User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/16/2016 11:13:31 PM EDT
[#1]
Enfield done
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2016 11:14:48 PM EDT
[#2]
Swiss K31
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2016 11:17:49 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Swiss K31 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Swiss K31 Swiss did not participate in WW2 Quoted:
Enfield done ^this |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2016 11:22:37 PM EDT
[#4]
Bolt-action carbine?
Rifle, No. 5 Mk. I, though it didn't see a ton of service in WWII. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2016 11:30:20 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bolt-action carbine? Rifle, No. 5 Mk. I, though it didn't see a ton of service in WWII. Meh...I don't know, while handy and lightweight, the wandering zero doomed it, that's why it didnt last too long. I think the standard No.4 Mk I was pretty damn outstanding...10 round mag, easy and fast manipulated bolt. The original Singer sight was awesome... The O3A3 was very good too, but the Enfield takes the advantage with twice the rounds in my book. The 91/30 was crude, and crappy, but did the job. The Type 99 was under rated, very strong action. The MAS 36 was handy, but unwieldy and hard to operate bolt... I will go with Enfield.., |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2016 11:36:03 PM EDT
[#6]
Enfield by a mile. Other carbines may have a specific leg up, but the best overall package goes to the crown on this one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2016 11:43:54 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Meh...I don't know, while handy and lightweight, the wandering zero doomed it, that's why it didnt last too long. I think the standard No.4 Mk I was pretty damn outstanding...10 round mag, easy and fast manipulated bolt. The original Singer sight was awesome... The O3A3 was very good too, but the Enfield takes the advantage with twice the rounds in my book. The 91/30 was crude, and crappy, but did the job. The Type 99 was under rated, very strong action. The MAS 36 was handy, but unwieldy and hard to operate bolt... I will go with Enfield.., Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Bolt-action carbine? Rifle, No. 5 Mk. I, though it didn't see a ton of service in WWII. Meh...I don't know, while handy and lightweight, the wandering zero doomed it, that's why it didnt last too long. I think the standard No.4 Mk I was pretty damn outstanding...10 round mag, easy and fast manipulated bolt. The original Singer sight was awesome... The O3A3 was very good too, but the Enfield takes the advantage with twice the rounds in my book. The 91/30 was crude, and crappy, but did the job. The Type 99 was under rated, very strong action. The MAS 36 was handy, but unwieldy and hard to operate bolt... I will go with Enfield.., The question is somewhat confusing. The title refers to carbines, which would disqualify the No. 4 (and a lot of other things, too). Of the actual carbines, the No. 5 was the best of the lot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2016 11:45:16 PM EDT
[#8]
Mosin......
. . . . . NOT!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2016 11:46:16 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The question is somewhat confusing. The title refers to carbines, which would disqualify the No. 4 (and a lot of other things, too). Of the actual carbines, the No. 5 was the best of the lot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bolt-action carbine? Rifle, No. 5 Mk. I, though it didn't see a ton of service in WWII. Meh...I don't know, while handy and lightweight, the wandering zero doomed it, that's why it didnt last too long. I think the standard No.4 Mk I was pretty damn outstanding...10 round mag, easy and fast manipulated bolt. The original Singer sight was awesome... The O3A3 was very good too, but the Enfield takes the advantage with twice the rounds in my book. The 91/30 was crude, and crappy, but did the job. The Type 99 was under rated, very strong action. The MAS 36 was handy, but unwieldy and hard to operate bolt... I will go with Enfield.., The question is somewhat confusing. The title refers to carbines, which would disqualify the No. 4 (and a lot of other things, too). Of the actual carbines, the No. 5 was the best of the lot. Ok, see what you mean...then in OP, he says rifle.... Hey OP, some clarification...what do you mean? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2016 11:54:39 PM EDT
[#10]
Anyone have any experience with the type 38?
