Best Assault Rifle (Poll)


PDA






Nolo
July 19, 2007, 04:01 PM
I know that there already is a "Favorite Assault Rifle" poll, but I figured this one was different enough to warrant a new post. For starters, I'm giving you sixteen options (the maximum allowed), and I'm also asking everyone to post on the thread the reasons for their choice, along with suggestions for what would make their choice better. Consider new technologies (like balanced actions), features from other weapons (like quick change barrels) and other calibers, as well as anything else you can think of. I apologize if I did not include your first candidate for the best assault rifle, there was a limited amount of choices I could have, but I have tried to cover most of the bases with exemplaries from each category.

If you enjoyed reading about "Best Assault Rifle (Poll)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
UKarmourer
July 19, 2007, 04:50 PM
Thats the second time today someone has missed out a rifle currently in daily use on operations around the world
The L85A2

Trojan6
July 19, 2007, 04:54 PM
My decision was based on having carried four of your choices in combat. Each have advantages and disadvantages, but I like the M14 best due to the bullet and reliability. Every little insurgent I've seen shot with an M14 sat down right there. Not always the case with the others. I know shot placement is key, but it's not always that easy. The Steyr Aug was hands down the best in an urban environment, but I'll take the .308 all things considered. My .02

LH3

Guitargod1985
July 19, 2007, 05:00 PM
I selected tha AKM for variuos reasons.

-Lightweight (compared to the FAL, for instance)
-Ease of operation
-Ease of assembly/disassembly
-Reliability
-Requires little maintenance
-.30 caliber (not much of a fan of 5.56/.223, sorry)

And, frankly, it just looks cool.

Medusa
July 19, 2007, 05:02 PM
Tools I need for my trade:

#1 close to AR-10: Mk.11 Mod.0
#2 M14 in good stock (JAE-100 or VLTOR)

Gewehr98
July 19, 2007, 05:02 PM
The best assault rifle is the one used in an assault.

(I won't propogate a gun term coined by anti-gunners, myself) :scrutiny:

Medusa
July 19, 2007, 05:04 PM
Thats the second time today someone has missed out a rifle currently in daily use on operations around the world
The L85A2

Or FAMAS, which is pretty good rifle, after all, and get's used extensivly.

UKarmourer
July 19, 2007, 05:06 PM
FAMAS seems ok, never fired it myself so cant comment, fired a few on the list though, and i still love my SA80

[TASF]Maverick
July 19, 2007, 05:09 PM
If only the G11 project had been successful... :cool:

http://www.hkpro.com/g11.htm

bartsimpson123844
July 19, 2007, 05:12 PM
What is the difference between the SA80's and the L85's?

Correia
July 19, 2007, 05:14 PM
This is one of those fascinating polls, where 95% of the respondents will have only used maybe 5% of the guns.

For example, the people voting for the HK416. Why is it so great? Have you actually used one?

Nope, hardly anybody has. But by golly, HK's marketing department told us how AWESOME it is. So it must be true.

The G11? I'm a professional gun fanatic. I live this stuff. And even then I've met maybe three people in my life who've actually shot one.

If you aren't voting for a gun that you've used, you're basing your opinion on what is the best based on conjecture and other folk's opinions.

UKarmourer
July 19, 2007, 05:17 PM
Bart, sorry, my bad,

the L85 is the official designation for the rifle commonly known as the SA80, the L86 being the light support weapon (bipod and longer barrel)

I have personally used the FN FAL, the M16A2, the G3 and the AK-47 as well as my baby, all were fun and 7.62 does the business, but to live with and use in combat, gimme my green gun!

Don't Tread On Me
July 19, 2007, 05:23 PM
Which is the best color?


Which food tastes the best?

trbon8r
July 19, 2007, 05:34 PM
Thats the second time today someone has missed out a rifle currently in daily use on operations around the world
The L85A2

The problem with the L85 is that it suffered from a bad reputation early on. I've heard the problems were sorted out, but I don't have any experience with the rifle.

When a rifle suffers from considerable problems early on, it takes time to get over that. Look at the M16, it's been a solid, reliable piece of equipment for many years now and some folks still swear that it's junk.

Daemon688
July 19, 2007, 05:34 PM
How about a compairson between rifles that people can actually buy? Then again, topics like these have been debated over a million times on this board. These rifles are all ones I have physically seen, touched, and it seems that many people actually own and have fired these weapons.

AK all types
AR all types
FN FAL
HK 91
FN FS2000
Steyr AUG

Gordon
July 19, 2007, 05:41 PM
I used a G-3 extensively in the 80s and NEVER had a failure and it was very accurate also!

Chuck R.
July 19, 2007, 05:50 PM
Iíll go with what I know.

While I think my SA58 Para FAL is an awesome rifle, if it came right down to a situation where I needed a rifle bad, Iíd pick up my Colt 6920.

Chuck

Jorg Nysgerrig
July 19, 2007, 05:54 PM
If you aren't voting for a gun that you've used, you're basing your opinion on what is the best based on conjecture and other folk's opinions.
That shows what you know, Correia. It's no doubt based on video games. :)

Correia
July 19, 2007, 05:57 PM
Oh, thanks Jorg. In that case, I want an OICW. Because on Ghost Recon, I'm one bad mother with that thing. I also want an MG3, because I can shoot it from the shoulder quickly, even though it weighs 30+ pounds, and it is totally controllable at 1,200 RPM. :)

Eyesac
July 19, 2007, 06:18 PM
Well I've only ever shot:

AR
AK
M14

But I can form an educated opinion and go with AR can't I? Or is that bad?:neener:

cameron.personal
July 19, 2007, 07:52 PM
Either one would do the job....

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m198/2007cam/308and22301.jpg

but there is just something about the
SKULL HAMMERING AUTHORITY OF A .308

JWarren
July 19, 2007, 07:55 PM
The best assault rifle is one that you are most familiar with and is reliable.


-- John

sacp81170a
July 19, 2007, 08:27 PM
M-14, since your actual question was combat rifle. The reason it's my favorite is that it's reliable, I'm familiar with it, and it has the 7.62x51 doin' the talkin' for it. It's supremely accurate, rugged and qualifies as one of the best service rifles ever fielded. The reason I say that is that it is simply an extension of the Garand design, modified to eliminate the one and only questionable characterstic, the en bloc clip. Otherwise, it's essentially the same rifle with a NATO chambering.

If you'd asked what I'd want for an entry rifle, I'd have said the M-4. Would I turn down any of the others? No, but for serious use, I'll stay with the ones that feel like an extension of my own arms. Others will have their favorites based on the same reasoning; more power to them. It's differences of opinion that make things interesting. ;)

doubleg
July 19, 2007, 08:37 PM
For a general issue assault rifle the AR is unbeatable. Deadly accurate and extremely reliable when cleaned regularly, there really is not a better rifle available. Nine people with AR's can provide as much fire as 11 people with AK's correct?

Daemon688
July 19, 2007, 08:49 PM
extremely reliable when cleaned regularly

Haha.....I found that line funny. I hope it's reliable when clean! Although I own both a AR I love my AKs much more. But I should mention that I haven't experienced the problems people claim about dirty ARs jamming *shrugs*.

DMK
July 19, 2007, 08:53 PM
I voted for the FAL as the best combat rifle. I've shot an M14, own two FALs, numerous ARs and an AKM. If I was going in combat, I'd take the FAL. It's got stopping power, penetration power, good ergonomics, reliability, good range, and mine is a Para so it's compact. AK would be second choice.

However, I've never been in combat and I'm never going to be in military combat, so take that for what it's worth. My AR carbines are my primary go-to guns for civilian life. They are lighter, more accurate, and easier to shoot than the FALs or AK.

Nolo
July 19, 2007, 11:04 PM
I would like to clarify a couple of things in this post:
A.) This post is mostly for technology reasons, and has less to do with combat experience with a particular weapon (note that this poll is not "what is your favorite combat rifle", but "what combat rifle do you think is the best").
B.) The weapons are selected as representative of selected groups, hence why the L85 and FAMAS are not shown, because I believe that the AUG represents that category more than admirably. I know that there are some repetitions here, the FAL and G3A3 are very similar weapons in both ruggidity and weight (as well as the obvious, magazine capacity and caliber).
C.) I only included the M16/M4 for posterity, I personally hate the weapon. And, yes, I have shot one. And cleaned it. It's fine for hunting and plinking, where you go home at the end of the day and clean the crap outta the sucker, but I wouldn't want to be caught in a lockdown-firefight situation with one (better than nothing, though).
D.) As for the videogames thing, well, yes, in large part, my contact with these weapons is mostly limited to playing Call of Duty or 007: Nightfire, but I am not enough of an idiot to consider that true experience. By those games, I would consider the AK every time, because I'm a dead shot with it there. However, I have actually fired the AK (on semiauto), and I can tell you that it's accuracy is a little lackluster, to say the least.
E.) Not a one of you gave me input into what would make the rifles you chose better. This post was not designed to crown the best combat rifle in the world, it was designed to, hopefully, get some information out of people with experience about what they liked about these rifles, and what they thought could be improved. I am a designer of firearms above all else, and I wanted to know what you liked and what you didn't.
I would appreciate it if the 24 of you would repost with recommendations for improvements on the weapons you chose.
Thank you for your input.

