Best cost effective rifle

My vote for the best all-around weapon would probably be the M1 Rifle. If we're casting the net real wide, how about the M2 Rifle?

D-295-copy-T20E2.png

Only if they would have done in it .243. The M1A that I had was chambered in that, and was awsome. The Original .276 would have been nearly as good.
 

Deleted member 1487

StG44 is an interesting case. For certain answers of cost effectiveness it's a neat solution, because it uses a lot of cheap steel stampings. So strategically, it's kinda neat. However, magazines and ammo were huge issues for it, if I am remembering correctly. Problem with an assault weapon is that they GOBBLE up ammo at a predigious rate. If you don't have the ability to supply that ammo, then it's kind of a moot point if you have a cost effect assault rifle before everyone else.
The Germans actually did combat studies and found that with proper fire discipline they consumed no more ammo than the Mp40/K98k combo. The book "Sturmgewehr!" cites and translates into English all sorts of German documents related to the StG44. IIRC they also ended up saving a lot of MG42 ammo because they allowed the LMG to be kept in a special weapons squad at the platoon level, which meant it wasn't engaging in as much combat. A 7.92 Kurz is considerably cheaper than a full powered 7.92.
No mention of magazine problems and the ammo issue was just production related in that they couldn't make enough in 1944 because of the impact of the bombing.
 
I spoke with a 1st Sgt of 3rd Ranger battalion concerning effective engagement ranges encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said 300 m was generally the maximum effective range in Iraq except for isolated trained snipers; however, he said that they were getting hit out to possibly 1000 m in Afghanistan. He said it was a difference in weaponry and training. The Iraqis were using AK-47s while the Afghanis were using Enfields they had been using since their grandfathers trained them as boys. He noted that the Afghanis knew the terrain and the ranges before engaging. Both Field Marshall Slim and John Masters have commented on this riflemanship in their writings.
 

Deleted member 1487

I spoke with a 1st Sgt of 3rd Ranger battalion concerning effective engagement ranges encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said 300 m was generally the maximum effective range in Iraq except for isolated trained snipers; however, he said that they were getting hit out to possibly 1000 m in Afghanistan. He said it was a difference in weaponry and training. The Iraqis were using AK-47s while the Afghanis were using Enfields they had been using since their grandfathers trained them as boys. He noted that the Afghanis knew the terrain and the ranges before engaging. Both Field Marshall Slim and John Masters have commented on this riflemanship in their writings.
From what I've been able to find, in Afghanistan they've been taking harassment fire form PK machine guns and sniper rifles out to 1000m, not necessarily actually taking casualties from it. Apparently there are a lot of old bolt action rifles present too, so the Afghans play to their strengths and the US 'weakness' by keeping the ranges long and then being able to disengage before the US/NATO forces can close or get air support.
The solution has been to take along some DMR M14/M110s and in some cases the M48 lightened machine gun.
 
Yeah do a 50 round belt from long range and then hide the weapon and become a civvie within a minute or 2 of shooting

Not good for the health to get into an extended fire fight with NATO troops
 
I spoke with a 1st Sgt of 3rd Ranger battalion concerning effective engagement ranges encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said 300 m was generally the maximum effective range in Iraq except for isolated trained snipers; however, he said that they were getting hit out to possibly 1000 m in Afghanistan. He said it was a difference in weaponry and training. The Iraqis were using AK-47s while the Afghanis were using Enfields they had been using since their grandfathers trained them as boys. He noted that the Afghanis knew the terrain and the ranges before engaging. Both Field Marshall Slim and John Masters have commented on this riflemanship in their writings.

The Taliban have used a tactic of prepping ambushes at close to the self-destruct range of RPG-7s (which is 900-950m). This allows them to fire the rockets over Coalition forces, causing them to airburst and disrupt the position. They then follow up with machine guns that have likely already been pre-ranged using environmental markets (rocks, etc). So this isn't really something that a longer-ranged carbine could counter. I think the addition of CGs to the rifle platoon is a big step towards effectively shutting this tactic down.
 
The Germans actually did combat studies and found that with proper fire discipline they consumed no more ammo than the Mp40/K98k combo. The book "Sturmgewehr!" cites and translates into English all sorts of German documents related to the StG44. IIRC they also ended up saving a lot of MG42 ammo because they allowed the LMG to be kept in a special weapons squad at the platoon level, which meant it wasn't engaging in as much combat. A 7.92 Kurz is considerably cheaper than a full powered 7.92.
No mention of magazine problems and the ammo issue was just production related in that they couldn't make enough in 1944 because of the impact of the bombing.

In principle this works great, but the German logistics of the time really couldn't handle another cartridge in service. As a result, the majority of StG-44s issued late in the war did not receive sufficient accompanying ammunition and magazines.

