Messages
2,869
Reactions
6,647
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.
 
Messages
4,277
Reactions
9,623
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
 

Stomper

Messages
33,192
Reactions
114,616
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. :rolleyes:







;):D
 

ilikegunspdx

Messages
5,502
Reactions
9,150
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.
 
Last Edited:

DirectDrive

Messages
7,776
Reactions
14,271
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
 
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.)
 

ma96782

Messages
11,772
Reactions
19,730
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
 
Last Edited:

Wombat of Doom

Messages
2,323
Reactions
4,374
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.
 
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)
 

ma96782

Messages
11,772
Reactions
19,730
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.
 
Last Edited:

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors August 2-Day Show
Hillsboro, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA
Rimfire Challenge
Canby, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top