The M1 Garand was superior to any other rifle in service during WWII.

In this final round, I will propose that my opponent's attempts to unseat my arguments are flimsy at best and that he has made no significant, or verifiable arguments as to why the StG 44 should dethrone the M1 Garand as the superior WWII-era battle rifle.So where are we as we move into this final round of debate? It seems to me that the following is the case: - My opponent has conceded that while the M1 Garand is more accurate, the StG 44 is "accurate enough". - My opponent has conceded that while the M1 Garand fires a more damaging round, the StG 44 is "powerful enough". - My opponent has conceded that while the M1 Garand is the more durable rifle, the StG 44 is "rugged enough".However, I would remind my opponent that we are not in a discussion about whether the StG was a "good enough" rifle... Our debate revolves around superiority defined as "most effective as a battle implement" and "able to be used in the widest variety of combat situations". Good enough just won't cut it.To dig more deeply into my opponent's rebuttals...ACCURACY:"While the StG 44 fired a lighter bullet out of a shorter barrel, it was still accurate enough to hit a man sized target out to 300 yards. With most battles falling between the 200 and 300 yard marks, a rifle accurate out to 800 yards offers no significant advantage to the realities it must face."While, in my personal experience, shooters do enjoy occasionally ringing that 1000 yard bell at the range, no claim was ever made that the M1 Garand was accurate out past 500 yards. However, if my opponent is suggesting that 800 yards is the upper limit of the M1 Garand's accuracy, I will not disagree. I will concede to my opponents claim that MOST battles fall between 200 and 300 yards. However, to hold the title of "superior battle rifle", a rifle must be usable in the widest variety of combat situations... not just most. I have stated in my previous arguments that the M1 Garand's aperture sighting system provides quicker, easier and more accurate target acquisition, at anywhere from 25 to 500 yards, than the StG 44's open sights.Yes, mechanically the M1 Garand and StG 44 may have been similar in accuracy at 200 to 300 yards. However, the M1 Garand's sighting system minimizes error on the part of the shooter and allows for greater accuracy in the widest variety of battle situations.POWER:"[7.92x33mm Kurz] rounds offered manslaying power out to the ranges they were expected to perform, 200-300 yards, and no more."I'm not sure there is a need to refute this claim. My opponent is clearly confirming that the StG 44 was simply "good enough", but not superior. However, I will continue.My opponent attempts to marginalize the value of the power and size of the 30-06 round with his argument. However, he ignores that fact that not every hit is equal. Yes, the StG 44 could kill a man during battle. However, especially due to it's inferior sights, it is very likely that a hit from the StG 44 will not always be in a critical area. With the greater size and punch of of the 30-06 round, it will do more damage and be more likely to kill an enemy combatant rather than simply wound.Additionally, my opponent ignores the reality that, in battle, enemy combatants will often take cover behind solid objects. The 30-06 round has the ability to punch through not only bodies, but also trees, walls and numerous other types of cover that would be found on a battlefield [1,2]. The 30-06 fired from an M1 Garand was not a round that you could easily hide from.RUGGEDNESS:"Weapons [prior to WWII] are unquestionably better suited to be used as clubs and spears, with quite literally swords mounted on the front. However, the technological leaps of the Second World War saw that these forms of combat diminish in the importance."While not as common as in the days of the Civil War, there are still numerous well-known accounts of situations where a soldier would need to make use of his bayonet. The Japanese were known for their "banzai charges" [3]. In December 1941, the 100th Infantry Battalion made a successful bayonet charge against German forces in Sicily [4]. In November of 1942, the 2nd Battalion of the New Hampshire Regiment was involved in three days of fierce close combat featuring several bayonet charges and counter-charges [5].Additionally, when considering the need for a rifle that is rugged enough to withstand the rigors of close-combat, let us take another look at the StG 44. The rate of fire from the StG 44 was conservatively 550 rounds per minute [6]. Ammunition was carried in two pouches, each containing three magazines of thirty rounds each with, perhaps, one additional magazine loaded into the rifle. This gives us a total of 210 rounds [7].To make a conservative estimate, let's calculate the rate of fire, along with a two second pause between each three-round burst, along with an estimated five seconds for each magazine change. That gives us complete depletion of a soldier's ammo in approximately four minutes using automatic fire. Not only did the StG 44 require specialized ammunition which was in short supply during the war [8], but it also ate through that ammunition at an amazing rate. This paints a bleak picture for battles that would often last hours, if not days. For a weapon that could find itself empty so quickly while an enemy is advancing, one would expect it to be prepared for use in close combat.In the Second World War, close combat was far from unheard of and is still a combat situation that needs to be considered when selecting the superior rifle. With the removal of the bayonet lug from the early prototypes[6] and its likelihood to bend and jam after any application of blunt force, this rifle is clearly not built to withstand these rigors.CONCLUSION:If we look back through this debate, what are we left with regarding my opponent's original arguments? What evidence has he provided to prove that the StG 44 is a superior rifle? I see many features that make the StG 44 a "good" rifle, but not enough to declare it the "superior" rifle.Once again, because of its increased ability to be be shot accurately, its devastating 30-06 round, its ability to withstand the rigors of close combat and its general ability to be adapted to any combat situation, I trust you will agree that the M1 Garand still stands as the superior rifle in service during World War II.-----------------------------------------------REFERENCES:[1] http://military.discovery.com...[2] http://www.theboxotruth.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.100thbattalion.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com...[8] http://www.wwiiguns.com...