Long before that. Everybody knew what was needed. Mr Garand had out a 20x.30 semiautomatic in 1920 and he wasn't the first. Just that getting a workable design and paying for it with post war recession and then a depression was a little harder than you might have thought.

Apropos which, I wonder why Mr Browning didn't get in the infantry rifle game. 1911, BAR, MG, seems he skipped a niche. Maybe he didn't think anybody would pay him for it.
Jim, are you referring to this 1924 primer actuated Garand I'm holding? It's a 30-06. Primer setback somehow cycled the action. I am told it was quite reliable. I wanted to pull it apart, but the Museum Director nixed that Idea. Probably a good Idea, because I don't have the faintest idea how to strip it down. Don't know where that rear sight came from. Doesn't look like a military sight at all. Kind of fragile and exposed
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4974[1].JPG
    IMG_4974[1].JPG
    173 KB · Views: 25
  • IMG_4975[1].JPG
    IMG_4975[1].JPG
    122.7 KB · Views: 24
Jim, are you referring to this 1924 primer actuated Garand I'm holding? It's a 30-06. Primer setback somehow cycled the action. I am told it was quite reliable. I wanted to pull it apart, but the Museum Director nixed that Idea. Probably a good Idea, because I don't have the faintest idea how to strip it down. Don't know where that rear sight came from. Doesn't look like a military sight at all. Kind of fragile and exposed

Mr Garand got a patent for the primer actuated rifle in 1919 and got several variants made. The one that sticks in my head is the 1920 with its familiar detachable box magazine.
He gave up on primer actuation as ammunition developed. I have seen it said that the reason was that more progressive MR and IMR powder did not kick the primer back as abruptly as the old Pyro DG and WA powders. Another possible cause was the adoption of crimped primers.
The sight on your 1924 is a bog standard Lyman sporting sight, probably the same model 48 available for about any rifle for years and years.
https://www.nps.gov/spar/learn/historyculture/experimental-rifles-by-john-garand-1919-36.htm

Pedersen and Remington gave Garand and Springfield a run for their money. Perhaps Browning leaving Winchester was a factor.
The Army used some Model 8s with peep sights and slings to "develop semiautomatic rifle doctrine" as Hatcher put it

Kalashnikov just HAD to have seen the Model 8 safety.

Steve Stirling gave Mr Browning some more work in 1916(b) where Taft died on campaign in 1912 and T. Roosevelt was elected to be president as long as he wished. The Browning rifle was right in there with the 8mm Ribeyroles in a more technologically advanced version of WWI.
 
Last edited:
Only a few minutes with Sterling at a DragonCon VIP room MANY years ago I think it was ( seem to recall we were making a serious effort to break even on our expenses by eating free VIP sandwiches at a high rate of speed. Seemed a nice fellow and ejoyed some of his work. Not read that one, though.

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

If this was for me... I've never shot one, so entirely unqualified opinion coming up!

7.5. Between the normal Mosin and the Mauser. Why so low? Well, because they only changed everything they could about the action and not replacing the action. The Finns did the best they could with what they had; meaning very little money and very many Russian rifles (and did a pretty good job from all accounts I've seen). While the Finnish Mosin is the best Mosin out there... It's still a Mosin. Yes, it is more accurate, and in this it is better than a Mauser (by period accounts, not my experience); so if you want to rank it above the K98 for this reason I won't come hunt you down and defenestrate you. However, the design is still overly complex, and while it would be a nice rifle for peacetime purposes, it is still heavy, kicks too hard for extended use, and still doesn't have great sights.

Please note that my list has nothing to do with which is a better rifle for anything but the experience of the individual infantryman. I'd want the carbine versions anytime available, I care very little about bayonets, and the simpler the sight the better. Low recoil is the friend of accuracy after the first three shots, and aperture sights are the way to go if you can. And let me say again, the difference between the top of the list and the bottom of the list is so minuscule that if the losers and winners switched bolt-action small arms, it probably would not have lengthened or shortened the war more than about 45 minutes.
 
If this was for me... I've never shot one, so entirely unqualified opinion coming up!

7.5. Between the normal Mosin and the Mauser. Why so low? Well, because they only changed everything they could about the action and not replacing the action. The Finns did the best they could with what they had; meaning very little money and very many Russian rifles (and did a pretty good job from all accounts I've seen). While the Finnish Mosin is the best Mosin out there... It's still a Mosin. Yes, it is more accurate, and in this it is better than a Mauser (by period accounts, not my experience); so if you want to rank it above the K98 for this reason I won't come hunt you down and defenestrate you. However, the design is still overly complex, and while it would be a nice rifle for peacetime purposes, it is still heavy, kicks too hard for extended use, and still doesn't have great sights.

Please note that my list has nothing to do with which is a better rifle for anything but the experience of the individual infantryman. I'd want the carbine versions anytime available, I care very little about bayonets, and the simpler the sight the better. Low recoil is the friend of accuracy after the first three shots, and aperture sights are the way to go if you can. And let me say again, the difference between the top of the list and the bottom of the list is so minuscule that if the losers and winners switched bolt-action small arms, it probably would not have lengthened or shortened the war more than about 45 minutes.
The Mosin overly complex?!?! :rofl::rofl::rofl: Surly you jest. :rofl:
 
A look at the thread title will answer that. It's not a bolt action. It is understood by all in this discussion that it was superior to the bolts, though the No. 4 Mk1 gives it a run for the money.
OK as long as we have that understanding.
 
The Mosins only get mentioned because they were a bolt action and they were in the hands of about 15 million guys who won a war with insane amounts of artillary and ppsH.
 
Best: K98, next Lee Enfield, then '03-A3, Arisakas, Moisin, Carcanos, the rest.the acutal difference between them is slight in utility, but noticeable in review.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top