Good or rough? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 12:01:51 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone have any experience with the type 38? Good or rough? If I had to choose between the 38 and the 44, I'd go with the 44... If you are talking strictly carbines, then the No. 5, easy...same reasons as the No.4...10 rounds, great sight. The G 33/40 was pretty nice too. ETA When you say Type 38, I assume you mean the Japanese Type 38, and not the Russian Model 38.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 12:17:29 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I had to choose between the 38 and the 44, I'd go with the 44... If you are talking strictly carbines, then the No. 5, easy...same reasons as the No.4...10 rounds, great sight. The G 33/40 was pretty nice too. ETA When you say Type 38, I assume you mean the Japanese Type 38, and not the Russian Model 38.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anyone have any experience with the type 38? Good or rough? If I had to choose between the 38 and the 44, I'd go with the 44... If you are talking strictly carbines, then the No. 5, easy...same reasons as the No.4...10 rounds, great sight. The G 33/40 was pretty nice too. ETA When you say Type 38, I assume you mean the Japanese Type 38, and not the Russian Model 38.... That was my assumption as well - Japanese 6.5 carbines. If we look specifically at carbines only, what do we have to compare? There's not a whole lot, but we can expand if we include stuff that was technically WWI but soldiered on in WWII. Japanese Type 38 and Type 44 Italian Carcano Moschettos (91, 91/24, 91/28, 91/38 Cav, 91/38 TS) Berthier Mousquetons (M16) Steyr M95 Karabiners and Stutzens No. 5 Mk. I Mosin M38 and M44 G33/40 The US didn't field a bolt-action carbine, they didn't need to. The MAS-36 is technically carbine length (it's only a hair longer than a No. 5) but the French considered it a Fusil (rifle) and not a Mousqueton, so I'm not going to consider it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 6:29:25 AM EDT
[#13]
One of the Italian Carcano carbines
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 12:22:54 PM EDT
[#14]
Yes bolt action carbines. Ones that were Wwi models are good to go. And yes the 38 is the type 38.
I will say I have a number 5 and its awesome to shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 12:48:15 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One of the Italian Carcano carbines All things considered, not a truly terrible option. Round performed well enough, accurate enough for Brown Shirt work. The action is a tad clunky, but it is a modified mauser action so you are good to go. Poor rifle get a wrap that don't deserve really. ETA: For the sake of my answer, I'm excluding the carbines that were cut down rifles. Due to gain twist riffling, they shoot like shit
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 2:05:43 PM EDT
[#16]
The FN and VZ 24s were fine rifles.
In reality there is nothing really bad about the Carcano. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 2:07:54 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Swiss did not participate in WW2 ^this Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Swiss K31 Swiss did not participate in WW2 Quoted: Enfield done ^this They most certainly participated. They did not have widespread fighting. But they mobilized and did everything but fight large scale actions. Chile was probably the least participative of all the major countries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 2:11:40 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes bolt action carbines. Ones that were Wwi models are good to go. And yes the 38 is the type 38. I will say I have a number 5 and its awesome to shoot. Type 44 was a bolt carbine . I shoot one and like it |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 2:33:47 PM EDT
[#19]
Finnish - M27, M28 or M39
Choose any of those & you've got a winner - busy searching for an M27 at present....would settle for a 28 or 28/30 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 2:59:54 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They most certainly participated. They did not have widespread fighting. But they mobilized and did everything but fight large scale actions. Chile was probably the least participative of all the major countries. mobilization in not participation. Swiss never fought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 3:09:06 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
mobilization in not participation. Swiss never fought. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They most certainly participated. They did not have widespread fighting. But they mobilized and did everything but fight large scale actions. Chile was probably the least participative of all the major countries. mobilization in not participation. Swiss never fought. They had border skirmishes I believe. Not counting the airplanes they shot/forced down from both sides. ETA: I guess it depends on how we want to define fighting. They certainly fired shots at combatants, but it all appears to be purely defensive in nature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 5:55:23 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: mobilization in not participation. Swiss never fought. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: They most certainly participated. They did not have widespread fighting. But they mobilized and did everything but fight large scale actions. Chile was probably the least participative of all the major countries. mobilization in not participation. Swiss never fought. Not much, but they did. Being smack dab in the middle of Europe during WWII and being fully mobilized and having to use arms in anger to defend your territory is participation by any stretch of the imagination. That isn't even mentioning trade and espionage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 6:14:21 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes they did. Not much, but they did. Being smack dab in the middle of Europe during WWII and being fully mobilized and having to use arms in anger to defend your territory is participation by any stretch of the imagination. That isn't even mentioning trade and espionage. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They most certainly participated. They did not have widespread fighting. But they mobilized and did everything but fight large scale actions. Chile was probably the least participative of all the major countries. mobilization in not participation. Swiss never fought. Not much, but they did. Being smack dab in the middle of Europe during WWII and being fully mobilized and having to use arms in anger to defend your territory is participation by any stretch of the imagination. That isn't even mentioning trade and espionage. I haven't read of any ground combat the Swiss were involved in. They were involved in some boarder skirmishes. I know they shot down a few planes and got bombed by accident. I don't think they had any military related casualties just civilian. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 6:22:35 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I haven't read of any ground combat the Swiss were involved in. They were involved in some boarder skirmishes. I know they shot down a few planes and got bombed by accident. I don't think they had any military related casualties just civilian. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They most certainly participated. They did not have widespread fighting. But they mobilized and did everything but fight large scale actions. Chile was probably the least participative of all the major countries. mobilization in not participation. Swiss never fought. Not much, but they did. Being smack dab in the middle of Europe during WWII and being fully mobilized and having to use arms in anger to defend your territory is participation by any stretch of the imagination. That isn't even mentioning trade and espionage. I haven't read of any ground combat the Swiss were involved in. They were involved in some boarder skirmishes. I know they shot down a few planes and got bombed by accident. I don't think they had any military related casualties just civilian. You are correct. Except it was more than a few planes. That sounds like participation to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 6:24:56 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: mobilization in not participation. Swiss never fought. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: They most certainly participated. They did not have widespread fighting. But they mobilized and did everything but fight large scale actions. Chile was probably the least participative of all the major countries. mobilization in not participation. Swiss never fought. https://www.amazon.com/Target-Switzerland-Swiss-Armed-Neutrality/dp/0306813254 Recommend reading for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 6:59:49 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are correct. That sounds involved to me. That sounds like participation to me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They most certainly participated. They did not have widespread fighting. But they mobilized and did everything but fight large scale actions. Chile was probably the least participative of all the major countries. mobilization in not participation. Swiss never fought. Not much, but they did. Being smack dab in the middle of Europe during WWII and being fully mobilized and having to use arms in anger to defend your territory is participation by any stretch of the imagination. That isn't even mentioning trade and espionage. I haven't read of any ground combat the Swiss were involved in. They were involved in some boarder skirmishes. I know they shot down a few planes and got bombed by accident. I don't think they had any military related casualties just civilian. That sounds involved to me. That sounds like participation to me. The Swiss government stated and called the incidents accidents. I wouldn't call mobilization or a skirmish involvement either. In the scale of the conflict in Europe, I wouldn't consider any country that wasn't active in any type of official combat to be not involved. On the personal level, I can see people considering them selves to be involved . On a national level they wanted to stay neutral and remain out of any conflicts. It would be like if a mobilization or skirmish happens on the DMZ. They happen fairly often and are not considered a part of the Korean war but rather there own isolated incidents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 7:14:11 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Swiss government stated and called the incidents accidents. I wouldn't call mobilization or a skirmish involvement either. In the scale of the conflict in Europe, I wouldn't consider any country that wasn't active in any type of official combat to be not involved. On the personal level, I can see people considering them selves to be involved . On a national level they wanted to stay neutral and remain out of any conflicts. It would be like if a mobilization or skirmish happens on the DMZ. They happen fairly often and are not considered a part of the Korean war but rather there own isolated incidents. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Originally Posted By mobilization in not participation. Swiss never fought. Not much, but they did. Being smack dab in the middle of Europe during WWII and being fully mobilized and having to use arms in anger to defend your territory is participation by any stretch of the imagination. That isn't even mentioning trade and espionage. I haven't read of any ground combat the Swiss were involved in. They were involved in some boarder skirmishes. I know they shot down a few planes and got bombed by accident. I don't think they had any military related casualties just civilian. That sounds involved to me. That sounds like participation to me. The Swiss government stated and called the incidents accidents. I wouldn't call mobilization or a skirmish involvement either. In the scale of the conflict in Europe, I wouldn't consider any country that wasn't active in any type of official combat to be not involved. On the personal level, I can see people considering them selves to be involved . On a national level they wanted to stay neutral and remain out of any conflicts. It would be like if a mobilization or skirmish happens on the DMZ. They happen fairly often and are not considered a part of the Korean war but rather there own isolated incidents. They literally fired thousands of rounds in anger protecting their sovereignty. But ok, they did not participate in WW II. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 7:23:35 PM EDT
[#28]
Regardless of the whole Swiss question...as long as we are talking strictly carbines, and NOT rifles, again, my vote is No. 5, followed by G 33/40.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 8:01:20 PM EDT
[#29]
I'm sure they shot rounds, anger has nothing to do with the involvement. I'm sure they shot out of fear as well. I haven't seen a official list of battles involving the Swiss. By official I mean a government list of battles and not personal accounts.
I'm not here to discount any action I'm just trying to learn more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 9:05:00 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That was my assumption as well - Japanese 6.5 carbines. If we look specifically at carbines only, what do we have to compare? There's not a whole lot, but we can expand if we include stuff that was technically WWI but soldiered on in WWII. Japanese Type 38 and Type 44 Italian Carcano Moschettos (91, 91/24, 91/28, 91/38 Cav, 91/38 TS) Berthier Mousquetons (M16) Steyr M95 Karabiners and Stutzens No. 5 Mk. I Mosin M38 and M44 G33/40 The US didn't field a bolt-action carbine, they didn't need to. The MAS-36 is technically carbine length (it's only a hair longer than a No. 5) but the French considered it a Fusil (rifle) and not a Mousqueton, so I'm not going to consider it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone have any experience with the type 38? Good or rough? If I had to choose between the 38 and the 44, I'd go with the 44... If you are talking strictly carbines, then the No. 5, easy...same reasons as the No.4...10 rounds, great sight. The G 33/40 was pretty nice too. ETA When you say Type 38, I assume you mean the Japanese Type 38, and not the Russian Model 38.... That was my assumption as well - Japanese 6.5 carbines. If we look specifically at carbines only, what do we have to compare? There's not a whole lot, but we can expand if we include stuff that was technically WWI but soldiered on in WWII. Japanese Type 38 and Type 44 Italian Carcano Moschettos (91, 91/24, 91/28, 91/38 Cav, 91/38 TS) Berthier Mousquetons (M16) Steyr M95 Karabiners and Stutzens No. 5 Mk. I Mosin M38 and M44 G33/40 The US didn't field a bolt-action carbine, they didn't need to. The MAS-36 is technically carbine length (it's only a hair longer than a No. 5) but the French considered it a Fusil (rifle) and not a Mousqueton, so I'm not going to consider it. The 03 and susbequently the 03A3 and A4 were specifically designed to take the place of a rifle and carbine. It was issued to infantry and cavalry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2016 10:36:44 PM EDT
[#31]
No just carbines. How does the type 38 stack up against the no5? I heard the Carcano is good too. I'm think of expending my wwii rifle collection to get some carbines. The type 38 looks really short and great handling? Was wondering about accuracy. My no 5 is handy and has a great slick action but accuracy is ok at 4 or 5 inches. Is the type 38 accurate?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2016 1:16:36 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No just carbines. How does the type 38 stack up against the no5? I heard the Carcano is good too. I'm think of expending my wwii rifle collection to get some carbines. The type 38 looks really short and great handling? Was wondering about accuracy. My no 5 is handy and has a great slick action but accuracy is ok at 4 or 5 inches. Is the type 38 accurate? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2016 1:20:03 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm sure they shot rounds, anger has nothing to do with the involvement. I'm sure they shot out of fear as well. I haven't seen a official list of battles involving the Swiss. By official I mean a government list of battles and not personal accounts. I'm not here to discount any action I'm just trying to learn more. I'm guessing you are young. 'In anger' means in combat. Not real anger or fear. It is an expression. The Swiss engaged in combat in WWII. Period. Was it huge pitched battles? No. But to say they were not a player or participant in WWII is just ignoring the historical fact. Go read about the Swiss in WWII. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2016 3:05:43 AM EDT
[#34]
I wonder if any of the swede m94 carbines saw action anywhere. I would guess at least a few found there way into Finland to help them out against the Soviets.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2016 9:06:12 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm guessing you are young. 'In anger' means in combat. Not real anger or fear. It is an expression. The Swiss engaged in combat in WWII. Period. Was it huge pitched battles? No. But to say they were not a player or participant in WWII is just ignoring the historical fact. Go read about the Swiss in WWII. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm sure they shot rounds, anger has nothing to do with the involvement. I'm sure they shot out of fear as well. I haven't seen a official list of battles involving the Swiss. By official I mean a government list of battles and not personal accounts. I'm not here to discount any action I'm just trying to learn more. I'm guessing you are young. 'In anger' means in combat. Not real anger or fear. It is an expression. The Swiss engaged in combat in WWII. Period. Was it huge pitched battles? No. But to say they were not a player or participant in WWII is just ignoring the historical fact. Go read about the Swiss in WWII. I have been reading about the Swiss in WW2. I have not found a list of battles involving the Swiss. They don't officially have any combat casualties at all. With a estimated total of 20-15 million military members killed, you would expect a country that was involved in WW2 to have at least 1 casualty . I understand that Target Switzerland is a good read but I wouldn't use that as a only source on information. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2016 11:23:49 AM EDT
[#36]
Some people just ignore reality. Sad.
Arguing the definition of "is". |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2016 11:31:41 AM EDT
[#37]
Hey guys can we keep this about WWII carbines? I'm
Sure the Swiss did a great job defending there own in WWII with a great rifle. But I'm more interested In What your opinions are of the best bolt action carbine of the war was. I've got a couple of ww2 era carbines but what's the best one? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2016 11:38:44 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey guys can we keep this about WWII carbines? I'm Sure the Swiss did a great job defending there own in WWII with a great rifle. But I'm more interested In What your opinions are of the best bolt action carbine of the war was. I've got a couple of ww2 era carbines but what's the best one? I'd say the N0. 5 is in the top contenders, as well as the Finnish M27 or 28, they are very highly regarded. Russian M38/44 are serviceable enough, just a bit crude. Purpose built Carcano Carbines - Same as the Russians, perfectly useable, they just get a bad rap. I don't know enough about the Arisaka carbines, but the long rifles were fine weapons. It stands to reason that the carbines would be as well, just a tad less accurate. MAS-36 - Good rifle, decent sights, just needs a damn safety. Various Mauser Carbines - Great choice's. Only really limited by their magazine capacity. K11 - Fantastic rifle, no way around it. Depends on if you want to count it or not, but it is a truly fantastic weapon. I'm sure I'm missing others, but those are off the top of my head Which do you have? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2016 11:53:49 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MAS-36 - Good rifle, decent sights, just needs a damn safety. To me, it depends on the safety. If it was a Mauser style or enfield, then sure, a safety would be nice. If it ended up being a mosin style safety, Inwould rather not have one and just carry with the chamber empty (like the French did) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2016 12:08:56 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To me, it depends on the safety. If it was a Mauser style or enfield, then sure, a safety would be nice. If it ended up being a mosin style safety, Inwould rather not have one and just carry with the chamber empty (like the French did) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
MAS-36 - Good rifle, decent sights, just needs a damn safety. To me, it depends on the safety. If it was a Mauser style or enfield, then sure, a safety would be nice. If it ended up being a mosin style safety, Inwould rather not have one and just carry with the chamber empty (like the French did) Agree. Hell, I'd even take an SKS/SVT style safety. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2016 12:25:46 PM EDT
[#41]
Why do I feel I've fallen into a liberal newscast, "doesn't fit the narrative so it's not important". Switzerland remained neutral because it was armed, had difficult terrain that made the Germans tanks unusable, and the populace was willing to fight all comers. Ask other small countries that were between Germany and their targeted countries what happened to them. Do you think Germany really cared about Luxembourg or the Netherlands? If Switzerland hadn't be on a war footing they would have been swept away too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2016 12:53:43 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd say the N0. 5 is in the top contenders, as well as the Finnish M27 or 28, they are very highly regarded. Russian M38/44 are serviceable enough, just a bit crude. Purpose built Carcano Carbines - Same as the Russians, perfectly useable, they just get a bad rap. I don't know enough about the Arisaka carbines, but the long rifles were fine weapons. It stands to reason that the carbines would be as well, just a tad less accurate. MAS-36 - Good rifle, decent sights, just needs a damn safety. Various Mauser Carbines - Great choice's. Only really limited by their magazine capacity. K11 - Fantastic rifle, no way around it. Depends on if you want to count it or not, but it is a truly fantastic weapon. I'm sure I'm missing others, but those are off the top of my head Which do you have? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Hey guys can we keep this about WWII carbines? I'm Sure the Swiss did a great job defending there own in WWII with a great rifle. But I'm more interested In What your opinions are of the best bolt action carbine of the war was. I've got a couple of ww2 era carbines but what's the best one? I'd say the N0. 5 is in the top contenders, as well as the Finnish M27 or 28, they are very highly regarded. Russian M38/44 are serviceable enough, just a bit crude. Purpose built Carcano Carbines - Same as the Russians, perfectly useable, they just get a bad rap. I don't know enough about the Arisaka carbines, but the long rifles were fine weapons. It stands to reason that the carbines would be as well, just a tad less accurate. MAS-36 - Good rifle, decent sights, just needs a damn safety. Various Mauser Carbines - Great choice's. Only really limited by their magazine capacity. K11 - Fantastic rifle, no way around it. Depends on if you want to count it or not, but it is a truly fantastic weapon. I'm sure I'm missing others, but those are off the top of my head Which do you have? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2016 3:57:51 PM EDT
[#43]
Swedish Model 1894.
Armed Swedish "volunteers" who fought along side Finnish troops. Then the No. 5 Everything else is an also ran. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2016 5:02:32 PM EDT
[#44]
I would happily take a MAS Mle. 36 into action before any other bolt action rifle of the time. Simple, accurate, robust, fast action, quick-to-acquire sights.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2016 7:07:04 PM EDT
[#45]
The best on the surplus market would be the K11 or K31. At worst they will only show handling markings.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2016 7:28:30 PM EDT
[#46]
Thread needs pics
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2016 11:18:06 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote History |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2016 7:27:41 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wrong. They most certainly fired weapons in anger. Can you guess how many planes were shot down by Swiss with aircraft and AAA? https://www.amazon.com/Target-Switzerland-Swiss-Armed-Neutrality/dp/0306813254 Recommend reading for you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They most certainly participated. They did not have widespread fighting. But they mobilized and did everything but fight large scale actions. Chile was probably the least participative of all the major countries. mobilization in not participation. Swiss never fought. https://www.amazon.com/Target-Switzerland-Swiss-Armed-Neutrality/dp/0306813254 Recommend reading for you. And you think they shot those planes with K31s? Don't thin so! They weren't involved in ground fighting. Their airspace has been violated....accidentally. There was zero combat. Warning shots are not combat. Enfield still remains supreme as the best firearm that was involved in WWII combat. Might actually be better than Mauser action based weapons: 10 round mag, better sight system, quick to work action that can be easily worked from the shoulder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2016 8:32:18 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would happily take a MAS Mle. 36 into action before any other bolt action rifle of the time. Simple, accurate, robust, fast action, quick-to-acquire sights. The MAS-36 is an excellent rifle. The bolts on the 60's refurbs with their heavy park jobs can be difficult to work, but once you spend some time wearing the park off, they become pretty damn fast. The rear lugs and the funky bolt handle make for an incredibly short bolt throw, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2016 9:17:41 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And you think they shot those planes with K31s? Don't thin so! They weren't involved in ground fighting. Their airspace has been violated....accidentally. There was zero combat. Warning shots are not combat. Enfield still remains supreme as the best firearm that was involved in WWII combat. Might actually be better than Mauser action based weapons: 10 round mag, better sight system, quick to work action that can be easily worked from the shoulder. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They most certainly participated. They did not have widespread fighting. But they mobilized and did everything but fight large scale actions. Chile was probably the least participative of all the major countries. mobilization in not participation. Swiss never fought. https://www.amazon.com/Target-Switzerland-Swiss-Armed-Neutrality/dp/0306813254 Recommend reading for you. And you think they shot those planes with K31s? Don't thin so! They weren't involved in ground fighting. Their airspace has been violated....accidentally. There was zero combat. Warning shots are not combat. Enfield still remains supreme as the best firearm that was involved in WWII combat. Might actually be better than Mauser action based weapons: 10 round mag, better sight system, quick to work action that can be easily worked from the shoulder. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