Nolo
July 19, 2007, 11:05 PM
I would also like to mention that I wish that I had put the Kel-Tec RFB up as an option.

Deaf Smith
July 19, 2007, 11:16 PM
Best? Ain't no such animal. Now there are a few that would be considered top flight and among the best, but 'the' best? Nope.

Nolo
July 19, 2007, 11:17 PM
To Gewehr98: "Assault Rifle" was not coined by anti-gunners, it was actually coined by Hitler. "Sturmgewehr" in German roughly means "Assault Rifle". Your name implies that you should have known that. Nowadays, assault rifle merely means "a rifle of intermediate caliber, capable of controllable, fully-automatic fire". It has little to do with anti-gunners, they have merely hijacked the term.
To Correia: Yes, and it was created by someone who has fired only two weapons on the list, and only once each. The point of this poll is not to share combat experience, it is to think about what works and what does not. The HK 416 is a viable candidate because many, many people have fired the M16/M4, and it is effectively the same rifle with a gas piston. As for the G11, it is unfortunate that it was not adopted, because I would love to hear reports of its unique features in combat.
To sacp81170a: Yes, I am talking about a combat rifle. I already know what I'd want for an entry weapon, and that is a shotgun of my own design using the basic concept of the Atchisson AA-12 in the frame of a G3A3.

Nolo
July 19, 2007, 11:19 PM
I am searching for opinions, Deaf Smith, but I only want reasoning and constructive advice to address the flaws of the weapon. That is correct, there is no "best" assault rifle. It depends on what you are doing. However, people know what I want when I say 'best".

sacp81170a
July 19, 2007, 11:29 PM
To Correia: Yes, and it was created by someone who has fired only two weapons on the list, and only once each.

To sacp81170a: Yes, I am talking about a combat rifle. I already know what I'd want for an entry weapon, and that is a shotgun of my own design using the basic concept of the Atchisson AA-12 in the frame of a G3A3.

Fascinating. When was the last time you cleared a 7 story building? I did with my partner last Sunday morning about 3 am. Took us about an hour and a half. Sounds like you need to actually cobble together your design and spend some time lugging it up and down some stairs and around a few corners before you make any judgements about entry weapons. (Hint: Heavy - baaad. Light - goooood. Given that your round is effective at the range you expect to encounter, that is.)

Not a one of you gave me input into what would make the rifles you chose better. This post was not designed to crown the best combat rifle in the world, it was designed to, hopefully, get some information out of people with experience about what they liked about these rifles, and what they thought could be improved. I am a designer of firearms above all else, and I wanted to know what you liked and what you didn't.

You admit to having little to no real world experience, yet you question the judgement of those of us who do, and then want us to lay our pearls of wisdom at your feet. The kind of learning you're after can only be gained by sweat and effort. Go forth and do, young man. Then get back to us. ;)

Nolo
July 19, 2007, 11:43 PM
With all due respect, sacp81170a, I never said I hadn't born extreme loads for long distances. I have. I do not just sit at my computer all day and do nothing, I currently am on quite a bit because I happen to be recovering from two broken legs.
I know how much an Atchisson weighs, approximately 10 pounds unloaded. A G3A3 weighs a little under that. I would choose that weapon for its ability to dish out 12 gauge shells at responsive rates of fire accurately. I'm much more inclined to shotguns than rifles. It is a personal preference, sir. I never said I'd force anyone else to carry it.
I'm not questioning anyone's judgment, I'm looking for your experience. I'm seeking experienced counsel because I, at only sixteen years of age, cannot gain real combat experience with these weapons, so I was hoping to garner actual knowledge from those who have fought and bore these weapons on their backs. Unfortunately, I did not clarify that I sought not "what's the favorite?" but actual experienced advice.

GunTech
July 19, 2007, 11:53 PM
Most experts don't consider rifles like the FAL and M14 assault rifles. They are battle rifles, and are totally uncontrollable under full automatic fire. And assault rifle fires intermediate ammunition, not full power rifle ammunition.

GunNut
July 19, 2007, 11:55 PM
I voted AUG just because it has been the one I have wanted the longest.

But I would take any of them, given enough ammo and time to get comfortable with the gun.

Steve

Nolo
July 19, 2007, 11:57 PM
GunTech: I know, that's why I changed the name from "Best Assault Rifle" to "Best Combat Rifle". Unfortunately, I forgot to change it on the title.

GunTech
July 20, 2007, 12:25 AM
What makes one assault rifle 'better'. Well, to answer Nolo:

308 is out. Totally uncontrollable under full automatic fire. The assault rifle is a multi-role weapon. One of the weapons it replaces is the SMG. There are times when automatic fire is appropriate - particularly in the assault, or when engaging moving targets where only a brief exposure of the target occurs. Or when suppressing a target during fire and maneuver. The amount of time where aimed fire is actually possible and appropriate is actually rather limited in modern mobile warfare.

Rounds should be relatively effective at normal combat ranges. Despite conventional wisdom, the 5.56 was 11% more combat effective (lethal) than 7.62x51 in Vietnam. This is mostly due to the performance of ball ammunition. See http://www.fen-net.de/norbert.arnoldi/army/wound.html

223 rounds are lighter than 308, meaning that more ammunition can be carried.

As for the weapons remaining, two stand out - the AK-74 and the M16. The AK is a derivative to one of the best military small arms ever made. It is utterly reliable and has increased lethality over the 7.62x39 version. It is combat proven.

The M16, while initially have teething problems, is now a very mature and reliable weapon system. It does require maintenance. It is far more accurate than the AK, and thanks to its modular design, lends itself to an amazine variability. Modern versions feature integrated picatinny rails in every location imaginable. Barrel changes are trivial.

The direct gas action, derided by many, makes for a very light weapon and enhances accuracy as there is no moving mass on the barrel like piston operated rifle.

The M16 and the AK have been in the field for over 4 decades. Having looked at some of the newcomers, I am not impressed. The L85 has a horrible reputation for reliability - even after HK made a number of improvements. The AUG is not well like by the troops I talked to (Kiwis) to whom they were issued.

The M14 and FAL are really only suited for DMR these days, and in that role, the M14 wins the day. The FAL has a horrible trigger that is basically unfixable, and does not lend itself to accurizing or optical mounts like the M14 does. Both are inferior to AR-10 derived SASS. Go to any service rifle match and the AR derived rifles rule that event.

G11. Interesting concept, but a 19 caliber bullet!? This is loved by people who think the P90 is actually useful against people who are shooting back at you.

Galil - superior weapon but heavy. I would not feel undergunned with a Galil.

FNC - a rifle that deserved better than it got. a Simplified AK gas system using Johnson style locking. The SCAR might be an improvement, but it is too early to tell. The FNC lacked flexibility. No easy way to mount different optics, lasers, etc.

HK G3 - FAL with a worse trigger and the ergonomics of a 2x4. Delayed blowback in a 308 is scary. HK itself abandoned roller locking in all of its rifles. Ejected brass is almost as dangerous as the bullets.

G36 - an AR-18 in different clothes. Some improvments, but it felt flimsy and was very uncomforatble after extended full auto fire. The XM8, a tarted up G36, did not do well in tests. This is a great rifle for people who don't plan on being in combat much. It way to expensive for what you get. Favored by the trendy.

The FN2000 looks promising from the perspective that they have solved the right/left eject issue with bullpups. It suffers from the same issues as other bullpups - magazine access is awkward. Bullpups get there butts kicked in tactical matches because the aren't as user friendly when it comes to stuff like reloading.

Finally, to address the shotgun - it is a very specialized tool. Even with 00 buck, effective range is really only about 30 yards. Sometimes, you want a little more reach - actually, most of the time.

There are a few new designs that seem to have promise. I am particularly intered in the MagPul Masad, mostly because their rifle is evolutionary, and because they have been turning out first class products for a while. But I won't be impressed until it's been around for a while, and some grunts get their hands on it.

The above are only my opinions, based on my experience with a number of class III and civilian versions of the above. YMMV

Will Learn
July 20, 2007, 12:33 AM
I'm taking the AKM(AK-103) and the M4 out tomorrow and will vote afterwards. I like certain aspects of both rifles, especially the reliability of the AK. As far as the AR, I really like the ergonomics/sight radius/customized aspect. More ammo can be carried for the AR/M4 but the AK can be used as a club blah, blah, blah... I just need someone to give me a 416 so I can better evaluate my position. :)

Eightball
July 20, 2007, 12:39 AM
Bring back the G11, introduce the term "ergonomics" to such a design, and see where that gets you. Incredibly innovative and forward thinking....if their buyer didn't back out at the "last minute", imagine where we'd be with firearms today?

