Dude you are a little too biased about your English gun.

"I do believe that the even the Garand and Mauser types are superior to the M-16 and its derivatives. The Garand and Mauser were also fine examples of the type but were not as reliable or durable and when considering the overall qualities were not as good in their design when compared to the Lee Enfield. The Garand was a semi-automatic model and as such had reliability problems as all semi-automatics do. The British had the Bren and Germans had their MG42s to keep their opponents heads down. The Masuer was more capable in terms of accuracy than the M1 but had only a 5 cartridge magazine and an inferior bolt action when compared to the Lee Enfield. The achievable rate of accurate fire for the Enfield would have been better than the Mauser but not as great as the M1 when it was working. But all being said these differences would be negliable compared to the differences in the skill of any individual aiming and firing the different rifles."


All three rifles shoot a .30 cal round so the balistics are similar. The Enfield was probably the best rifle in WWI but the Garand is by far the best WWII rifle issued.
The Mauser is a great rifle better suited to hunting. The Garand had very little reliability issues; where did you get your info?
The worst thing about the Garand was the classic "ping" as it ejected the empty clip and "Garand Thumb" which only happened to most GIs only once.

Yes bolt actions are more reliable than semis in fact the Mauser action is considered the best bolt action ever made and is now copied by more manufacturers of hunting rifles.

The M1 Garand was one of the reasons the Allies won WWII.

The Enfield is a worthy rifle but I would take a Mauser or a M1 Garand over one anyday.

I have no doubt that Apaches have been lost to hostile fire, just not from a local farmer armed with a .303. I imagine it was brought down with heavier weapons and the farmer then posed for a few "hero" shots for that nights Al Jazeera broadcast.



That is just flat out wrong. The M1 was far more reliable than any contemporary self loader. It was reliable enough to be standard issue--the only WWII semi-auto to achieve that distinction. It fired the 30.06 cartridge as well, which IMO holds a slight but noticeable ballistic edge over 8MM and .303. As far as bolt-actions go you are right, the Enfield does have the reputation of being the fastest. And I share your dislike of the 5.56 Nato, at least as a battle cartridge.

Just as an aside, I notice that you apparently labor under the delusion that anything and everything made in America must necessarily be inferior to its European, particularly British, counterpart. That's why you seem to come off as something of a Eurosnob, particularly when your posts then descend into mini anti-American rants. You might keep this in mind if you want to avoid being labeled a troll.

I have not been able to find the context of the quote. Yes your point is valid it may be in context to the US's industrial and military abilities. But he never wanted to fight the US in the first place so in many ways he could have meant both concepts.

I am sure that if the US had ever been or is ever invaded the forces WILL have to worry about the armed citzens. Armed citizens have been the heart of many a revolution or resistance in our worlds history.

Re Norad:



I guess this quote needs to be qualified. Although I said that the Garand and Mauser where fine examples of the type together with the Enfield, the Garand is a gas operated semi-automatic. By definition any gas operated weapon is more complex, is heavier (due to more parts complexity) and subject to reliability issues because of the ingress of dirt and mud and even different temperature and humidities the weapon is used in. Even the venerable British Bren Gun had reliability issues because it was gas operated even though it was regarded by some as the most reliable light machine gun during WWII. I know this only to well as I have also used an SLR L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle also many years ago. Throw a bolt action rifle (Masuer or Enfield) into a muddy pool of stagnant water or push the muzzle end deep into some wet sand and it will take only a few seconds to get it to work again. Remove the bolt and magazine, take out the pull through from the Butt and pull through the barrel then replace the bolt and magazine and your done. The Garrand was a fine example of a gas operated medium calibre rifle, it was heavier, it was unable to be reloaded until the last cartridge was ejected, it held 2 rounds less than the Enfield, the rifles centre of balance I suspect was not as 'natural' as the Enfield or Mauser therefore being a bit more difficult in its handling. The garrand would probably be comparable to the SLR in terms of its ability and functionality although I suspect a bit more reliable than the SLR because it had fewer parts to go wrong. The real question was; is the Garrand, Mauser or Enfield more lethal than the M16 or L85A2 with its smaller 5.56 cartridge in the right hands. I suspect that they all are.

He'd weep for humanity, as do I.

Well.... If a UFO crashes in my front yard, and someone takes a picture of me with sidearm in hand as I investigate, would you think that I shot it down? I'd sure hope not, but there are fools born every day.

As far as the reliability of the Grand goes, yeah, your mouth is open and your ignorance is showing. My Garand was my grandfather's before me, and between the two of us we've probably put close to 20K rounds through it. While the accuracy might not be quite what it was becuase of wear on the barrel, he told me it has never jammed for him, and never has for me in the twenty years I've been shooting it.

Actually, military arms are intended to wound rather than kill, on the grounds that an injured man takes several more out of action and frightens even more. A dead guy needs nothing and just pisses his buddies off.

A guns effectivness has many variables. Rate and volume of fire made the M1 Garand superior to its contemporaries. The M16 / AR-15 is a very reliable, field serviceable rifle that has a high rate and volume of fire and is more accurate than many of its contemporaries.
The 5.56 NATO might not have the puch of a .30 cal round but you can carry many many more rounds. So in a fire fight the gunners shooting larger calibers run out of ammo sooner.
5.56 in not perfect but if it sucked so bad do you think the US military would keep using it?

If you believe websites, then he also said:

“In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.”

I'm more inclined to interpret his statement as a testiment to our industrial capability. Of course, without the context of his argument, it's kind of pointless to debate, IMHO.

A well armed citizenry is an extremely effective deterrent to an invading force. It's one thing to fight an air/sea war and attempt to bring your enemy to the point of surrender which is what Japan tried with Pearl Harbor. But it is totally different to be an invading force with the intent of occupying foreign territory.

History has shown the effectiveness of armed citizens against an occupying force many times. The most recent example is still going on today in Iraq. The war may have started out with the US fighting the Iraq army until they surrendered but who are we fighting now? Who is responsible for killing hundreds and thousands of our soldiers in Iraq over the past several years? Not the "organized, effective military" of Iraq but very small groups of armed citizens/insurgents that are conducting very effective guerilla warfare against the military trying to occupy their land. And how effective are these armed citizens? Well right now they have the elected politicians of the most powerful country in the world on the verge of voting to turn tail and run from them.

So is the US armed population a deterrent to an invading army? Absolutely! Imagine a foreign army invading my state of Alabama...sure the citizens alone could not stop a well equipped army but once they had won the initial battle and moved in to occupy the state the armed citizens that were left could and would wage a guerilla war against the occupiers that would lead them to reconsider if it is worth it just as the US is doing now in Iraq.

Vietnam is another example of the effectiveness of armed citizens and look at the result of Russia invading Afganistan. Armed citizens have routinely changed the course of war long after their organized, effective military has failed them.

A military leader that would fail to take into account the armed domestic population of a territory that he/she intended to invade would be making a catastrophic mistake.