What Was the Best WW2 Rifle Cartridge?

[CountryGent]

Interesting question posed on Forgotten Weapons:

What say you and why? Enjoy.

Read More

 

[red442joe]

Ours!
Back-to-Back World War winners, right here baby!

Joe

 

[Aero Denezol]

Using handloaded sniper ammo from a bolt-action rifle, I would take the 8mm Mauser.

IMO the .303 is soft shooting and pleasant, but Ian makes a good point about rimmed/vs rimless, rim lock and all of that.. That could be a problem reloading in a firefight.

Every country would have been better off with Garands & M2 Ball. That's my vote.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

.30-06 M2 Ball...would be my vote.
Since results matter...why is this even a question...?
Andy

 

[TTSX]

Without watching the video, I'd ask what are the qualifiers for best? How many were killed with it? Maximum effective range? Ease of production? Many, many things can affect how "good" a given cartridge is, some of which are the person behind the rifle and I would wager an excellent rifleman with a poor cartridge would outshoot a poor rifleman with an excellent cartridge

 

[tac]

Any ALLIED country with the Garand and suitable ammunition would have been better off.

 

[Cavedweller]

The 7.92X33 Kurz cartridge. It was a revolutionary concept that pioneered a whole new class of weapons, combining high rate of fire with greater range and lethality than submachine guns firing pistol cartridges.

 

[nehalemguy]

.50 BMG

Used by every service and saw use in everything from aircraft to ships to tanks......and is still used today.

I realize that it falls outside the boundaries of the question to Ian (and it's not a rifle cartridge in WW2), but that's what I'm going with.

-E-

 

[DirectDrive]

30-06 and 8mm Mauser were tied until...
the M1 Garand tie-breaker was factored in.

 

[Stomper]

Without watching the video, I'd ask what are the qualifiers for best? How many were killed with it? Maximum effective range? Ease of production? Many, many things can affect how "good" a given cartridge is, some of which are the person behind the rifle and I would wager an excellent rifleman with a poor cartridge would outshoot a poor rifleman with an excellent cartridge

Yay…. way to commit.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I think the best ones to answer this Q would be the guys on the front lines of WWII.

I don't know, but based on the stories I've heard I doubt many of them would be choosing the best round based on what was the least powerful, which was the criteria Ian used in the video twice.

I don't know much about it but the stories I've heard from vets was the Garand was a show stopper for the enemy troops. M1 carbine not so much. It gave them less confidence of a kill when they hit the enemy.

 

[DirectDrive]

I think the best ones to answer this Q would be the guys on the front lines of WWII.

I don't know, but based on the stories I've heard I doubt many of them would be choosing the best round based on what was the least powerful, which was the criteria Ian used on the video twice.

I don't know much about it but the stories I've heard from vets was the Garand was a show stopper for the enemy troops. M1 carbine not so much. It gave them less confidence of a kill when they hit the enemy.

30-06 M1 Garand wins this

 

[153D]

30-06 M1 Garand wins this

General George Patton described it as "the greatest battle implement ever devised."

 

[CountryGent]

I might be a little off-beat on this one, but I think it is a toss up between the .30 Carbine and 7.92x33㎜ Kurz. The future was intermediate cartridges and both are, more or less, in that zone, albeit in different forms. Not that most of the rest aren't serviceable if not venerable, because they are. (It is interesting about the 6.5-ish cartridges considering recent small arms development. Nothing new under the sun or something like that.)

 

[Xaevian]

JFK votes anything but 6.5x52.

 

[ma96782]

I think that perhaps......the doctrine.......of how an infantry squad fights should also be considered.

I mean like: how close are you willing to have your enemy come? Before they even start to give it a second thought, about attacking your position through an open field. And of course, vis versa when you are attacking.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Wombat of Doom]

I might be a little off-beat on this one, but I think it is a toss up between the .30 Carbine and 7.92x33㎜ Kurz. The future was intermediate cartridges and both are, more or less, in that zone, albeit in different forms. Not that most of the rest aren't serviceable if not venerable, because they are. (It is interesting about the 6.5-ish cartridges considering recent small arms development. Nothing new under the sun or something like that.)

I wondered the same thing, given the rise of intermediate cartridges. 7.62x39, 5.56 all came to the top of the heap. 30 carbine and even 7.62x25 helped bridge that.

 

[Dr Prepper]

Interesting question posed on Forgotten Weapons:

What say you and why? Enjoy.

Idk.. But now that FBI has clarified what a terrorist is suddenly I don't feel comfortable watching this "terrorists" video.

Kind of a meandering reasoning he gives. On in hand he states its for infantrymen, then he demoted one cartridge for it not being well suited for machine guns... Then kinda proceeds to talk about what ifs and non standard chamberings.

Personally I think the 30-06 was probably the undisputed king.

I think in general the major underlying question here is: who had the most stringent quality control and standards throughout their ammo plant production? Regardless of what is what, who ever has the most consistent ammo probably stands a better chance. Having the best weapons doesn't hurt either.. I have no idea for sure but I'm betting the domestic stuff ranked pretty high on the consistency especially seeing how our plants were divorced from the immediate area of operations.

And I'd say those women probably did a pretty kick bubblegum job making sure their boys got back home. Women are pretty good at attention to detail stuff. (Usually)

 

[rjmt]

7.62x54R is still in military use today and used by both sides in the '39 Winter War

 

[ma96782]

Post #19


Nah....rimmed cartridges don't cut it for me.

Why?

They need to be stacked correctly in a magazine (and/or stripper). Yup, even without the "pressure" of a battle. I still manage to get occasional jams while using my MN.
They aren't exactly easy to strip off a stripper, into your rifle (example : MN vs Mauser).

BUT, But, but....(for the rimmed cartridge) extraction, material costs and maybe manufacturing tolerances might have/be a slight plus going for them.

Whatever.

Aloha, Mark

PS.....yes....assuming that steel costs cheaper than brass. And that the dies used to make the cartridges can be roughly the same cost. Not to mention, the design/taper involved in the making of the case body.