Though, I'd say the SCAR is a close second, for the innovation in it, as well--it just makes sense!

ctdonath
July 20, 2007, 12:46 AM
I'd say M16/M4 mainly because it is the dominant weapon of this country, a platform with a huge fine-grain range of options and quality to choose from. That it is the dominant choice for this country's* military and police gives a big boost to options, ammo and availability.

Others are certainly available and may have particular advantages, but looking at the issue broadly methinks it wins the most points overall.

* - Other countries may vary. If you live in Russia, having an AK47 is the best choice for the same basic reasons.

Chuck R.
July 20, 2007, 01:11 AM
C.) I only included the M16/M4 for posterity, I personally hate the weapon. And, yes, I have shot one. And cleaned it. It's fine for hunting and plinking, where you go home at the end of the day and clean the crap outta the sucker, but I wouldn't want to be caught in a lockdown-firefight situation with one (better than nothing, though).


:rolleyes:

Haven't spent much time with one have you?

Chuck

Nolo
July 20, 2007, 01:26 AM
Eh, not near enough, true. But I don't like the idea of a weapon that will fail on me. I really don't. The whole direct gas impringement system really turns me off. I wish we could fix it while keeping the benefits. Filters, maybe!? I dunno...

Nolo
July 20, 2007, 01:33 AM
Thank you very much, GunTech, that was highly useful. I'm getting the impression that the 5.56mm round is a whole lot more powerful than I was formerly led to believe. I know that, without accounting for tumbling, it produces about 200 ft-lbs less energy than the 7.62x39mm (1500ft-lbs) round (which also tumbles, I think), so I guess my question is: when you settle it down, do you get approximately the same performance out of the 7.62 Soviet and 5.56 NATO rounds (as far as stopping power is concerned, I know trajectories are way different)? If so, can you get that same performance out of a carbine (14.5 or 10.5 inch barrels)?

cameron.personal
July 20, 2007, 02:05 AM
Where do people get the idea that a .308 is
Totally uncontrollable under full automatic fire. bollocks!


View FAL Paratrooper Machinegun: Video Clip #1 (http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/smith/fal/falmovie1.mpg)
View FAL Paratrooper Machinegun: Video Clip #2 (http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/smith/fal/falmovie2.mpg)
View FAL Paratrooper Machinegun: Video Clip #3 (http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/smith/fal/falmovie3.mpg)


GunTech when was the last time you actually fired an auto .308?????

Cameron

cameron.personal
July 20, 2007, 02:27 AM
After the FNC comes the FAL fired full burst and full auto...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_aNb1ltLEQ

cameron.personal
July 20, 2007, 02:34 AM
My Gosh another full auto and controllable FAL... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P1-7YMfYBc

cameron.personal
July 20, 2007, 02:37 AM
FN FAL Full Auto

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P1-7YMfYBc

Check out this guy shooting a full-auto FAL! (while standing on one leg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P1-7YMfYBc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P1-7YMfYBc)

Another one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO-hV9Sx3UQ

Nolo
July 20, 2007, 03:08 AM
Those videos made me smile.
But seriously, I mean, 7.62x51 is hard on you on full auto...
I think. I haven't had any real experience with it.

Dark_Harvest
July 20, 2007, 03:25 AM
Nolo said:

"To Gewehr98: "Assault Rifle" was not coined by anti-gunners, it was actually coined by Hitler"



there's a good point... you and hitler...


good on ya...

Medusa
July 20, 2007, 03:29 AM
My experience is limited - G3A3, Galil AR and SN, M14, G36 - from this list.

But my job is something where I do need the reach of 7.62x51 and precise weapon to deliver it, thus I voted Mk.11 Mod.0 (AR-10 approx) or SASS. No I haven't shot one, so this is a bit uneducated opinion, but I've heard many good things about it.

If to limit my selection on my experience, then M14 with good stock (like JAE-100) as DMR.

As an assault rifle I do like the G11 design idea, but as my "experience" with it is limited with games only I won't vote for it. But I like the burst mechanics on it.

GunTech
July 20, 2007, 03:34 AM
The last time I fired a full auto 308 was at the Full Auto Fun shoot at the Albany pistol and rilfe club in Albany Oregon. As a class III owner, I go to the shoot almost every year.

You can fire a full auto 308. Hiting anything with more than the firts shot is another matter.

I don't have any pictures of the more recent shoots, since I go there to shoot. But a friend of mine took some photos several years ago and still has them on his web site.

http://visionforgestudios.com/jesse/shooting/dec00-shoot/index.htm

I'd venture to say I have more than the average person's experience with auto weapons, not just as a formr infantry officer, but also as a class III collector and working as a consultant for Police Automaric Weapons Service and a few other Title II manufaturers.

Yours truly:

http://guntech.com/atf/atf1.jpg

Don't Tread On Me
July 20, 2007, 03:38 AM
AK-74.

Lowest recoil machine gun on the list. Can't beat that. Most controllable on full-auto. Has lightweight ammo. Good ballistics. Bullet does plenty of damage. Is the super duper AK platform which is easy to maintain, reliable and strong. It is lighter than an AK-47. And more than often - more accurate than a 47.

Can't help but remember some of the video clips of Russians in Afghanistan hammering away with their 74's. It is an effective platform.

Only thing that is lacking are the sights. That can be said for other rifles on that list.

The massive saturation and acceptance of AK-47's around the world as well as the fall of the Soviet Union has caused the 74 to not reach it's potential.

GunTech
July 20, 2007, 03:56 AM
The AK-74, or it's updated iterations (e.g. AK-101), certainly looks interesting. Add an Ultimak rail and you'd have something very interesting. Too bad that the AK is generally built for smaller stature Russian troops. Fortunately, that is easily fixed.

BTW, if you have an AK, I urge you to try out Ultimak's products. They are great quality and very useful. I don't work for them, but am only a satifies customer.

http://www.ultimak.com

Nolo
July 20, 2007, 04:32 AM
DUDE. YOU. HAVE. GOT. TO. TAKE. ME. SHOOTING! :what:
(That's to GunTech, btw)

sacp81170a
July 20, 2007, 06:47 AM
I know how much an Atchisson weighs, approximately 10 pounds unloaded. A G3A3 weighs a little under that. I would choose that weapon for its ability to dish out 12 gauge shells at responsive rates of fire accurately.

Add in the ammo and a light (you really need one) and you're probably gonna be pushing 15 lbs. Even with a good sling, fatigue quickly becomes a factor after the first 30 minutes or so of holding your weapon at low ready. Again, get a heavy rifle or shotgun, hold it at low ready for 30 minutes while walking up and down stairs, opening doors, slicing the pie around corners, and then do the same thing with an M4 with a light and an optical sight. You'll figure it out. ;)

It is a personal preference, sir. I never said I'd force anyone else to carry it.

Fair enough. Let me point out (the obvious) that there's a world of difference between reading something on an internet forum or a book and actually picking the darn thing up and lugging it around. You come across a little absolutist and superior in your first few posts, but you seem willing enough to learn, so I'll give you that.

You also dissed the M4 based on firing it once. Ya got a long way to go, but don't give up, you'll see the light. :D

UKarmourer
July 20, 2007, 10:23 AM
Hey Guntech, gimme a job!

and just to help out, their have been no major malfunctions with the New A2, other than idiots damaging it, but that'll happen with any weapon system.

Chuck R.
July 20, 2007, 10:53 AM
Eh, not near enough, true. But I don't like the idea of a weapon that will fail on me. I really don't. The whole direct gas impringement system really turns me off. I wish we could fix it while keeping the benefits. Filters, maybe!? I dunno...

This is what I mean, ďdonít like the ideaĒ and the DI system turns you off?

I really believe that most of the guys that donít like or at least donít respect the M16-M4 havenít spent any real time with them. Get a good AR15, learn how to clean it (not spotless by any means), learn how to lube it, and feed it good ammo through good magazines, and it is a very reliable weapon. It is not however suitable for ďpeasantsĒ and the armed forces of 3rd world countries with no concept of maintenance.

What you get in return for learning how to care for it IMHO outweighs any additional maintenance. A generally lighter and more accurate rifle to start with, with awesome modularity. Iíve shot an AR for over 500 rounds without touching it, others have put a lot more rounds through one, thatís what 3 times a soldiers normal UBL? How many more rounds do you think youíll need to fire before getting a chance to add some lube or clean it?

