Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
I favorite the SVT most due to its looks but can it compete with its equivalents? The M1 I think comes best due to its better reliability and mass use but it has 2 less rounds and has the "clink" sound.
+3
im42
GarryB
KomissarBojanchev
7 posters
WW2: SVT-40 vs G43 vs M1 'Garand'
Poll
Which is the best WW2 semiauto rifle?
- [ 7 ]
[54%]
- [ 1 ]
- [8%]
- [ 5 ]
- [38%]
Total Votes: 13
KomissarBojanchev- Posts : 1429
Points : 1584
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 26
Location : Varna, Bulgaria
GarryB- Posts : 39169
Points : 39667
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
When properly looked after the SVT is fine, the Germans grabbed up as many as they could get their hands on.
im42- Posts : 20
Points : 26
Join date : 2014-09-04
Definiately M1 out of these three and here is why:
-longest sighting line, that translates into accuracy and is very important with rifles with capacities of 10 and less cartridges
-"semi-auto" reload operation which is very hard for the shooter to ignore and opposite to common myth near to impossible for adversary to notice
-barrel is the most secured out of these three
-easiest to learn and most user friendly iron sights
-marginal useful but the only rifle of the three that user could recock the hammer without cycling the action
There are of course cons of M1 in comparison to others
-two less rounds and that can be really painful on rare occasions
-inability to increase magazine capacity without rebuilding the rifle itself
-again oposite to common belief M1 was the least reliable of these three
-and the most serious drawback, very problematic to change magazine without empting it
That is more or less why I think M1 was the best general infantry rifle of which were mentioned. Simply pros overshadowed its cons.
-longest sighting line, that translates into accuracy and is very important with rifles with capacities of 10 and less cartridges
-"semi-auto" reload operation which is very hard for the shooter to ignore and opposite to common myth near to impossible for adversary to notice
-barrel is the most secured out of these three
-easiest to learn and most user friendly iron sights
-marginal useful but the only rifle of the three that user could recock the hammer without cycling the action
There are of course cons of M1 in comparison to others
-two less rounds and that can be really painful on rare occasions
-inability to increase magazine capacity without rebuilding the rifle itself
-again oposite to common belief M1 was the least reliable of these three
-and the most serious drawback, very problematic to change magazine without empting it
That is more or less why I think M1 was the best general infantry rifle of which were mentioned. Simply pros overshadowed its cons.
Werewolf- Posts : 5920
Points : 6109
Join date : 2012-10-24
They are all quite good but i aggree with im42 the M1 Grand was very solid overall. Lot of weight is the biggest disadvantage of it but weapons are not for pussies.
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
I'd go and say the M1 Carbine... That thing is a blast to shoot, and (I would imagine) be a great semi-auto for close quarters combat. It is light, accurate, cheap, reliable, and durable, and it doesn't use the large and heavy 30-06 round of the (other) M1.Werewolf wrote:They are all quite good but i aggree with im42 the M1 Grand was very solid overall. Lot of weight is the biggest disadvantage of it but weapons are not for pussies.
George1- Posts : 18342
Points : 18839
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
Mosin–Nagant was the standard rifle of Soviet army in WWII
GarryB- Posts : 39169
Points : 39667
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
They made quite a few Tokarevs too.
One could argue that they armed their troops with a mix of Mosin rifles, Pah Pah Shahs (SMGS) and Tokarevs.
The G43 was based on the Tokarev gas system.
One could argue that they armed their troops with a mix of Mosin rifles, Pah Pah Shahs (SMGS) and Tokarevs.
The G43 was based on the Tokarev gas system.
KoTeMoRe- Posts : 4212
Points : 4227
Join date : 2015-04-21
Location : Krankhaus Central.
KomissarBojanchev wrote:I favorite the SVT most due to its looks but can it compete with its equivalents? The M1 I think comes best due to its better reliability and mass use but it has 2 less rounds and has the "clink" sound.
Depends what you're looking for, there's a lot of issues with the Garand as well, open system, big clearances meaning it could get jammed by FE ingress in action, difficult to clear out of FF/FE/FTF. The Garand has achieved a mythical status because it fought half the length the Tokarev did and was used to its advantages. In Korea the Garand started showing its deficiencies and the US started looking for another rifle, meanwhile the Soviets had the SKS well stacked and the AK closed the deal.
The G43 being a german SVT, the match is close but, IMO in most cases as an infantry man you weren't less advantaged by any of those designs when going against another of them. Ammunition is something I would fault more than the systems.
SVT had many issues regarding barrelling but as many US collection holders have discovered the rifle isn't all that inaccurate. Meanwhile the Swiss did a limited run of the SVT with a better Quality Control, the guns are outstanding.
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/ria-prototype-wf-bern-ak44-copy-of-the-svt/
GarryB- Posts : 39169
Points : 39667
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The Germans loved the Tokarev and used all the rifles they captured.
The Tokarev was a lot more work to keep operating than a Mosin bolt action rifle so most Soviet soldiers didn't think it was wonderful.
Regarding accuracy, these rifles were accurate enough... there was no sniper ammo and no optics for most of them... there is a reason modern assault rifles have reduced power cartridges with effective ranges of 200m or less... 90% of targets are inside that distance anyway.
The Tokarev was a lot more work to keep operating than a Mosin bolt action rifle so most Soviet soldiers didn't think it was wonderful.
Regarding accuracy, these rifles were accurate enough... there was no sniper ammo and no optics for most of them... there is a reason modern assault rifles have reduced power cartridges with effective ranges of 200m or less... 90% of targets are inside that distance anyway.
GarryB- Posts : 39169
Points : 39667
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
This is interesting:
Note the stoppages with the SVT as explained after the shoot was because he had the gas setting too low on the rifle.
Would also add that he prefers the peep iron sight of the garand... that is just what you are used to... personally I prefer the open sights as it doesn't give you tunnel vision... if you use both types correctly there is no real difference in performance.
And an another American view on the SVT... who shoots and strips it as well and you can see how simple the design is...
And this one too:
Note the stoppages with the SVT as explained after the shoot was because he had the gas setting too low on the rifle.
Would also add that he prefers the peep iron sight of the garand... that is just what you are used to... personally I prefer the open sights as it doesn't give you tunnel vision... if you use both types correctly there is no real difference in performance.
And an another American view on the SVT... who shoots and strips it as well and you can see how simple the design is...
And this one too:
|
|
|