testtest

Did America Not Need the Garand?

RNorwood

Alpha
Some very fine points made and interesting however, one does not arm down to the level of their enemy therefore the scarcity of automatic combat rifles by the Germans or Japanese really means little. When they came up against U.S. soldiers in situations where they outnumbered U.S. troops they more often than not got pasted. '03 is a wonderful weapon and can still hold it's own - at distance. One of my criticisms and this holds for the K98 is the 5 round limit. Five rounds, who thought that up? I know the answer - cheap old fogies who didn't want troops using too much ammo. We've always had a hard time with the ammo question which answers why M-16s came out with 20 round mags initally and not 30. Enfields could pack 10, pretty nice in a shootout. As a matter of fact back on the Mail Call show with R. Lee he went toe to toe with an Enfield. The Enfield won because it hit a lot more targets in the time allotted. That said anyone who's ever fired and Enfield has to wonder how or why the Brits dragged that chunk of steel around for so long. So, again that said, I'd probably go with the '03.
The '03 saw extensive service with the Marines which to me is unfortunate whether or not the Japanese rifles were equal or sub par. They faced an enemy that certainly every time was going to fight to the death. I think they deserved better. As for the grenade launcher issue - sling along an '03 for the purpose and give your "grenadier" an M1 carbine as consolation. Fire power is always a key. Having an 8 round semi auto battle rifle back in the day and even today, sorry, there's no question despite the realities of what was.
 

10mmLife

Professional
Founding Member
Some very fine points made and interesting however, one does not arm down to the level of their enemy therefore the scarcity of automatic combat rifles by the Germans or Japanese really means little. When they came up against U.S. soldiers in situations where they outnumbered U.S. troops they more often than not got pasted. '03 is a wonderful weapon and can still hold it's own - at distance. One of my criticisms and this holds for the K98 is the 5 round limit. Five rounds, who thought that up? I know the answer - cheap old fogies who didn't want troops using too much ammo. We've always had a hard time with the ammo question which answers why M-16s came out with 20 round mags initally and not 30. Enfields could pack 10, pretty nice in a shootout. As a matter of fact back on the Mail Call show with R. Lee he went toe to toe with an Enfield. The Enfield won because it hit a lot more targets in the time allotted. That said anyone who's ever fired and Enfield has to wonder how or why the Brits dragged that chunk of steel around for so long. So, again that said, I'd probably go with the '03.
The '03 saw extensive service with the Marines which to me is unfortunate whether or not the Japanese rifles were equal or sub par. They faced an enemy that certainly every time was going to fight to the death. I think they deserved better. As for the grenade launcher issue - sling along an '03 for the purpose and give your "grenadier" an M1 carbine as consolation. Fire power is always a key. Having an 8 round semi auto battle rifle back in the day and even today, sorry, there's no question despite the realities of what was.
Great points and welcome to the forum!
 

HansGruber

Professional
Some very fine points made and interesting however, one does not arm down to the level of their enemy therefore the scarcity of automatic combat rifles by the Germans or Japanese really means little. When they came up against U.S. soldiers in situations where they outnumbered U.S. troops they more often than not got pasted. '03 is a wonderful weapon and can still hold it's own - at distance. One of my criticisms and this holds for the K98 is the 5 round limit. Five rounds, who thought that up? I know the answer - cheap old fogies who didn't want troops using too much ammo. We've always had a hard time with the ammo question which answers why M-16s came out with 20 round mags initally and not 30. Enfields could pack 10, pretty nice in a shootout. As a matter of fact back on the Mail Call show with R. Lee he went toe to toe with an Enfield. The Enfield won because it hit a lot more targets in the time allotted. That said anyone who's ever fired and Enfield has to wonder how or why the Brits dragged that chunk of steel around for so long. So, again that said, I'd probably go with the '03.
The '03 saw extensive service with the Marines which to me is unfortunate whether or not the Japanese rifles were equal or sub par. They faced an enemy that certainly every time was going to fight to the death. I think they deserved better. As for the grenade launcher issue - sling along an '03 for the purpose and give your "grenadier" an M1 carbine as consolation. Fire power is always a key. Having an 8 round semi auto battle rifle back in the day and even today, sorry, there's no question despite the realities of what was.
A friend's grandfather served with the Marines in the Pacific in WW2, and said that they PREFERRED the Springfield to the Garand; it was much more reliable in mud, wet, and sand...to the point that he turned down a Garand to keep his 03.

Having “firepower” that doesn’t function doesn’t do you much good.
 

KillerFord1977

Professional
Founding Member
Its all individual ability.
Any device in the hands of someone who is inept or less than capable will not function as well as the device is designed. If its a frying pan or a rifle, some can make it sizzle to perfection and some cannot.

lots of folks can make a pump shotgun or bolt rifle as quick or quicker than a similar semi auto and more accurate
 
Top