The M16 family is one of the most battle tested and refined weapon systems in the world and thereís a reason itís been in use for over 40 years. I spent the 1st half of my Army career with the M16A1 and then A2 without a problem before I ever read the Internet and realized what a POS it is. :D

Chuck

Nolo
July 20, 2007, 02:31 PM
I apologize if I came across as snoddy in my first post, it was probably due to my lack of smilies. :D
I dissed the M4, not based off of firing it once, but off of secondhand accounts, which is the best I've got. The ones I've heard (from a SEAL, and a few Army and Marine guys) have been unfavorable. I suppose hate was too strong a word.
And, yes, the idea of a gun shoving it's own barrel excrement back into its receiver does turn me off. I want to know that that weapon will work. Reliability is a premium in my opinion. I realize most (if not all) of the teething problems (which were mostly due to poor development and testing) have been solved.

nemoaz
July 20, 2007, 05:00 PM
deleted

Chuck R.
July 20, 2007, 05:25 PM
Nolo,

I kind of figured that was the case.

Despite what a lot of folks say and you may read on the Internet many would be surprised to know that the M4 carbine received an 89% favorable rating during post rotation surveys conducted by CNA titled ďSoldier Perspectives of Small Arms in CombatĒ. 80% of the soldiers issued M4s had confidence in their weapons reliability. This survey completed in DEC06 consisted of 2600 surveys of troops returning from theater that had fired their weapons against the enemy.

Some interesting statistics in the report:

19% of the soldiers surveyed reported having a stoppage during an engagement, and of those, 82% reported the stoppage being of small impact and being able to engage after completing immediate action. Keep in mind the stoppages could have been caused by ammunition, weapon and or magazines.

It really is a pretty good system.

Chuck

Nolo
July 20, 2007, 05:29 PM
Granted. However, I would like to fix its problems. Or potential problems. I know that the DI system has its advantages, like improved stability during firing, so I'd like to find a way to keep those advantages while getting piston-like reliability out of it.

GunTech
July 20, 2007, 08:52 PM
Sadly, my class III collection is much reduced due to other life demands, but if you ever make it to Helena, MT look me up. I still have some full auto stuff, friends that have more.

Right now I'm saving up for a Vickers. The '86 ban has really made full auto expensive. I miss those $650 M16s.

ancient_philosophy
July 20, 2007, 09:01 PM
proven year after year after year in MORE WARS than any other gun....its the AK-47

superior to ALL OTHER assault rifles in EVERY WAY except one...long range accuracy.......which as wars prove out, doesnt mean squat 99% of the time.

heres a pic of 19 of mine>>> :evil:

http://www.attan.com/yugo1.jpg

tradosaurus
July 20, 2007, 10:24 PM
Chinese SKS because of its low cost, cheap ammo, accuracy, and reliability.

Well it use to be a low cost gun but still I have shot bullseyes at 100yds (no scope) and have had the gun for over 14 years.

Wes Janson
July 21, 2007, 12:47 AM
Not a single mention of the SIG 550-series platform?

Caseless
July 21, 2007, 01:39 AM
I picked the HK G11 since it has the highest multiple rounds hit probability for a burst-capable rifle. However, maybe I picked it since I don't reload.;)

kBob
July 21, 2007, 03:04 AM
I voted the M14. I have shot a couple and a number of the civilian semi auto onlys that do not even have the auto disconector or lug for the selector system. I found them in service and out to be capable and dependable rifles. I especially liked the M-14 E2 withits pistolgtip stock long sling and bipod. I found this gun to be controllable in full auto fire using two to three round bursts on targets to 300 meters fom the prone/bipod position.

I would like to have handled some of the Ft. Benning "M14 Improved" systems from around 1973. The were working on lighter magazines, a lighter folding stock and new ammunition. The ammunition was to use a 90 grain bullet ( the bullet from the old Duplex round) launched at 3200 FPS. As this bullet was short ad flatbased it supposedly destablized when changing mediums as well as M193 ball 5.56 mm. Recoil impulse was about halfway between the normal M-14 and M-16A1 recoil impulses. Wonder how one of the Scout type M1As would be using one of those experimental side folding stocks.

By 1973 however there was no going back unfortunately.

I did not have the rosey experience of some with the "M-16" though there are many things I like about it.

I first fired a flat sided (no fence) AR-15 sporter in 1971. I was immediatly underwhelmed with the rifle and that colored my expectations. My first Army issue M-16 was marked XM16 E1 and had appearently been in the 16th training battalion at Ft. Knox since the adoption of the same. It truely was a POS. One could grab the frontsight tower in one hand and the carrying handle in the other and twist them in oposite directions and the Armorer was OK with that. During Fam-Fire leading up to qualification the extractor cracked and the front half blew out leading to a failure to extract and yes a new round well and truley jamed in there with the bullet set back in the case.
This rifle really made me loath the system.

In EUrope I was assigned to a unit that broke down into re enforced platoon sized sub units for weeks or even months at a time and away from the arms room and the armorer. I jumped at the chance to be a "platoon Armorer" and so got to personally oversee the condition of M-16A1s of my platoon and supprting troops. The number and types of breakages and the shear number of user induced failures made me less and less happy with the system.

Finally came the issue of failures to fire. As many as half of the guns on the firing line in cool damp weather experienced a second or third round stoppage. This was not good. I did find that the vast majority of these were a result of (wait for it) the Direct Impingment system turning all those hot gases. powder residue and patroleum based lubes in to "Black Gunk" Using PL-Special lub rather than the LSA POL in weather the least bit cool semed to go a long way to preventing stopages, but they hapened even when I inspected the weapons before and after lubeing.

Also the Germans and Brits and Canadians all made fun of us for having a gun suited for "Frauen und Kinter" :-)

I will say that the new synthetic lubes go a long way to preventing these Black GunK problems.

As to never seeng stoppages with the AR-15 family.....Hmmm. I took a Carbine Class from Bill Jeans last year and in it were a number of ARs from A1 types forward, in barrel lengths from 20 inches down to 10.5. From Daddy bought it in the early 1970's civilian ARs to GI issue M4s.

I saw stoppages. Two rifles had so many stoppages they were pulled from the line. I thought it instructive that we spent a couple of hours on immediate action drills for a host of problems even having purposefully made double feeds made so as to learn to clear them. I thought it instructive that one of Col. Coopers boy's who did much to develope realistic carbine training himself would spend such time and effort on immediate action drills if the need to know such were not vital.

All that said I love the layout of the M-16 family's controls......except the charging handle. I am considering getting one of the charging handle latches with the paddle type end to make charging easier for my own AR-15. The ARs controls can be easily manipulated with out removing the firing hand from the pistol grip by the vast majority of right handers and there are after market helpers for the lefties.

With my hands I have never found the G3 or FN-FAL controls as easy to operate and the AK is even worse.

Something just did not feel right about the AUG and it seemed to get awfully hot awfully fast. Certainly controllable for short bursts out to 100 meters when used with the doughnut reticle built in scope, though the pull through trigger makes it difficult to actuall shoot multiple quick 2 to 3 roundburst, often something like a hick-up with a single shot followed by 2 to four rounds actuall at full auto cadence. Twas high on kewl actors, but other thanthat I just do not like it.

Le Claron I did not fire, but it just did not feel right......and it was French. I still can not get over all the civilians state side going ga-ga over the older MAS49/56 rifles. Many of the French troops I spoke to hated them (wait for it) because the Direct Impengment system made them filthy and in cool damp weather ( European Standard) casused failures to feed. Most carried a hankerchief devoted to whipping out the action on occassion.

My experience with AKs shooting is limited to an East German MPiK, one of the early Styer import Maadi rifles a few Chinese semis and a Hungarian. I have handles RUssian, Rumanian, and Chinese Military AKs as well but not fired those. The safety/selector lever is clunky and a PITA to use. They are relaible as Mr Majestik's Ford F-150. They do make you set up rather high when in the prone with that long magazine and folks tened to want to rest tem on the same running any hope of accuracy. Supposedly when th eold SOviets had a military olympics of sorts all firing, out to 300 meters was conducted in full auto using short controlled bursts. Must have been fun atleast. Needles to say my early experiences with two of the worlds best made versions of the gun and Czech ammo set me up for a disapointment when the China guns and ammo came in. I was actualy at a rifle class where someone I know to be a pretty good shot brought a MAK 90. He had grown up and joined up and gone ABN Ranger and while on leave thought it would be cool to take a rifle class with the other sides gun. Waste of ammo. It did settle down a bit and srink groups a bit when I brought him some Lapua for the second days shooting, yet the kid that could normaly out shoot 90 percent of us had the worst performance show up on the paper.

I have BTW seen both the G3 and FN-FAL suffer stoppages in military service I qualified four times with the G3 and it was OK. At the time with the M-16A1 as my issue rifle I wished for one, still wish I had bought a HK91 at about $160 US in 1975 and brought it home tax free. I would prefer the M-14 though.

