Best cost effective rifle

Inspired in the best submachine gun thread. I was wondering which was the best cost effective rifle in WWII.

For example in the debate of the AR vs AK it is normally said that the AR is more accurate, and has more range, but the AK is cheaper to manufacture requires little maintenance , and a farmer can be quickly trained thus making it cost effective.
Is there a WWII equivalent?
 

Deleted member 1487

Inspired in the best submachine gun thread. I was wondering which was the best cost effective rifle in WWII.

For example in the debate of the AR vs AK it is normally said that the AR is more accurate, and has more range, but the AK is cheaper to manufacture requires little maintenance , and a farmer can be quickly trained thus making it cost effective.
Is there a WWII equivalent?
Stg 44 by far
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Based on the criteria you laid out probably the Lee-Enfield No 4, followed by the legacy WW I bolt actions
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Stg 44 by far
If you are going to wait until 1944.

Even then I'd say the M-1 battle rifle or M-2 carbine. The .30 Carbine Ball has slightly less muzzle velocity, was more than sufficient out to the same range as the 7.92/33 Kurtz round and M-1/2 Carbine was remarkably rugged and reliable regardless of theater (as might be expected of a weapon designed for use by paratroops)

In 1939-41 the bolt actions were vastly easier to train troops on, were available virtually for free since they were still in warehouses in the millions (even for the Germans, who acquired huge number of Czech CZ rifles when they annexed Czechoslovakia) as was ammunition by the warehouse full. Doesn't get much more cost efficient than telling a recruit or a remobilized veteran "Here's your rifle, here's some solvent and rags, you have two hours to clean this to my satisfaction. If you fail to complete this task you will do push-up until I get tired."
 

Deleted member 1487

If you are going to wait until 1944.

Even then I'd say the M-1 battle rifle or M-2 carbine. The .30 Carbine Ball has slightly less muzzle velocity, was more than sufficient out to the same range as the 7.92/33 Kurtz round and M-1/2 Carbine was remarkably rugged and reliable regardless of theater (as might be expected of a weapon designed for use by paratroops)
No time frame was given, just cost effectiveness. In terms of actual cost the StG 44 was made of stamped metal and IIRC cheaper than the K98K, which despite being heavier, required less man hours than the M1 Garand or Carbine. That's not even getting into ammo effectiveness, which clearly puts the M1 Carbine and in terms of cost puts it well ahead of the M1 Garand (never mind that it was cheaper to make just the rifle, each round was nearly half the price of a standard .30-06 round) while having the same effective range (technically the Garand was longer range with optics and exceptional shooter skill, but given WW2/Korean War mass conscript armies the US army itself determined that it would take 9 years to train an infantryman to have the skill to use the 1000m theoretical range of the rifle). M1 Carbine effectiveness as considerably shorter than the StG 44 (lighter ammo, significantly lower muzzle velocity) while in single shot it was only reliably able (at least 50% hits by the average infantry man) to hit out to 200m. SLA Marshall found that the M2 Carbine was even less effective in range and only able to reliably kill at 50m or less...but Marshall's methodology was flawed and the M2 Carbine issues in Korea weren't necessarily inherent in the design.

