I know modern guns are based off it, but you still need to explain why you thought it was good DURING WW2.
It had the highest rate of fire. It was easy to carry compare to other mg's. Most heavy mg were accurate and powerfull so we take that out.
Good points there. If only the person who started this caffuffle had said that.
Without a doubt, the best rifle in my mind is the M1 Garrand. Its a good, strong rifle.
just wondering, i heard thigns bout modern weapons being based off the MG42 and MP44. how bout the BAR and M1? no?
M 14 was based of the M1. Belgians made a BAR looking thing also.
Not many future weapons were based off it probably because designers wanted to start using clip-loading more instead of strip. I certainly, given the choice of weapon to improve on, would choose a clip loading one and improve the muzzle velocity and caliber etc.
RevenWow - this is getting to be one hell of an argument! Not a bad thing, mind. The M1C/D - mentioned earlier - what is that? Is it modern or WW2-era? The MP-40 a small arm? Why would the large majority of infintry carry it as a primary weapon for the Axis if it was a small arm? It was a powerful little mg but not as powerful or as fast as the Thompson.
I think you are slightly misguided as to the definition of small arm. I thought a small arm was basically any weapon that could be carried easily, anything short of a rocket launcher, heavy machine gun or flak cannon for example, but I am possibly mistaken. What does everyone else (someone with greater knowledge of guns) think?
That was from quite a while ago in the discussion. We have clarified a small arm was any normal hand-held weapon short of bazookas or something. What I was talking about was actually sidearms.
:uhm: Helps if you actually use the word sidearm instead of small arm then...