Shot the British L1A1 and was underwhelemed with what seemed and ancient and worn out gun. handled the Canadian version and it seemed the same. When the first Springfield SAR48s came out of Brasil I was shocked to see a nice rifle that shot great......still not up to the M-14 by my standard. Bet it was something to behold in the Brit .280 experimental rounds or in the original 7.92 Kurz

Which brings me back to the M14. I like the controls as I feel 7.62 battle rifles should have an auto fire lock out unless designated for use by automatic riflemen The safety is easy to manipulate and very positive in operation. The magazine release is the same as most of the rifles of its time and while the rocking magazine insertion can seem a pain....it wrks fine on the AK. The sights are absolutely first class. There is a dedicated optics mount on the rifle that is pretty darned secure. Unfortunately there is no way to make this mount sit as low as sight systmes on an AR flat top, but a cheek pad can be added to the butt for serious scope use. I had no particular hardship firing the M-14 with the AN/PVS 2 NVS or the SPringfield Armory M1A with a scope without the use of the add on cheek pad though. I like the reciever being open on top as it allows room for my fingers to get into the action if need be and allows one to see a problem with just a quick glance. Having an operating rod handle mecahacally linked to the bolt so the one item can be safely used to both charge the weapon and act as a forward assist is a plus. The M-14 bolt can be easily cycled using the left hand by a right handed firer with out the need for removing the firing hand form the stock or doing weird contortions. I also like the stripper clip guides permanantly affixed to the rifle as this reduced the effor in reloading a magazine. Even with the guides included in ever bandoleer of M16 ammo it is a PITA to move it from clip to clip to hold a loose mag in position and strip the ammo in. BTW there is also a guide with every bandoleer of M14 ammo on stippers in a Bandoleer if one choose not to use the rifle mounted guide Finally I just like 7.62 NATO.

I have not fired a mechancal gas sytem AR 10/15 but fired an AR180 a lot. I have to say that I think such a system would improve reliability on AR10/15 systems, it would however add some weight to the system. I would like to see an AR-10 with such a system and try it and an AR-15 with such a system and 6.5 Grendal or 6.8 SPC might be something worth looking into for personal use if I win the lottery. :-)

-Bob Hollingsworth

nemoaz
July 21, 2007, 03:27 AM
I thought it instructive that one of Col. Coopers boy's

Ahem. Col Cooper is a known M16 hater and was the last living person who thought the US Army should be equipped with bolt action rifles.

I was in the military in the 80s and I certainly also experienced M16s (many XM16s) and 1911s that we wornout. Neither functioned. It's not an indictment on the weapons systems anything other than the Jimmy Carter years/post-Vietnam Congress' total neglect of the military. It certainly wasn't the weapons systems fault that they needed to be replaced many years prior.

And the M14, FAL, G3 and AR10 STILL are not assault weapons, unless you are using a Brady Bunch definition instead of a military one (because they do not fire intermediate rounds).

Nomad101bc
July 21, 2007, 04:42 AM
BTW thier called black rifles or tactical weapons. The term "assault rifle" is made up anti gunner terminology please dont use it.

kBob
July 21, 2007, 10:24 AM
Nemoaz,

The weapons I mentioned having failures in europe were practically new, the unit being the last other than some Alaskan based troops to replace the M-14 with the M-16a1. WHen I arrived in the fall of 1973 there were even M-14E2s still in the armory which made me leap at the chance to be a designated autorifleman in hopes of carrying one in place of an M-16A1.

After ETSing in 1976 I set mysights on bercoming a mustang and was commissioned in 1981. During ROTC training I arranged for the other kids to use the M-16A1 with .22LR adaptor, both borrowed from a local Reserve unit and then to fire a fam fire on a 100 meter range with M193 ball ammo at a local police academy. There were stopages there. At ROTC Summer Camp at Ft Bragg NC in 1980 there were stoppages.

When I got to my unit and additional dutes included training officer and responsibility for the Arms room I noted multiple stoppages.

I am not trying to start a pissing contest, but I have used M-16 A1s from that battered XM and that early flat sided Sporter to guns that were so new as to still be fuzzy and seen stoppages. During the late 1980s I volunteered as a range safety officer with a civilian club where I saw two civilians during that time shooting AR15s who I observed to have stoppages who when I later tried to explain immediate action drills to informed me they had never had a malfunction of any kind even though I observed such.

Col. Cooper certainly dis liked the "Mouse Gun" and in case you are unaware still produced some of the best instruction for operating the same as he recognized that his potentual customers likely would use the guns anyway and that most modern law enforcement and security firms would be using them. Bill Jeans did much of the development and early presentation of those Carbine operator classes and continues to do so on his own. Given that several Governments, not the least of which is the US government have seen fit to pay for GunSite or Morrigan Consulting Carbine classes specifically for M-16/M-4 operatorsI can not see how COl. Coopers dislike of the basic rifle enters into whether the classes are good or not. That certainly has no bearing on the fact that AR-15s M15s and M-4s in my class did suffer stoppages in a rather clean range environment.

BTW I had 20 some M1911A1s asigned in 1982 and half of them were red tagged and had notes about their stoppages. I took two hours away from paper work and went down to the Arms room to dis cuss this with the Armorer. WHen I left all but one red tag had been removed and that was on a gun with a cracked frame. Everything else was either an operator error (most common being inserting the old style recoil spring backwards and producing kinks in the spring and flats on them) or a parts replacement that was authorized for the armor to do. WHen visiting other units I cruised by their arms rooms and found this to be much the case with there M1911A1s as well.

Different folks have different experiences My experience with the M-16A1 was dissmal. Myobservations since indicate that in civilian hands AR-15s of whatever strip have some of the same problems.

As stated I believe many of the problems of the system were and are caused by the use of petroleum based lubricants rather than the design of the gun by itself. The Army and USMC today use synthetic lubricants and even dry film lubricants and I believe this has gone a long way towards making the system more reliable.....Id just like to see those 15 percent that suffered stoppages in COmbat have less chance of doing so again.

-Bob Hollingsworth

kBob
July 21, 2007, 10:48 AM
Nomad101bc,

I do not mean to be rude, but how old are you?

The term Assault Rifle is a translation of the German Strum Gewer. WHen Hitler finally saw that the MP43 was not infact a Machine Pistol but some sort of rifle/MP hybrid, he (or his ad men)coined the term and 1944 production guns were called StG44, Storm Rifle of 1944. The term Storm in this case being equivilant to the English term Assault.

Since that time rifles that use a removable high capacity magazine, a cartridge of power intermediate to pre WWII service rifles and handgun cartridges of that time and which are capable of select fire have been called Assault Rifles.

Long before"anti-gun" politicians got involved the AK family were called Assault Rifles as were Vz58s, Ar-18s, and even M-16s.

What happened was that some in the gunzine business decided to call semi automatic only versions of assault riflws available to the general public without special tax stamps assault rifles as well. When the Antis wanted a name for there then latest target they looked in those very gun magazines and there was the name Assault Rifle already in use for civilian semi only rifles. They noted that some writers refered to pistolized versions of such rifles and of MPs as Assault Weapons in the gun press. Thus they used the term Assault weapon to cover all those nasty evil guns.

I was taught that the M-16 was a member of the assault rifle family of guns in the late 1960's in Highschool JROTC......a bit before the anti hysteria that produced a legal definition of "Assault Weapons" in US Code.

-Bob Hollingsworth

Chuck R.
July 21, 2007, 10:55 AM
Normally it's poor form to reference another site, but this seems pretty relevant, take a few minutes and read some other's points of view:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=6387

Chuck

Nolo
July 21, 2007, 02:54 PM
Thank you all very much for your contributions. I hope to be putting up a thread soon with all of the info and experience that I have garnered here combined into an overview of concepts for a next-generation assault rifle. It appears to me that some of you really like the ARs and others really like the 7.62N rifles. It also appears to me that whatever service rifle you are issued endears itself to you (at least relatively) regardless of how good it actually is. Unless, of course, it really really sucks. I noted that very few of you like the AKs, which I think is largely due to a lack of them being issued (we don't seem to have very many ex-Russian servicemen here). I know that, for me, reliability is first, power second, range third and capacity last (this doesn't mean I would want to be issued with a Springfield, however, a Garand would probably do just fine; just look at my ideal combat rifle, it's a .30-06 AK). However, I would not stick every serviceman in an army with a Garand. One of the interesting things I was considering was taking the .30-06 round and scaling it (not necking it) down to 6.5mm, which would give you performance like a .30-06 (or better; 6.5 bullets tend to be more aerodynamic for their weight) with good power and a relatively light round.
What do you think?

Rexster
July 23, 2007, 02:50 PM
For real-world close-range stuff, I don't like the sights mounted high above the bore axis. Across a room, I don't want to have to "hold off" if making a shot in close proximity to a non-hostile person. I also like a TRUE ambi safety, one which will not interfere with one's grip. As for grips, vertical rear grips are for handguns and handsaws. So, I will go with the M14, even though .308/7.62 NATO is a bit much for an entry weapon. That new 6.8 catridge being chambered in the Mini-14 is starting to look very interesting.

