Choices are:

03 Springfield
M1 Garand
Thompson (added cause it did see combat in WW2 and was most wanted by the troops)
M1A/M14
M16/AR15

Wanted to know what you guys thought about how they performed as far as:

Accuracy
Mobility
Reliability
Ease of operation

rifles or rifle????????//

the garand, of course....M16 next.....

what makes a rifle good....its only a tool....
It is how, when, and what fer that makes it good imo....
And in the end its the man using it that is good or bad...not the weapon imo
that said the winchester repeating rifle
M1 Garrand the colt SA ARMY the Colt 45 ACP
the Aircraft Carrier , the printing press ,the personal computer , and birth control pills are the most effective weapons ever made imo..

You forgot the Johnson Rifle, Model of 1941.

I'd have put that one up as the best of the period. Unfortunatly, it was more complex than a Garand...but, it also held more ammo and could be reloaded without popping out the remainder of whatever clip was in the Garand, and then slapping in a whole new one.

I need to take the one I have out...I really want to see how it shoots.

Still love my Garands, though [;)]

I'd have to say the Garand.

It was far superior weapon to the standard rifles our enemies were using and gave our boys a clear advantage on the battlefield.

I have to say the Garand....if it was only a little lighter.

another vote for the big johnson.

of the rifles listed, i'll throw up a vote for the m14.

As much as I love the M-16, I just can't honestly say it's the one.

The M1 Garand outclassed the enemie's equipment so much that it forced them to alter their tactics and training.

No doubt about it. The M1 Garand.

I would have to agree with you guys. M1 Garand would've been my choice as well. Matter of fact that would be my next C&R purchase. I know I probably get a CMP one for collection porpuses, but I would like to get 2 of them. One for shooting and one refurbished(by me hopefully) for the display case.

That is so easy to answer...

The M1 Garand.

At it's time, it was the first self loading rifle adopted by any military force in the world.  Accuracy and power were second to none.  Going up against enemies using obsolete bolt action weapons gave our soldiers and Marines a distinct advantage.

Not to mention, the M1 is just one DEAD SEXY rifle!  It is a thing of beauty, absolute beauty.  I have a set of rifle hangars that I put my flintlock rifle on, but I'm thinking about putting my M1 up there now... it would just look so much more beautiful.

I wish Johnson had been named Smith or something.  Just too many bizarre associations with the name. [;D]

My vote is the M-1 Garand.

I guess it's a minor nickpick, but M1A is not a military rifle designation.

When compared to the rifles fielded by other countries during the same time frame, my vote goes to the M1 Garand.  From about '42 to '49 everyone else was playing catch up.

There were plenty of good bolt guns that could compete with the '03, and I believe the SMLE was the best battle bolt fielded.  The US built a target rifle, the Germans built a hunting rifle, but the Brits built a battle rifle.

The Thompson is a classic, but there were many subguns that were just as reliable and easier to produce.

M14 is the peak of refinement for the M1, and is a great rifle, however I believe the FN FAL is a better battle rifle, which is not to be confused with a target rifle.

M16 is a great weapon somewhat hindered by ghosts from the past.  I would pick a Daewoo K2 over the AR platform, M16 accuracy and ergonomics combined with AK robustness and reliability.

Is it me or do people conveniently forget the Garand's faults?  The M1 certainly has its' reliability issues, especially as a semiauto that depends on temp sensitive rifle grease for lube.  I'm not saying it was a jammomatic but it's action is sensitive to sand, icing and other common fouling.  

And the whole clip thing, sure it can be quick to load but you can't do a tactical reload.  Well, unless you shoot it dry or pop the clip, a rather cumbersome activity in the middle of combat.  Some like the ping of a clip getting ejected but I personally like keeping my ammo status a secret from those nearby.

How about an action that makes mounting an optic just about as inconvenient and unstable as can be.  Didn't the M1C have an off-set scope?  Of course that's counterweighted by excellent iron sights.

I just think we tend to glorify the M1 when in use it certainly had its' problems.  All you ever hear about the M-16 is how it killed hundreds of Marines when it was first fielded.  But in many an account of the WWII infantryman I have read many and storied accounts of men being troubled by a jammed rifle.  Did it mean the M1 was a POS?  No, just that it was as fallible as any other rifle mass produced for the military.

M1 Garand, and I'm a youngin' too. I love the feel of that rifle, it's reassuring BOOM, and the ping that lets you know it's time to reload. I also have a newspaper clipping of my grandfather running off a Higgins boat at you-know-where...guess what he had.

For best modern I would say M1 but… Using "of its time".

What about the 1861 Springfield?

It certainly had more impact and importance that the 03 Springfield or M14/M1A

M1 Garand. Definately. Compared to the rest of the world for the timeframe? Hands down winner.

The Garand helped to solve what was perhaps the greatest conflict in history.

No P14/M1917 Enfield?  Much better rifle than the '03 Springfield.  No Krag-Jorgenson either....though if you're limiting the poll to 20th century rifles then forget the Krag.  And I'd include the M1 Carbine on the list before the Thompson.  The Thompson is strictly a subgun, the M1 carbine is a handy if underpowered rifle.  The M2 version being our first "assault rifle".  Others have mentioned the M1941 Johnson, what about the Remington/Westinghouse built M91 Mosins?  They were issued to the troops who went to Russia during the chaos of the revolution/civil war.  Some were issued to the Navy & state militia/National Guard/military schools (I think.....) [:D][;D]

My vote:  M1 Garand.  Outclassed all it's competition at the time.  If I *had* to choose a WW2 era rifle (from any country involved) to go into combat with it would be my #1 choice.  #2 being either a M1 carbine or Lee-Enfield of some sort.  

M-1, hands down. Everyone knows why. Everyone knows it's true. There will never be an American small arm that has as much impact and influence on the battlefield. In the near future, "smart bombs", microwave weapons and lasers will relegate the rifleman into a support role. The rifleman will be used to root out small pockets of resistance and used as occupation forces. The major battles will not be fought with infantry engagements. I'm not saying infantry will be obsolete. I'm saying they will not have nearly the influence on the battlefield that they once had. It doesn't take a military genius or tactician to see to see this coming. This will be the future of the American military doctrine. An already nearly unstoppable force will only become better and more devastating.

M1 Garand.

M1892 Krag-Jorgensen, chambered in the mighty .30-40 US Army cartridge.

M1 Garand, hands down.  If I were to enter WW2 I would pack one, if VN I'd want Charlie's AK, modern warfare i'd prefer a K2.  My father-in-law packed the 'big ugly club' during the big'un and swore by it.  At it too, heavy and a kicker, but accurate and reliable.  Ops

M1 Garand was the best mass production rifle for military use out there until the StG-44 came along.

The Rooskies did have a self-loader, the SVT, in approximately the same timeframe as the Garand, but it never worked as well.

The M-16 was innovative in its own way, a sort of second generation assault rifle. The first generation had big, slow bullets. The second generation when to small, fast bullets.

m-16 because you can put all kinds of cool stuff on it and you can carry more ammo. Dude's ran out of ammo fast with grand. Thats what my gramps said. He was in the big red 1 and fought on the beaches of normandy. m1 Too heavy.

1st M1 Garand
2nd M16

I just like the looks and history.  However they are really well made functional rifles and they were good for the "Greatest Generation".

The M1 will be my next rifle purchase....after I get my AK-47 and my Remington 700, and my Kimber TLE Custom II and my.......ho crap! I'm broke!

1st, the Good Ol' M-1
1st, the Good Ol' M-14
1st, the Good Ol' M-16

The M-1. It was shot and loved by all. It took the enemy down with gusto, and did it with class. It was simple, and would do anything the shooter wanted. It saved many a life during two major conflicts, and was a major factor in defeating a Nazi foe. It was carried by the troops on Normandy, it was beaten up by the Marines on Iwo Jima, and it won shooting matches with more class than any other rifle there is - that's including the M-14... The M-1 will not be forgotten, and will hold a rightful place in the minds and hands of shooter everywhere.

The M-14 was the last great battle rifle. It was a true machine made of walnut and steel, made for war. It kicked the shit out of the AK-47, was just as reliable than the M-1, more powerful than the SKS, and shot on the known distance ranges at Camp Perry and Parris Island finer than any other rifle. As someone said, a buttstroke from this gun would take your head off. Sure, it was a kicker, but the enemy in front of that barrel died without question. Failures were non-existent. It was the last gun to exude a suttle message that said, 'Don't mess with me'.

The M-16 signaled the new wave of rifles in this era of warfare. It is more accurate than the M-14 was, caused more damage than the average 7.62X39, was simple to clean, and it worked. Not without teething problems to begin with, but once solved, it became the benckmark for assault rifles now and in the future. It is light, low recoiling, but powerful, and has saved many a soldier. It is more customizable than any other gun I know of, and it just feels right in the hand - it is a natural shooter.

They are all good, well built, accurate, and reliable rifle built in the USA. Being forced to choose between any of those is like being forced to choose between a Lotus Esprit, a BMW M3, or another car of equal prestige.

On the other hand, all that was too damn poetic...

Bah, humbug.  Sour grapes.  No rifle is perfect.  Yes, the M1 would ice up, for example.  The GIs would piss on it to thaw it out and keep on shooting.

It was, as Patton noted, the greatest battle implement ever devised.

Garand yes

But while not really rifles the M1919A4 and Browning M2 (still in use...)

Ah, yes, the Ma-Deuce.... One helluva machine... Last time I heard it was when a Corsair pilot was putting on a flight demo, lighting off those 6 .50 cals firing blanks. DAMN it shook your soul... I can now understand why the Japanese soldier in WWII had a fear of that distinct sound as it blazed across the Pacific...

I dunno. The German K-43 was easier to manufactuer, and it had other advantages, like a detachable mag, built in scope mount, etc. I am inclined to think that it was the most advanced semi-auto rifle of the "Garand time frame". The Germans just didn't make anywhere enough of them, that's all. Of course, the K-43's gas system was based upon the Russian designs, which were good but not rugged enough to best the Garand.

If we include assault rifles in our discussion, the German MP-43 was probably the best of all time. It was the most advanced infantry rifle of its time: the "Garand time frame".

Restricting ourselves to American rifles, I'd have to say that the Spencer was probably the best relative to other rifles of the day.

Prior to the Spencer, the Hall breach loader of the Mexican-American War was certainly the most advanced rifle intended for standard issue, but it had its gas "issues" and never replace that other fine rifle, the "Mississippi" (model of 1841).

Of the American rifles listed at the top of the thread, I'd go with the M-16 or Garand. The Garand was probably the best prior to the K-43, and the Garand was adopted in '36.

IMO the K-43 was good rifle at best and was never made in the numbers to have a significant impact.

MP-43… No way. It was way to heavy and fragile, don’t get me wrong it was a revolutionary design but had problems.

Nope, the Mexican Mondragon in 7x57 beat it by twenty years or so.
Was the Garand the first general issue, sure.  The best?  
ABSOLUTELY!

Obsolete before it was ever issued.

And another thing;
Everyone complains about the "tactical reload" of the M1, but doesn't the same apply to any detachable box magazine fed weapon?

Larry

M1 was the classic example of a quantum change in the state of the art.  Head and shoulders above the competition at the time.  Did other self loaders come along that were better?  yeah, but at the time it was the best.  Which is the answer to the question asked.  Another thing is it used the existing round, a lot of other rifles coming out at about the same time introduced a new cartridge and for countries struggling to get out of the depression re-tooling for new weapons and new ammo was too expensive to do when there were more important things to buy.

Answer to the above - Not to flame you, but the M1 didn't have a detachable box magazine.  It fed with a clip of 8 rounds from the top, and when 8 were gone the clip flew out with a distinctive clang (one of it's faults)  But that clip was designed to work with a very positive feeding mechanism.  Box magazines at the time and still are (reference the magazine section of this board) pretty sensitive to failure if things aint just  right. The major fault of the rifle was the inability to top off.

The SMLE was saved by WWI, the Brits were going to replace it with the pattern 14 but the war started and they couldn't afford to go on with the replacement  program.  After the war it didn't make financial sense to change.  It was robust but wasn't ever really state of the art.  

The bolt guns were an evolving process, I don't think any were a big stand out winner like the Garand.  The Springfields were an evolved Mauser and were a great action and suited to the American practice of using a rifle as a long range killing machine.  The Brits and most other armies still looked at the rifle as a relatively short range weapon and bayonet holder combined.  

Hows this for a world class team - the M1 and the Johnson LMG as a replacement for the BAR (it didn't arrive in time to go into quantity production) and then the MG-43  in 30-06?  Aberdeen made a few but they beat themselves to death, and the project was shelved.  After the war it was determined that the bolt dimensions were incorrectly modified and machined, had the math been right the M-60 equivalent might have been introduced in 1944.

The 1861 Springfield was the end of an evolutionary chain.  Good gun but obsolete.    Had  bureacratic obtusity been overcome by foresight the Union forces might have had repeaters and/or cartridge breachloaders coming out of Springfield shortly after the war started.  Once it started economics of change and need to roll as many as fast as possible eliminated the possibility of a Garand quantum change coming out.

I agree about the numbers/impact, but the K-43 was clearly more advanced than the Garand in many ways, and not substantially inferior in any.



It was heavy, but I haven't heard of it being fragile. Certainly it was quite popular on the Eastern Front, where equipment was used [b]hard[/b]. It did have some reliability problems due to poor quality manufacturing due to the use of slave labor. But that isn't the weapon's fault.

The K-43 was in no way more advanced Garand and was inferior to it.

Firstly the K-43 was a redesigned G-41/AKA Soviet Svt38/40. Problems were encountered with gas system, which despite repeated changes were never solved. The 10 round magazine was not used as a detachable magazine but used like the Enfield and reloaded with stripper clips so was actually a disadvantage because it took 2 stripper clips to fully load it. I have heard repeatedly this rifle did not fare that well in combat.




Exactlly. The rifle had reliability problems for whatever reason… that is part of the process if you cannot produce a reliable rifle with the available resources you have a problem with the rifle.

The MP-43/StGw 44 was almost impossible to fire prone and sustained fire was difficult because the metal hand guard got so hot the firer could not hold it and had to hold the magazine, which did not help accuracy. The butt was very fragile and easily broken. The excess weight (12 lbs rifle loaded and 2 lbs per loaded magazine) is a very important factor in rifle that to be effective the user need to carry copious amounts of ammo.

It was a revolutionary design that had very little impact in its day it was more of a prototype than a ready for field use weapon. I am sure give a couple of years the Germans would have worked out the bugs… but they did not have a couple of years so Kalashnikov worked out the bugs.

I'm no expert, but I would think the M1A would be the best.

Larger capacity than the Garand, bigger round than the M-16, reasonably accurate under combat conditions (based on all I've heard).

Heavy, but them's the breaks, I guess.

Edited: I did some net research, and it does seem that you are correct, in that the K-43 never eliminated some serious reliability issues, and was clearly inferior to the Garand.

That said, the design for manufacture, integrated scope mount, and detachable magazine were features of the K-43 that were superior to the Garand, but as an overall weapon the Garand was superior.

All good candidates in a temporal sense...but without doubt the M1 heads the list...and I think the M16 is number two.

In WWII no nation in the world had anything that came close to the Garand.  [soapbox]