The StG-44 is interesting and historically significant, certainly, but I think it was likely a net drag on the German war machine. It would have probably been better had it been in 9mm. Not that it mattered, though.
 
I spoke with a 1st Sgt of 3rd Ranger battalion concerning effective engagement ranges encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said 300 m was generally the maximum effective range in Iraq except for isolated trained snipers; however, he said that they were getting hit out to possibly 1000 m in Afghanistan. He said it was a difference in weaponry and training. The Iraqis were using AK-47s while the Afghanis were using Enfields they had been using since their grandfathers trained them as boys. He noted that the Afghanis knew the terrain and the ranges before engaging. Both Field Marshall Slim and John Masters have commented on this riflemanship in their writings.

BTW here's a video of it happening, apparently:

 

Deleted member 1487

In principle this works great, but the German logistics of the time really couldn't handle another cartridge in service. As a result, the majority of StG-44s issued late in the war did not receive sufficient accompanying ammunition and magazines.

The StG-44 is interesting and historically significant, certainly, but I think it was likely a net drag on the German war machine. It would have probably been better had it been in 9mm.
Why would being in 9mm have helped?

Not sure how it was a net drag given that even if it couldn't get enough ammo it was still a massive improvement on the K98k and even the G43, plus simplified logistics when there was enough that they could dispense with the MP40 and most K98ks, plus could limit MG34/42 use. The biggest issue was that Hitler only signed off on their production introduction once it was too late to make major production changes. Not sure how that denied them any significant production for any other weapon system though.

Not that it mattered, though.
Yep.
 
Lee Enfield, no competition. Still effective today.
The Canadian Rangers were originally issued Winchester 94 and Marlin 96 in 30-30 since that was the most popular cartridge in the Canadian NW. This was changed to the Enfield in 1947. The weapon is now to be a Sako action in .308.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Why would being in 9mm have helped?

Not sure how it was a net drag given that even if it couldn't get enough ammo it was still a massive improvement on the K98k and even the G43, plus simplified logistics when there was enough that they could dispense with the MP40 and most K98ks, plus could limit MG34/42 use. The biggest issue was that Hitler only signed off on their production introduction once it was too late to make major production changes. Not sure how that denied them any significant production for any other weapon system though.


...

9mm was already being produced in quantity. Using it allows more commonality and keep production time from being lost in retooling
The Canadian Rangers were originally issued Winchester 94 and Marlin 96 in 30-30 since that was the most popular cartridge in the Canadian NW. This was changed to the Enfield in 1947. The weapon is now to be a Sako action in .308.

30-30 is a really good all around cartridge. The mission that the Canadian Rangers performed/perform today, didn't really expect heavy firefights, so the extremely show reload for a lever action didn't matter. The Rangers are an interesting group, probably the closest thing that exists in North America to the traditional "militia" or "Minuteman" role that dates back to the early colonial days.
 
The Rangers are an interesting group, probably the closest thing that exists in North America to the traditional "militia" or "Minuteman" role that dates back to the early colonial days.

Alaska National Guard Eskimo Scouts (which don’t really exist as such anymore)
 

Deleted member 1487

9mm was already being produced in quantity. Using it allows more commonality and keep production time from being lost in retooling
So was 7.92mm. 9mm SMG/pistol bullets were not viable for the assault rifle, because the bullet is not aerodynamic enough to stay accurate at the necessary ranges, while the cartridge was not powerful enough beyond ~150m to be viable; might as well stick with the MP40 in that case if you're just going to use the existing round. So once you're on a different bullet design and case length to add more powder for range/power then you're not doing anything different than the 7.92 Kurz changes.

I suppose you could just adopt a version of the Hungarian Danuvia M43:
http://www.hungariae.com/Danu43.htm
 
Actually having watched a recent Forgotten weapons episode where gun Jesus talks about the millions of Rifles smgs and Machines guns that the Germans had collected from all of the conquered nations and collected after a battle won vs Russian, British and US forces - I would have to say that these rifles are the most cost effective!


Beutewaffen = Rifle/never fired/only dropped once ;)
 
Just curious, what rifle is this shown in the picture here. Pardon my ignorance. Thank you.

T20E2, a select-fire, magazine-fed version of the M1 Garand. Came very close to being type classified as M2, or so the legend goes. Unfortunately it seems some documentation from late '45 was lost, and then of course the atom bombs fell and the war ended.

In theory though, that's the weapon that would have armed US troops for the Invasion of Japan.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Just curious, what rifle is this shown in the picture here. Pardon my ignorance. Thank you.
Arguably the rifle the U.S. should have had in the second half of WW II and in Korea, ideally with a cartridge in the 7mm range (.276 Pedersen was a favorite early in the development of the M1, but it was rejected in favor of the .30-06).
 
Top