Gtscotty
July 25, 2007, 01:39 AM
Don't have any battle field experience, but of the select fire weapons I've fired (m-16, m-4, Ak-47, Aug, Hk-53...ish), the Aug was definitely the slickest, even less muzzle rise than the m16, and way less than the 47. Too bad they aren't really available in semi. The Hk was a bit ridiculous, it was a short barrel .308 and liked to jump around quite a bit on full auto. Now if they made the Aug in 7.62x39, I believe we would have a clear winner, excellent punch and superior ergonomics mixed in with a dash of dead-sexyness.

Caimlas
July 25, 2007, 07:12 AM
Well now, that wasn't really fair of you. You paired the M16 and the M4 in the same option, despite the many shortcomings of the M4 and the fact that it's almost an entirely different gun (in terms of what comes out the end).

Second choice would have been Galil, I believe. The reason I didn't pick it was because it's quite a bit heavier, and in a mixed gender military where your troops have to carry a lot of stuff around, I don't see the Galil having much of an advantage - at least for us. Especially due to the fact that we're not using a lot of optics.

However, I still picked M16/M4 because of the platform. It is, by far, the most adaptable and modularly conceived gun of the lot, and has evolved into quite a "modern combat weapon" over the past 30 or so years - in no small part due to the fact that it's been monopolized upon as a tack driver and employed for long-range competition matches.

I might have picked something more durable and likely capable of "1 shot kills" than the AR/M16/M4 if we were in a different kind of war than we are now, but as I see it, what we've got now hits the spot.

As has been said, the M16/M4 prevails largely due to the fact that a lot of design features which have been popping up on other firearms were first made popular on the AR platform - specifically, the integral weaver rail on a flattop upper. Which brings me to it's other large strength: the fact that the upper and lower can be so easily mated and unmated, and that an entirely different upper can be put on the same lower, and vis versa. That (in conjunction with some of the AR platform's other refinements), in my mind, is an armorer's dream, making it all the better as a military/combat/combat assault rifle arm.

As for improvements: there are only two general criticisms I have for the platform:
1) The caliber. It would be nice to have something a little larger. Though, at the same time, the caliber can be seen as a strength: less weight to carry for the same amount of ammo, meaning a soldier can carry more. Kinda nice if you've got a need to put a lot of lead down range, I'd think.
2) The gas system. I've heard it's a problem for some, though I've never personally had a problem and have heard of several people who have put 5000+ rounds through their ARs in dusty, dirty environments without any cleaning. At the very least, (say) give the designated marksmen the more accurate uppers and the rank-and-file soldiers something more reliable/less needing of cleaning.

So, as for improvements: I don't really think there needs to be any made. It's a good weapon platform; I do think that military acquisitions could vary the rifles a bit, though: get rid of direct gas for those who don't need the accuracy (ie M4s, and most soldiers in general), and consider phasing in a different caliber bullet (6.8 or 6.5 - I'm a fan of 6.5).

Weapons I thought have promise as a platform but aren't used by anyone yet (still in development/pre-sales, etc.) are the H&K XM-8 (G36 heritage, ergonomic, weight reduction, uniform platform), the SCAR (not so appealing to me but it's still a good option - I'm not sure what it offers vs. the AR and it has diff advantage(s) than the XM8), and lastly, the KelTec RFB in .308 - simply because it';s the first .308 bullpup I've heard of, and from what I can see it appears to be a pretty awesome and revolutionary design (if it works).

ETA: oops, my post got chopped somehow.

I'd love to see a SCAR or XM8 in 6.5M or 6.8spc...

As for the guns I've got or shot from the list (in bold, * indicates those I've only handled):

Steyr AUG*
FN FAL
H&K G36
IMI Galil ARM 5.56 (ok, a clone)
IMI Tavor TAR-21
AKM (many variants, fa and semi)
M16A2 and M4 Carbine (many variants, fa and semi)
M14
G3A3
H&K G11
FN SCAR-L 5.56
H&K 416
FN F2000*
AK-74
AR-10
FN FNC

Not exactly an expert, but I like to think I think. :) It's just an opinion folks - deep breaths!

Caimlas
July 25, 2007, 07:18 AM
Oh, and Nolo, that sounds like it could be interesting! (re: scaling down 3006 to a 6.5mm bullet size). At the very least it would provide for some more interesting bullet and cartridge combinations. For a weapon like this, however, you'd be stuck with the limitation of case length, in which case you might as well just use something like a 308 case necked down - and then you're in familiar territory of some wildcats and the 6.5 Grendel again. :)

Caimlas
July 25, 2007, 07:47 AM
I really believe that most of the guys that don’t like or at least don’t respect the M16-M4 haven’t spent any real time with them. Get a good AR15, learn how to clean it (not spotless by any means), learn how to lube it, and feed it good ammo through good magazines, and it is a very reliable weapon.

and you really don't need to do much of that, either. Good ammo and magazines, sure - the hotter the ammo, generally the better - but the hotter your ammo the less you need to clean it. :)

Fosbery
July 25, 2007, 09:38 AM
Just looking at the results of this poll, I wonder on what experience the 2 people who voted for the H&K G11 are basing their answer :rolleyes: I won't answer because SIG 55x isn't on the list.

High Planes Drifter
July 25, 2007, 12:13 PM
Well, I own an M1A, an AK74, and 2 AR's. While all three are great, and have been perfectly reliable, I would pick my AR's as the best all around fighting guns. So I voted M16/M4 carbine. I really like my AK also, and have been shooting it alot more lately because ammo is so cheap for it. .308 surpluss is rare, and .223 is getting pricey.

That being said, I carried my M1A in the days following Katrina, and it was never more than a foot away from me at any time.

Gtscotty
July 25, 2007, 12:22 PM
Probably not too many people have any real experience with the g11, I believe it was produced in pretty limited numbers (couple of prototypes). I do however think that it warrants some attention, if only for its cartridge system. I hope that eventually a feasible case-less round will come around, seems like it could be the "last word" in maximizing mag capacity and minimizing weight. All in all I'm tempted to chock the g11 up to "possibly ahead of its time". If you adapt the list above to ideal shtf rifles, me thinks the galil becomes pretty attractive, theoretically there should be at least some nato standard 5.56 floating around in this post-apocalyptic world, and in terms of hardiness the general ak design might come in handy.

Rifleman 173
July 25, 2007, 05:47 PM
I spent 19 months in combat in Viet Nam. In combat you will carry different firearms from time-to-time in a paratrooper unit. Sometimes you'll do so voluntarily and other times you'll be told to carry something different or in addition to what you're used to having. I've found that each rifle or gun fills a different slot or gives different performance charateristics. My last 7 months in Nam I carried an XM-21 sniper rifle. The civilian version is called an M1A rifle. Those rifles are great for accuracy BUT the ammo is hell to hump because you can't carry as much as a guy with an M-16. I carried about 12 fully loaded magazines while most of my fellow troopers carried 15 to 20+ loaded magazines for their M-16 rifles. So, if I wanted long range and extreme accuracy, I'd carry an M1A rifle with match ammo. If I were going to do a lot of moving around or long distance walking, I'd carry an AR-15/M-4 rifle. If I were going to be moving around in built-up area combat (MOUT/urban fighting) I'd want an AK style rifle or M1A rifle depending upon circumstances. If I were moving a whole lot, it would be the AK. If I could have a specifically defined zone in an urban fight with limited or no movement expected, I'd want the M1A. Any way you cut it, whatever rifle I take with me, I definitely want a scope AND metal sights for it. Presently I am re-thinking my rifle needs because of the introduction of the new cartridges. I am thinking over using either a 6.8 SPC or a 6.5 Grendel in an M-4 format. I'm leaning towards the 6.5 Grendel because of better accuracy. Decisions. Decisions. Decisions.:banghead:

Dannavyret
July 25, 2007, 06:01 PM
Sorry to go against my country but the AK-47 is history's best assault rifle. As old man "Klash" once said. "I designed a weapon for the masses, so simplistic a child would understand its operation in a minute and so stout it would make a fine farming tool in peace time."

I think the old man has grown senile.

Val USP
September 1, 2007, 06:29 PM
I completely agree with History or Military channel – 10 best assault rifle in the world:
#1 – Kalashnikov (AK47, AKM, AK74 and other)
#2 – M16 (AR16, M16A2, M4 and other)

And all others – FAR below ….

jpwilly
September 1, 2007, 08:16 PM
I voted the AR-10 becuase the .308. #2 would be the M16 / M4.

Geno
September 1, 2007, 08:28 PM
Should have had 17 options:

DMPS AP4 in .308 or .260 with steel upper receiver:

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e364/Doc2005/HPIM4035.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e364/Doc2005/HPIM4031.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e364/Doc2005/HPIM4032.jpg

:)

Doc2005

elmerfudd
September 1, 2007, 11:59 PM
Sorry to go against my country but the AK-47 is history's best assault rifle. As old man "Klash" once said. "I designed a weapon for the masses, so simplistic a child would understand its operation in a minute and so stout it would make a fine farming tool in peace time."

