Yay…. way to commit.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
30-06 M1 Garand wins thisI 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.
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.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.)
Idk.. But now that FBI has clarified what a terrorist is suddenly I don't feel comfortable watching this "terrorists" video.Interesting question posed on Forgotten Weapons:
What say you and why? Enjoy.