In 1939-41 the bolt actions were vastly easier to train troops on, were available virtually for free since they were still in warehouses in the millions (even for the Germans, who acquired huge number of Czech CZ rifles when they annexed Czechoslovakia) as was ammunition by the warehouse full. Doesn't get much more cost efficient than telling a recruit or a remobilized veteran "Here's your rifle, here's some solvent and rags, you have two hours to clean this to my satisfaction. If you fail to complete this task you will do push-up until I get tired."
In terms of left overs, yes they were already made; if we don't count their cost of original manufacturing then of course the free rifle is the most cost effective, even if the ammo is more expensive to make replacements for (not an issue of old mothballed stuff works). In terms of training...in what capacity? The assault rifle is really not hard to train on compared to the bolt action (see the history of the AK47 after all) and the bolt action really requires practice to be able to have an effective range as long as an intermediate cartridge weapon due to the recoil. But again if you count old stuff as free, then yes there is argument that it is by far the most cost effective; my understanding was cost factors of making weapons from scratch, not counting leftovers in the warehouse as free.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
No time frame was given, just cost effectiveness. In terms of actual cost the StG 44 was made of stamped metal and IIRC cheaper than the K98K, which despite being heavier, required less man hours than the M1 Garand or Carbine. That's not even getting into ammo effectiveness, which clearly puts the M1 Carbine and in terms of cost puts it well ahead of the M1 Garand (never mind that it was cheaper to make just the rifle, each round was nearly half the price of a standard .30-06 round) while having the same effective range (technically the Garand was longer range with optics and exceptional shooter skill, but given WW2/Korean War mass conscript armies the US army itself determined that it would take 9 years to train an infantryman to have the skill to use the 1000m theoretical range of the rifle). M1 Carbine effectiveness as considerably shorter than the StG 44 (lighter ammo, significantly lower muzzle velocity) while in single shot it was only reliably able (at least 50% hits by the average infantry man) to hit out to 200m. SLA Marshall found that the M2 Carbine was even less effective in range and only able to reliably kill at 50m or less...but Marshall's methodology was flawed and the M2 Carbine issues in Korea weren't necessarily inherent in the design.


In terms of left overs, yes they were already made; if we don't count their cost of original manufacturing then of course the free rifle is the most cost effective, even if the ammo is more expensive to make replacements for (not an issue of old mothballed stuff works). In terms of training...in what capacity? The assault rifle is really not hard to train on compared to the bolt action (see the history of the AK47 after all) and the bolt action really requires practice to be able to have an effective range as long as an intermediate cartridge weapon due to the recoil. But again if you count old stuff as free, then yes there is argument that it is by far the most cost effective; my understanding was cost factors of making weapons from scratch, not counting leftovers in the warehouse as free.
I always read this about the time it takes to train an infantryman to be effective out to the range that a full power round allows. Prior to the change over to the range limited 5.56 EVERY Marine and U.S. Army recruit had to qualify out to at least 600 yards. My cousin, in the late 1960s was on his Army divisional rifle team, competition included 1,000 yard targets engaged with M-14s with IRON SIGHTS.

The Marines and the Army routinely trained troops out past 600 yards until they wound up with a caliber that simply can't manage that sort of range. The Army used to require troops to qualify on a skirmish course at ranges to 600 yards with a .30-40 Krag. Even today the Marines require EVERY RECRUIT to qualify out to 500 yards (although it is only firing from the prone position these days) using the 5.56mm.

The Army might have decided that it was too hard to train up troops, no idea why, but during WW II the managed to train several million troops out past 500 yards (you had to qualify out to 300 with the M-1 Carbine). I somehow doubt that the average WW II draftee, many of whom were barely able to get through the physical due to malnutrition during the Depression (shocking number of 4Fs from that cause early in the war) were better prepared to qualify at 500+ yards than those from Vietnam or today's volunteer force.
 

Deleted member 1487

I always read this about the time it takes to train an infantryman to be effective out to the range that a full power round allows. Prior to the change over to the range limited 5.56 EVERY Marine and U.S. Army recruit had to qualify out to at least 600 yards. My cousin, in the late 1960s was on his Army divisional rifle team, competition included 1,000 yard targets engaged with M-14s with IRON SIGHTS.

The Marines and the Army routinely trained troops out past 600 yards until they wound up with a caliber that simply can't manage that sort of range. The Army used to require troops to qualify on a skirmish course at ranges to 600 yards with a .30-40 Krag. Even today the Marines require EVERY RECRUIT to qualify out to 500 yards (although it is only firing from the prone position these days) using the 5.56mm.

The Army might have decided that it was too hard to train up troops, no idea why, but during WW II the managed to train several million troops out past 500 yards (you had to qualify out to 300 with the M-1 Carbine). I somehow doubt that the average WW II draftee, many of whom were barely able to get through the physical due to malnutrition during the Depression (shocking number of 4Fs from that cause early in the war) were better prepared to qualify at 500+ yards than those from Vietnam or today's volunteer force.
All I'm saying is I've read the original reports from the 1950s that led to the adoption of the 5.56mm, as well as some of the documents about the EM-2 rifle, as well as translated reports from the German tests that led to the StG 44. Beyond that there were the reports into Project Salvo and microcaliber rounds, plus the FABRL 5.56 concept. Beyond that there is also the CETME low recoil 7.62 rounds that I've read up on. The very basis of modern small arms is very well founded in combat experience and extensive trials into what works which proves the ability of the average rifleman in combat achieving hits beyond 200m with iron sites virtually does not exist. With optics that range goes up but again it requires substantial training in marksmanship and there is no guarantee that in the heat of combat that rifle range training will hold up to fear and trying not to get hit while returning fire. Accuracy is highly dependent on recoil impulse too (the idea behind the microcalibers besides being able to carry extra ammo).

Rifle range, clear conditions shooting is VERY different from actual combat. You can get hits on the range at much longer ranges than in combat conditions. Even just seeing the enemy out to 300m without optics is challenging if not impossible.
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0000346
http://lmharchive.ca/wp-content/upl...antry-Weapons-and-Equipment-in-Korea-1952.pdf
http://www.theblackvault.com/documents/wwii/marine1/126.pdf
 
Inspired in the best submachine gun thread. I was wondering which was the best cost effective rifle in WWII.

For example in the debate of the AR vs AK it is normally said that the AR is more accurate, and has more range, but the AK is cheaper to manufacture requires little maintenance , and a farmer can be quickly trained thus making it cost effective.
Is there a WWII equivalent?
The French MAS 36. It was adopted as an interim rifle with the full knowledge that a self-loading weapon would be replacing it. As such, it shared as many components and features as the future rifle, to reduce production cost and streamline training. It was a last-generation bolt-action design, and integrated a lot of then-modern manufacturing techniques and processes that were only added to the manufacture of other bolt-action (and self-loading) weapons though modifications on an ad-hoc basis. It used an new cartridge (7.5x54) that was itself more compact than nearly everyone else's battle cartridge at the time, and compares favorably to the 7.62 Nato round yet today. The MAS 36 is rugged, accurate, idiot-resistant and cheap, which sounds pretty cost-effective to me.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
All I'm saying is I've read the original reports from the 1950s that led to the adoption of the 5.56mm, as well as some of the documents about the EM-2 rifle, as well as translated reports from the German tests that led to the StG 44. Beyond that there were the reports into Project Salvo and microcaliber rounds, plus the FABRL 5.56 concept. Beyond that there is also the CETME low recoil 7.62 rounds that I've read up on. The very basis of modern small arms is very well founded in combat experience and extensive trials into what works which proves the ability of the average rifleman in combat achieving hits beyond 200m with iron sites virtually does not exist. With optics that range goes up but again it requires substantial training in marksmanship and there is no guarantee that in the heat of combat that rifle range training will hold up to fear and trying not to get hit while returning fire. Accuracy is highly dependent on recoil impulse too (the idea behind the microcalibers besides being able to carry extra ammo).

Rifle range, clear conditions shooting is VERY different from actual combat. You can get hits on the range at much longer ranges than in combat conditions. Even just seeing the enemy out to 300m without optics is challenging if not impossible.
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0000346
http://lmharchive.ca/wp-content/upl...antry-Weapons-and-Equipment-in-Korea-1952.pdf
http://www.theblackvault.com/documents/wwii/marine1/126.pdf
Don't want to to totally derail this with yet another 5.56 vs. 7.62 debate (and not just because the arguments are pretty much calcified by now), but the simple fact remains that the marksmanship argument is unsupportable.
 

Deleted member 1487

Don't want to to totally derail this with yet another 5.56 vs. 7.62 debate (and not just because the arguments are pretty much calcified by now), but the simple fact remains that the marksmanship argument is unsupportable.
We were about talking about the caliber question (short 7.62/7.92 rounds have reduced range and recoil after all and were the issue based on the OP), but there has yet to be a refutation of the marksmanship argument; the cult of the rifleman hasn't borne out in actual combat with the average infantryman. If you want to drop the entire discussion we can, but I suggest you check out the studies and combat reports I linked to.
 
One of the Volksturm rifles probably provided the best bang for the buck.
I doubt if LeeEnfield No. 4 was cheap to manufacture considering all of the machining steps.
 
In cheap there are fixed costs and variable costs. An existing rifle already has paid out for the design, trials and setting up the factory. The 'cheaper' perhaps stamped, replacement must first save the cost of these before it becomes cheaper. The cheapest firearm is a stamped matchlock pistol at the low ridiculous end and a hand made double rifle at the expensive ridiculous other end of the scale. One has to examine the matter in terms of the big picture. e.g. the Lee Enfield went through assorted minor cost saving changes but the main saving was already having the factories and having the tooling to set up other ones. The MAS 36, when introduced, was probably cheaper in the making of one but needed a rework of the factory which had to be first paid for.

There is also the intangibles of the confidence it gives to the user and the ability of the user to make use of it. An untrained partisan is better off with a Sten than a sniper Lee Enfield but a skilled user will do more with the latter. In 'bang per buck' it is not only the 'buck' that counts but the usefulness of the 'bang'.

Here is an interesting take on what is a cheap effective WW2 rifle
 

Deleted member 1487

Here is an interesting take on what is a cheap effective WW2 rifle
This is an interesting concept for a bolt action; its like a low recoil 7.62 NATO round that was tried out in the 1960s by the Spanish and Japanese, but in a bolt action. Almost like an intermediate intermediate between the 'Kurz' round and the full power battle cartridge. I'd say they probably could have gone even a bit lower powered round and gotten a optimized bolt action rifle that fit the realities of WW2 battle, while being cheap to make. Still if they could have found a way to use stamped metal technology then you're really getting into optimized bolt action cost effectiveness.

Still no one is going to make a convincing argument that the StG45 wasn't the best of all worlds in terms of cost effectiveness to make and field.
 
One of the Volksturm rifles probably provided the best bang for the buck.
I doubt if LeeEnfield No. 4 was cheap to manufacture considering all of the machining steps.

The whole point of the No4 was to leverage modern machine tools and mass production techniques which made it easier to build than the SMLE

I could not tell you if it was the most cost effective though?

Would not cost effectiveness also include the utility and longevity of the weapon?

Its no good building a cheap as chips weapon only for it to fall to peices after a short time while a more expensive weapon lasts for decades!

Not easy to quantify
 
Longevity is more important during peace-time, when a rifle is expected to last 40 years.
OTOH weapons are only expected to last months in battle.
As for quality inspiring confidence ..... recruits will believe anything drill sargeants tell them.
Quality is most important in barrels, then bolts, then sights, then triggers and so on in descending order. At the bottom end, if a butt-stock does not leave splinters in the firer's face, it is good-enough. Consider that most recently-designed pistols have lowers made of polymer plastic .... a material considerably less confidence-inspiring than cast-aluminum.
 
All this talk of range is pretty irrelevant. Sure the battle rifles of old could fire out to 1000m, but there is almost no practical combat scenario where that would be even remotely useful. In the end all marksmen are limited to their ability to actually make out a target, and when everyone is hiding behind cover as best as they can and moving all over the place it's a waste of ammo to shoot at such ranges. Almost all practical infantry combat can be fought with lesser rounds than the M1 or G43 or SVT40. 7.62 NATO is the most powerful round anyone really needs to target other infantry at any reasonable combat range.

Snipers and marksmen are different entirely and we should not act like every infantryman should be accurate or even slightly effective at the same ranges as snipers, because they won't be and that's simple fact.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
We were about talking about the caliber question (short 7.62/7.92 rounds have reduced range and recoil after all and were the issue based on the OP), but there has yet to be a refutation of the marksmanship argument; the cult of the rifleman hasn't borne out in actual combat with the average infantryman. If you want to drop the entire discussion we can, but I suggest you check out the studies and combat reports I linked to.
The part that is clearly incorrect is the "it takes 9 years to get a rifleman trained to use the range of a battle rifle". The Army itself was managing to do it until the mid-late 1960s and USMC trains recruits to 500 yards with a 5.56mm. The engagement range argument may/may not be valid (it was clearly correct in Vietnam, far less so in Afghanistan) but the training being too difficult is simply untrue.
 