Or in the words of Nicholas Cage, "So easy a child can use it....and they do."

ilbob
September 2, 2007, 12:14 AM
Ideally, you would get the reliability and simplicity of an AK with a cartridge that has more oomph. Maybe a lightweight AK style rifle in .308.

But really, aren't the ballistics of the AK round already pretty decent? Soup it up a little and maybe it is the ideal firearm. You could carry almost as much 7.62x39 as you can 5.56, and the bullet is 2.5X as heavy so you get more punch at longer ranges.

Never No More
September 2, 2007, 12:20 AM
Guys,

It pains me to think you are adopting the liberals theme of calling all pra-military firearms, Assult guns.

According to the DOD Dept of Defense firearms classification:

An Assult rifle has one distinguishing trait.

The selector switch goes AUTO SEMI SAFE

How many of the do that?

AR does nto stand for Assult, it stands for automatic rifle

and a M-14 is a battle rifle.

Lead by esample

GunTech
September 2, 2007, 01:17 AM
Actually, AR originally stood for ARmalite. There was a whole series of rifles designed at Armalite, most by Stoner.

And assault rifle, by definition, fires an intermediate power cartridge and has both semi-automatic and fully-automatic fire.

But I don't get in a twist when someone calls an AR-15 or similar semi-auto and 'assasult rifle'. Technically, one could say it is a semi-auto only version of an assasult rifle.

The AK is a superior bullet hose, and follows very closely the original German concept. It's not particularly accurate, but since the Soviets view it as a product improved SMG, they only expect it to be effective at 50-100m.

Americans have the rifleman mentality, and think they need a combat rifle that can accurately engage targets at 1000 meters. However, this is not the case in actual ground combat.

The AK is a good design, but it lacks the flexibility of the M16 platform, the 'lego' of guns as some have called it. Neither the 5.56x45 nor the 7.62x39 is an ideal round for all around military use.

I'd pick the M16 over the AK. But what I really want is a weapon that:

Has the flexibility of the M14. Easy modification of the basic design.

The reliability of the AK

A round somewhere between the two, i.e. 6.8 or 6.5g. Both of those rounds however, are limited by the fact they have to fit in an M16 magazine. Get rid of that requitrement and you can have a round with reasonable recoil and controllability that still has high lethality and extended range for use in DMRs and LMGs

GunTech
September 2, 2007, 01:21 AM
Doc2005

How much does that beast weigh?

Tomcat47
September 2, 2007, 01:38 AM
I like the AR of course...very nice formadble firearm.
Really would be my 1st choice in a combat situation I suppose
I actually answered the poll with the HK G36. I was actually thinking sniper rifle in my mind, as when I seen G36 that was my choice.

My favorite HK is the msg90 and for reasons above it made it to the DOD's list of assaultweapons and that is why it is a pain to own in the states, and the G36 evolved.

This thread was a good one ...maybe me relook at terminology and consider my decisions based on terminology. The liberals would be all over this...we could quickly be painted into a proverbial corner.

Very Nice AP4 Doc.....Veeeerrrrry nice. only seen one other with the full metal upper.

amprecon
September 2, 2007, 02:56 AM
I only have experience with a couple of the options posted and that experience is non-combat I chose the M-14 rifle.
It being the rifle I qualified with in the military and having owned it's cousin the M1 Garand before qualifications, I have found the design reliable, durable and accurate.
As I have never been an infantryman and had to lug around alot of equipment I can only imagine that the lighter the equipment the better. However, being that the rifle is the primary weapon of the infantryman, I believe the M-14 would fit the bill in performing more than adequately under the conditions that I could imagine myself using it in.

Owen
September 2, 2007, 03:26 AM
anyone of them will do.

Software trumps hardware.

PercyShelley
September 2, 2007, 03:38 AM
It pains me to think you are adopting the liberals theme of calling all pra-military firearms, Assult guns.

If you're going to be pedantic about it, I'll point out that an assault gun is an armored fighting vehicle used as line-of-sight infantry support.

Val USP
September 2, 2007, 05:18 AM
The AK is a superior bullet hose, and follows very closely the original German concept. It's not particularly accurate, but since the Soviets view it as a product improved SMG, they only expect it to be effective at 50-100m.
Well, first of all during WWII Germans invent a lot of things - and not only Russians follows German concept. I can mention aviation and rockets developed in US but originally - Germans.
Than, I would mention that AK (of course with worst accuracy than M16) still using in Iraq on distance far longer than 50-100m. And it is proven distance for any combat situations - up to 250 -350 m.(based on experience in Vietnam, Afghanistan in arab part of Israel)


Americans have the rifleman mentality, and think they need a combat rifle that can accurately engage targets at 1000 meters. However, this is not the case in actual ground combat.
Dude, 1000m for M16???? It is not sniper rifle. It is no doubt more accurate than AK47 or AKM. But I tried AR16 and Vepr in the same caliber at 100 y - with similar results.


The AK is a good design, but it lacks the flexibility of the M16 platform, the 'lego' of guns as some have called it. Neither the 5.56x45 nor the 7.62x39 is an ideal round for all around military use.
OK, check history of these rounds. Check how many people died from these rounds in the world, and how many from 223?

U.S.SFC_RET
September 2, 2007, 07:17 AM
Gewehr98 Quoted:(I won't propogate a gun term coined by anti-gunners, myself included)
I agree
An assault rifle is a term in this country to take decent firearms out of your hands. I am not talking fully automatic.
One more Katrina and you need to protect your property and family, a nice m4 platform will do the job.

RLsnow
September 2, 2007, 08:09 AM
HK416 as much as i love the others on the list, id go with that one

SAG0282
September 2, 2007, 08:16 AM
Had to pick the m14.

doc2rn
September 2, 2007, 10:57 AM
I got to use a Steyr in 97 and I have to say it's bullpup configuration and full auto capability is impressive. cleaning was easy and I had never been instructed on the rifle. I wish they considered these for all combat corpsman rather than the P gun.

HorseSoldier
September 2, 2007, 11:27 AM
OK, check history of these rounds. Check how many people died from these rounds in the world, and how many from 223?

My suspicion would be that if you control for number issued and only look at actual direct fire . . . about the same. In places like Africa, the AK has been used in some truly horrific wars, but the actual multi-million person death tolls from those conflicts is mostly about refugees starving and/or dying from disease, not direct fire from small arms.

GunTech
September 2, 2007, 04:13 PM
Well, first of all during WWII Germans invent a lot of things - and not only Russians follows German concept. I can mention aviation and rockets developed in US but originally - Germans.
Than, I would mention that AK (of course with worst accuracy than M16) still using in Iraq on distance far longer than 50-100m. And it is proven distance for any combat situations - up to 250 -350 m.(based on experience in Vietnam, Afghanistan in arab part of Israel)

My point was not to say that the AK is not effective beyond 100m. But rather, that the design criteria for that weapon is short range innfantry combat. The typical military issue AK is a 5 MOA rifle, making it unsuitable for long range accurate fire - at 300 yards, 50 MOA is a CEP of 15 inches, presuming the shooter does everything perfectly. Some have used this as an argument that the AK is a less than ideal weapon, however it fits with Russian tactical doctrine, which is to dismount personnekl carriers at 100 meters or less before the assault. The Russians don't expect troops to be shooting at 300yards/meters with their AKs, so it's lack of accuracy at that range is seen as unimpotant.


Dude, 1000m for M16???? It is not sniper rifle. It is no doubt more accurate than AK47 or AKM. But I tried AR16 and Vepr in the same caliber at 100 y - with similar results.

Again, you missed the point. I states that there is a rifleman mentality that says we need a rifle that can engage targets at 1000 meters, not that the M16 is that rifle. However, the M16 has been continually hampered by 'improvements' that try to extend it's range. The M16 and the 5.56x45 were originally developed around the findings of Hitchman's "Operational requirements of an infantry hand weapon" which determined that 90% of all infantry small arms fire occurs at 300 yards or less, and that small arms fire is basically ineffective beyong 500 yards. As such, the M6 was originally meant to have a maximum effective range of 300-350 yards. This of course raised a hue and cry from the traditionalists, who insisted soldiers needed a longer ranged weapon (These people still exist, and argue that we need to return to the 7.62x52mm as a generall issue infantry rifle). Effective range of the M16 is not stated as 460 meter (Army).

To further illustrate this tendency for increased range due to 'need' we have the M855 round, derived from the SS109. One of the main reasons for adopting this change in ammunition was increased range - both in LMGs and rifles. We also have the Mk 262 77gn 5.56x45mm - a round with the express purpose of extending the range of the M16.

The mentality is still there.

