What country had the best bolt action rifle of WW2

Here is my view:
1.Britian
2.Germany
3.USA
4.Soviet Union
5.France
6.Italy
7.Japan

 

Seems like a fair representation.

 

I'll agree with M.P., but I'm curious. What was your rationale for putting the K98 ahead of the Springfield? Just curious...

 

Tom
PostPosted: 090705 Post subject:
I'll agree with M.P., but I'm curious. What was your rationale for putting the K98 ahead of the Springfield? Just curious.

I seem to like how the mauser action works better than the springfield.

 

The Springfield is a Mauser copy. It is so close to the Mauser that the US government had to pay Mauser royalties. The royalties stopped in 1917 when the US entered WW1.

Here's my picks:
1) British Enfield No.4
2) US M-1903 Springfield
3) German Mauser K98k
4) Soviet Mosin-Nagant 91/30
5) Italy Carcano
6) France MAS-36

If you include Finland, their rebuilt Mosin-Nagant M-39 was a good rifle and quite a bit better accuracy wise than the Russian made ones.

 

1) Enfield No.4/Mauser K98K (both excellent rifles)
2)Springfield M1903
3)MAS-36
4)Mosin Nagant M91/30
5)Mannlicher-Carcanno M91
6)Arisaka type 99
7)Arisaka 38

 

If the Springfield M1903 is a copy of the Mauser K98, why do you rank it above the original?

 

Quite possibly better ammunition. A quick check of one of my books shows that M1906's bullet was faster and heavier than the K98k's.

 

Simonr1978
quite possibly better ammunition. A quick check of one of my books shows that M1906's bullet was faster and heavier than the K98k's.

I have heard that some where. I agree that the 1903 springfield is equal to te Mauser. All of us have chosen the British rifle the Mk3 and the Mk4.
I have both versions and they are great rifles, quick action, 10 round clips, accurate, and seem to hold up better after the gun gets hot.

 

For an otherwise equal gun it makes sense to chose ammunition as the deciding factor then.

 

sadly the enfield is not as accurate as the Mauser over longer distances because of the bolt but it makes up for that with the speedy of the action

 

Roel;
I picked the '03 over the Mauser primarily because the '03 had better fit, finish, craftsmanship, and materials during the war. The German factories were starved of materials and experienced workers for most od the war and therefore could not possibly produce a rifle that is as nice. That being said, my Mauser is a K98k made by Gustloff Werke in 1944 and it is a fine rifle and is more accurate than my M-1903 but the Springfield is a better made rifle.

 

I think you're contradicting yourself here. You have a K98k made in 1944, when Germany was in very dire straits indeed, that is nevertheless so well made that it is more accurate than your M1903. Then why would you assume that the general quality of Mausers made during WW2 was that much worse than the quality of M1903s?

 

There's no contradiction there at all.

A rifle does not have to be accurate to be well made. Good wood (Both in quality and appearance) for the stock, the overall quality of blueing, the quality of the finish all make for a well made rifle, not necessarily an accurate one.

Similarly, a rifle may have indifferent or even poor looking wood for the stock and no blueing at all (Although I cannot imagine a rifle leaving the factory like that), and be generally poorly finished, yet still be astonishingly accurate.

If I can draw an analogy, just because a car is fast doesn't mean it's well built.

 

Fair enough, but since a rifle's purpose is to kill effectively, isn't accuracy much more important than finish?

 

Not necessarily. A better finished Rifle may be more reliable or less likely to be damaged by corrosion, wear or rot. Accuracy is only part of the factor for a military rifle, arguably reliability is far more important.

For example if the fighting you're involved in all occurs at ranges of around 200 yards or less it makes only marginal difference if your rifle groups 1" or 2" at that range, it's still more than accurate enough, so then the general finish of an otherwise equal rifle, if for no better reason that aesthetics, is a good tie-breaker.

 

Does anybody know the name of the Italy's rifle during the war. Or did they use the Mauser I really cant rember?

 

I believe according to one of my books they used the 7.35mm Rifle M1938, introduced after the Abyssinian campaign where the Italians concluded that their 6.5mm cartridge wasn't powerful enough.

There was a Rifle and a Carbine version, towards the war's end some were apparently rechambered for 7.92mm Mauser.

The 7.35x51mm cartridge had a 8.42 gram (Not sure what that equals in grains) bullet at 760 m/sec muzzle velocity.

Also in use was the 6.5mm Rifle Model 91/38, famously used by one Lee Harvey Oswald.

the 6.5x52mm cartridge had a 10.5 gram bullet at 700 m/sec.

 

The M1938 to my knowledge wasnt in widespead use and that the majority of soldiers used the Mannlicher-Carcanno M91 6.5mm (rifle and carbine)]

 

AIUI the Italians intended to switch form the 6.5mm to the 7.35mm but had only just started the process when the war began, so they went into reverse and switched back to 6.5mm to avoid ammo supply problems.

Personally I don't understand why they didn't just produce a different loading for the 6.5mm, with a lighter, spitzer bullet at a higher velocity.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum