Lord, the .45? Give me a Beretta 9mm any day. Carries more rounds, easier to fire and more accurate. Best SA of WW II-- M-1 Garand and the Browning .50. True killers

Stg. 44
MG 34/42
M1 Garand
Lee Enfield

About rifles I both shoot with the M1 garand and the Enfield (those stayed in service with the Italian Army until mid 80s for limited tasks) and I was impressed by their design and accuracy.
In the sub-macine guns category I agree with Folgore: Beretta Mod. 38 was great and widely appreciated by Allied and Germans.
For what concerns macine guns I'd say the Browning 0.50 and the MG 42. Both of them are still in service today, the first unmodified, the second with a lot of improvements (it's now called MG 42/59).
My overall preference goes to the .50 Browning a weapon that also nowdays can make the difference (I saw it in actions in these days in Iraq and they're really impressive). I remember that when I used to shoot with it, I had a feeling of power that is really hard to say. I have also to say that from .51 onwards weapons are classified as guns...
Ciao

I think I'd run with the Stg.44 as well, purely for the fact that this weapon was probaly inspirational in the design of just about every other post war assault rifle until the venerable M16.
From an Australian point of view the Lee Enfield SMLE and the Bren gun are certainly worth a mention.

I'd like to hear more about the Bren gun. Did you ever fire it?
thanks
DJ

I am leaning tword the MG-42. It was a great gun, with excellant rate of fire. Although it had a massive appitite for ammo.

~Chip :-)

I would have to lean towards the .50 ( basically unchanged since it's inception) ,the mg 42, (still used in the form of the G 3) and the STGWR 44 which spawned the modern AK .

I love the M1 carbine. A pleasure to shoot. Fast light and great fun. Not the best after about 70 yards but oh well.

Don't you think it would have been a more effective weapon if the rate of fire was slowed a bit? Wouldn't this kill any accuracy?

Certainly modern versions of this don't ahve such a fast rate?

Steve

[

I'd like to hear more about the Bren gun. Did you ever fire it?
thanks
DJ[/quote]

The Bren Gun was used until the mid eighties by the Army Reserve. It was known as the L4 and was rechambered for 7.62. Unfortunately this was a bit before my time so I never got to fire it.

Gotta be the MG42. Used everywhere by the Germans, adopted with small variations by many countries post-war.

the bren gun in its original 303 and later 7.62 forms would be my bet as the best mg if it wasnt for the small mags, it was accurate,light,reliable,powerful(303).but the .50 m2 has to be the best mg ever made because the design has hardly changed and it will still be around in a hundred years time!

having shot both the garand and the lee enfield no4, my personal choice would be the enfield, the garand is a superb weapon, but the enfield is more acurate, better balanced,more powerful ( if theres any man who could still stand after taking a 303 round i want to see it ). but then again ive never used it in combat and i have to say i like the rate of fire of the garand!

Rifle: Garand for robustness & reliability

Pistol: Colt .45 for sheer stopping power. Was the .45 really made to stop raging moslems in the southern Philippines?

Machinegun: MG-42 for merciless killing power & a violent firing rate. Who cares about ammo appetite? when did I hear that the Germans saved bullets for machineguns??!!

very ingenius gun: MP-44/Stg. 44. Wasn't simply the 1st assault rifle but marked the start for a new breed of guns we know today.

It's a bit off topic but............... I'm questioning the practicality of the M143 Minigun. The Avenger Cannon & the Phallanx(correct my spelling) were quite practical for their purposes but the Minigun ????????? (Its firing rate is too much I think)

Enfield rifle in .303 - a rifle round that'll kill at over a mile from a rifle that's accurate to 1000yards with it's built-in sights and a rate of fire that made the enemy in WW1 think our troops had more mgs - why let the other guy get close enough for a 5.56 to reach him.
The Bren for the same reasons in an LMG
Browning .50 for an HMG
Colt .45 for a handgun
I'd never choose an smg if I had to hit anything over 50yds away - unless I counted on hitting it by accident!
Yes - I have fired them all, but not in combat. The Enfield I've shot at Bisley with standard sights!

A lot of folks often state the idea that the Ak is a spawn of the Stg-44. There might be a case for this if you are talking theory (small, compact, intermediate round, box-mag fed rifle) but thats where it ends. M.T.Kalashnikov had his AK idea worked out in 1943 while in the hospital, largely inspired by the Germans weapons he had encountered, but mechanically the two are entirely different. The AK is fairly original, though the "assault rifle" concept was not.

Likewise, the StG-44 did spawn a range of rifles still in use today. After WWII the Mauser team had no work in Gerany for obvious reason. They took their roller-lock bolt idea (the innovation of the late war german assault rifles) to Spain, and the idea was refined into the CETME line of rifles. The most noteworthy CETME rifle was the Modelo C, because it was later produced under license in post war Germany by H&K as Germany's main battle rifle and given the designation "G-3". This G3 rifle is still in service today. Once HK gained license production from Spain, they took the design further and the most know variant today is the HK MP-5 submachine gun. Look at the MP-5 receiver- it is visually nearly identical to its brother the HK G3, its father the CETME C and its grandfather the STG-44.