Deleted member 1487

The part that is clearly incorrect is the "it takes 9 years to get a rifleman trained to use the range of a battle rifle". The Army itself was managing to do it until the mid-late 1960s and USMC trains recruits to 500 yards with a 5.56mm. The engagement range argument may/may not be valid (it was clearly correct in Vietnam, far less so in Afghanistan) but the training being too difficult is simply untrue.
I believe that was in combat not on the range. You can range train people to shoot fixed targets quickly, training a marksman who can reliably hit targets at 800m or beyond in combat is something else entirely and why boy scouts and other country's versions of that organization trained marksmanship and one of several reasons why getting to Eagle Scout confers automatic rank if you join the military.
 
Inspired in the best submachine gun thread. I was wondering which was the best cost effective rifle in WWII.
...
Is there a WWII equivalent?
This is a very circular discussion, I fear. The most cost-effective rifle often WAS a sub machine gun. Things like the VG1 aside, for less money than a bolt-action rifle you could get a low-recoiling easy to use automatic weapon much more suited to the capabilities of a typical conscript.

Without wanting to join in the ongoing marksmanship debate, IIRC a British study found that the average soldier was more able to get hits on a man sized target at typical combat ranges with a sten than with a Lee Enfield, which if you compare the two weapons is a bit of a shocker.

:edited to add; haven’t been able to find an actual copy online, only second or third hand quotes but apparently WO 291/476, "Comparison of rifle, Bren and Sten", finds that rifle and Bren shooting was generally so poor that the real accuracy of these weapons is never used; that Rifles and Brens are rarely used at long ranges except by snipers; and that the advantage of automatic over single-shot is increased by battle conditions. Trials were conducted showing that the Sten was still comparably effective to the rifle up to 300 yards.

Not hugely convincing without further detail but all I can find.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Without wanting to join in the ongoing marksmanship debate, IIRC a British study found that the average soldier was more able to get hits on a man sized target at typical combat ranges with a sten than with a Lee Enfield, which if you compare the two weapons is a bit of a shocker.
Earlier I posted US studies from the 1950s that confirmed nearly the same.
Edit:
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1032
While the .30 caliber rifle and ammunition were still being developed, some American researchers were coming to different conclusions about the requirements for a military rifle. In 1950 the Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL), an Army unit based at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, was asked to investigate combat rifle effectiveness. The resulting report titled An Effectiveness Study of the Infantry Rifle was presented by its author, Donald Hall, in 1952. This was a theoretical study of the effectiveness of different calibres, which concluded that significant improvements in hit probability could be expected of a small-caliber, high velocity cartridge due to its flatter trajectory, and that there would also be benefits in a considerable reduction in ammunition weight.

In parallel with this study, the civilian Operational Research Office (ORO) of the U.S. Army’s General Staff examined what really happened in rifle combat. The resulting report on Project BALANCE by Norman Hitchman, the head of ORO’s Infantry Division, also emerged in 1952. Hitchman’s report was based on World War II combat records plus new data emerging from Korea. This showed that the average distance for aimed bullet hits was in the region of 75-100 yards with 80% of effective rifle and LMG fire being reported at ranges of less than 200 yards and 90% at less than 300 yards. Even worse for the Ordnance Department were tests of its .30 cal Lightweight Rifle prototypes which showed that the recoil was far too heavy, leading Hitchman to report that the cartridge was vastly overpowered and that automatic rifle fire was a waste of time and ammunition. This was five years before the selective-fire M14 in 7.62x51 caliber was officially adopted for US Army service.

I linked the Hitchman report earlier if anyone wants to read it, repeated here:
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0000346
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: wtw
Top