The AK on the other hand has remained unchanged mechanically since 1947, and only minor differences are present- milled or stamped receivers, cosmetic differences like slanted or straight gas blocks, variations in stocks and brakes, etc. But inside the receiver the AK is pretty much the same as it was when it was first designed. Perhaps the only true derivative of the Kalashnikov that is significantly different is the Krinkov (still designated as an AK) and maybe some of the lesser known heavy marksman rifles like Romania's PSL in 7.62x54r and Yugoslavia's M-76 in 8mm Mauser. Interestingly, you can get a Romanian PSL in ICM's Mujahadeen set. Its supposed to be a Dragunov but whoever made the master made the same mistake so many do and assumed the PSL was a Dragunov which it ain't, not even remotely.

As for the best weapon of WWII, that is such a highly subjective question. I might have to say the Garand as well, even though its ammo was overly heavy for the manner in which it was employed. 30-06 was like 8mm Mauser and the Russian 7.62x54 a relic of WWI, and heavier than necessary in mechanized, mobile warfare. It didn't lack for power when it was needed though, better to be too much than too little.

I am partial to utilitarian designs and really, truly lobe the Russian Mosin Nagants. There are 27 parts in the whole rifle and they shoot as good as any other WWII era bolt action rifle, just not as smooth an action. I have a nice K-98 and don't really like the Mausers too much, they are one of the greats though, a fine rifle.

I was going to say the M-2 as well, Anything still in service today has earned a right to be a legend, but I don't know if it was influential over the decades to come like the Mauser. Ironically the Springfield 1903 is little mor than a Mauser action rifle.

I'll say Garand because it was a legend, even in its own day.

In the sidearm category: The M1911A1 .45 ACP is tops.

For SMG's it's a toss-up between the venerable M1 Thompson (Tommy Gun), the MP40 (Schmeisser) and the PPSH 41. The last 2 rocks with their high rate of fire.

In the rifle, the M1 Garand. Talk about rapid-fire by WW2 standards. Pity it's not reloadable (you gotta shoot off the entire clip).

I also agree on the MP44 as the granddaddy of assault rifles. It packs more firepower than a BAR.

Indeed it is.

MP-44 has more firepower than a BAR?!?! Huh?

Sorry to disagree with you friend but the MP-44 is chambered for 7.92 x 33mm, barely even the size of an AK round, which is, by design, an intermediate powered cartridge barely effective past 200-300 meters. The BAR is 7.62x63, otherwise known as 30-06, and is effective out past 800 meters. The BAR fires a full sized battle rifle round, assault rifles fire smaller, less potent rounds. Even the AK, in 7.62x39, is more potent than the old MP-44. Not nockin' the MP, it is definitely a highlight in small arms design, but isn't packing more firepower than a BAR, or even a Mauser for that matter. Its just got a higher rate of fire and a larger magazine. But if you can see the dude with the MP-44 800 meters out, and he's got an MP-44, guess who wins? BAR.

A lot of folks get confused by the naming conventions of ammo, hearing "7.62mm" they generally assume it is some single cartridge, But 7.62 is the diameter of the bullet only, and is also refered to as .30 caliber. Likewise, a 30 caliber 1919 Machine gun is not the same as a 30 caliber M-60 or a 30 caliber carbine. Why? Case length determines the power or the round. Old fashioned "30 caliber" as seen in a Garand or 1919 is the 30-06, or 7.62x63mm, the 63 being the lenth of the casing. 30 caliber in an M-60 is 7.62x51Nato, which is known in the English system as .308. An AK, and an MP-44, and a world of other weapons, are also "30 caliber", but the AK is 7.62x39, the MP-44 is 7.62x33, the SVD Dragunov sniper rifle is 7.62x54r and the Tokarev pistol is 7.62x25mm. All are the same or very similar enough to be called 30 caliber weapons, but they all are vastly different in performance. Its the same as saying a .45 caliber round has more firepower than a .30 caliber round, when obiously there needs to be more info to make the judgement.

An interesting note is that an M-16 or M4 carbine is 5.56x45mm, in english it is a .22 caliber rifle. Interesting to look at it that way.

the pervious post is correct,

the stg44 had significantly less stopping power than the BAR or any of the other standard rifles. it was ineffective past about 500 yards.

bear in mind most standard rifles, enfield no4, garand etc were designed to fight WW1 tactics, so were designed to kill a man at a mile or more, assault rifles, by their very concept are short range weapons, and swap stopping power and range for compactness and rate of fire.

cheers

joe