OK, check history of these rounds. Check how many people died from these rounds in the world, and how many from 223?

This has far more to do with the number of AKs available throughout the world, and where they are used than any intrinsic lethality. There are an estimated 45 million or so AKs distributed throughout the world, making it the single most common firearm on earth. It follows that proportionately, there will be more casualties from AKs. Further, since these weapons are often used in third world countries where medical services are primitive at best, it follows that there will be a higher mortality rate.

But the fact of the matter is that startistically, the 7.62x39mm M43 is less lethal than the 5.56x45mm. In fact, the 5.56 is 11% more lethal than the 7.62x51 according to after action studies conducted in Vietnam. This has a lot to do with how the bullets perform in tissue. Both 7.62 rounds are relatively stable and tend to flip over base first when hitting tissue, and then pass through the target.

The 5.56 by contrast, tends to break at the canneleur and create submissiles which disperse in the target (at least at shorter ranges where velocity is high). This is a very well documented phenomenon, e.g. http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

The AK's M43 round was not a specifically designed assault rifle round in the sense that they approached the cartridge the same way the Germans did. Rather than develop a new bullet, they adopted a light version of the 30 bullet already in use in the 7.62x54R (in the same way the Germans took an 7.92mm bullet and put it in the 33mm case for the StG44). The result was a relatively low velocity, stable bullet with a rainbow like trajectory.

By contrast, the 5.56x45mm was the result of work done by Donald Hall and the SCHV studies. That round resulted in a very flat trajectory obviating elevation adjustments at combat ranges, having a low recoil impulse and damage disproportionate to it's size.

However, neither round is idea for a general purpose rifle. Modern infantry combat has become more counter insurgency operations, and less large scale mechanized warfare. The current war fighter has a need for a round that can be employed for both close combat and range infantry fire - particularly as optical sights have made range small arms engagements much more effective.

Going back to the full power rifle catridge is not a suitable answer, as it totally negates the value of high volume fire in the assasult and for fixing the enemy in situ, and as noted, neither the 5.56 or the 7.72x39 are really suitable for longer range engagements.

The closest we have come to an all purpose rounds is probably the cartridges developed by the British immediately post WWII such as the 280. I would submit that a true intermediate round firing a 6-7mm bullet at 2600-2800 fps could fulfill both roles very nicely.

Geno
September 3, 2007, 04:29 AM
Beast is right...as pictured, it weighs right around 18 Lbs.

Catapultam habeo
September 3, 2007, 05:46 AM
Gentlemen,

If I were facing a situation where I should get rid of all of my guns except one, the one I’d keep would be without hesitation my SIG-550.

I have had that rifle over five years now and I shoot about 2000 rounds per year with it. Up here the conditions can be sometimes a bit harsh, in February for example the temperature can drop under –40 centigrade. Still, my SIG has never failed me in three-gun competition even in extreme conditions.

H&K G36 is another very comfortable and reliable rifle but it is just too much plastic for my taste. I prefer SIG because:

- It is as reliable as AK47
- It is as accurate as AR
- It is as ergonomic as AR
- The mags are awesome
- The iron sights are best I have tried
- It is steady platform, very easy to shoot
- Needs practically no cleaning or other daily maintenance, oil in the barrel is enough

Well, it is not a perfect rifle because:

- It is a bit lengthy
- It is a bit heavy
- Trigger could be smoother (feels like AK)
- Accessories are limited, hard to get and cost arm and leg to buy

Finally, to add my opinion about AK:s: Those guns are much better in accuracy as their reputation. If I understood right my reading, you guys shoot cheapest possible ammo with your AK:s. I have two Saigas and they both shoot less than 2MOA groups with tailored homebrew ammo. But if I shoot the cheapest ammo (= wolf, DDR surplus or Bulgarian surplus) the accuracy is under all expectations. AK is effective and accurate military weapon up to 300m when you have right ammo and you know how to handle the gun.

1911 guy
September 3, 2007, 07:27 AM
In full disclosure, I've used exactly four of the rifles on the list. That leaves me a lot of unexplored territory.

If I had to pick one rifle to do everything, I'd opt for the M14. I've used it and it works.

Now I can imagine, and have been in, a variety of situations where an otherwise fine weapon doesn't fill the bill as "best". For the operations of modern warfare, sevolving around close quarters and structure, the M14 is lacking in ease of use. A short 12ga. would be better. As soon as you were to leave the confines of an urban area, the 12ga would be lacking.

Not to misrepresent myself, I do not have a lengthy military carreer. I had a relatively short (6 years) and varied one. I am also a vet of the previous persian gulf war, not this one.

atblis
September 3, 2007, 10:17 AM
I swear I've already responded to this thread (maybe it was another that was similar)

None of the Above!

Daewoo K2

Simple, rugged, reliable, good sights, optics rail. Not overcomplicated. Good ergos. Nice folding stock. Accurate enough.

You won't see it in video games
No full page adds in mallninjadigest telling you it's the bestest most badass ubertacticool rifle ever.
Most people don't even know what it is!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/K2a1.jpg

absolut_beethoven
September 3, 2007, 05:31 PM
I posted a similar poll back in July (see the link below), shortly after I joined this site. Although I only offered much fewer choices. Also my question was tailored to what one LIKED best, and not what IS the best, specifically because I was looking for info on assault rifles that interested me and I wanted to learn more about those rifles.

So I confess that mine was biased in my favor, but I hoped that others could learn from it. Unfortunately too many people took issue with the fact that their fav wasn't listed. Thanks to Kaylee and others, I still learned quite a lot from that poll.

As far as your poll is concerned, thanks for posting it as I have learned a lot more from yours.

I always find GunTech's posts most informative, and his posts, plus too many others to mention, have been most helpful to me.

My only surprise about this poll is that the FN FAL garnered so many votes. As
one who carried that rifle for a year back in 1974, I found it very heavy and not particularly well balanced, especially on a few of those 15 mile route marches that we did back then with full pack etc - about 40 to 50 lbs. Of course maybe some of that has to do with the fact that I'm only 5' 6" and weighed 140lbs. Still, that's just my opinion.

In its defense, I will say that I found it very easy to strip and clean and I never had any malfunctions with mine, although I did witness a few failures to feed at the range. Mine was accurate enough out to 300m with steel sites for me to earn my marksman badge.

Lastly, I personally didn't see one recruit from my group of approx 1000, including some guys who were well over 6' and 300lbs who could control that beast on full auto and get even marginal accuracy after the first shot or two.

So my choice would be either the HK416, or one of the bull pups like the Tavor. As others have mentioned, most fighting today - and more than likely in the future too, is going to center on urban warfare. The enemy likes it because it favors their tactics ( hiding amongst civilians and a few BG tie up a lot of our troops etc) and propaganda.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=290033

accomplice
September 3, 2007, 10:50 PM
Sig 556 for me until the SCAR comes out. But the SCAR has some big shoes to fill. After running this 556 hard I'm impressed.

BRASSM
September 3, 2007, 11:06 PM
I currently have an AR-15, M-71S, and and FN-FAL . Although the FAL is heavy and the ammo is the bulkiest. I much prefer the FN-FAL. I would rather hit someone with a 150gr. projectile at 2700 fps, then a .55gr. projectile at 3200 fps. Also thos 180gr APs do a number on an engine block.

Shot Placement.......Shot Placement.......Shot Placement...............

Val USP
September 8, 2007, 03:03 PM
Dear HorseSoldier
you tried to answer on my question:"OK, check history of these rounds. Check how many people died from these rounds in the world, and how many from 223?"

My suspicion would be that if you control for number issued and only look at actual direct fire . . . about the same. In places like Africa, the AK has been used in some truly horrific wars, but the actual multi-million person death tolls from those conflicts is mostly about refugees starving and/or dying from disease, not direct fire from small arms.

And what you've wrote - didn't answer - how many people in whole world died from 7.62 and .223? If you didn't see TV - check Internet images - how many hundreds civilians on the ground in one place. It isn't looks like they died from disease.

FatalMove
September 9, 2007, 03:13 PM
I would rather choose rifle and caliber to fit the situation with probability of resupply. What i mean is i would take an AR-10 if i would be resupplied soon. But if i will not be resupplied for days, I would take an AR-15, m-16. I like the .308s ability to smash through cover and better killing power at longer ranges. But if you wont be resupplied then your .308 with no ammo is nothing more than a club. The ar-15 or m-16 with ammo is better than the club.

Carry 8 20 round mags or .308 or 12 30 round mags of .223 on a slow resupply

All im sayin is i would rather have ammo for something than have none and my rifle be a club

I voted AR-15 M-16 and yes own and shoot ar-10 and ar-15

Nolo
September 9, 2007, 04:22 PM
Wow. This thread garnered responses long after I thought it was dead.
Ha!
To the one person who showed disdain at not having separate M16/M4 choices, I apologize, I only had 16 slots, so I could not separate them.
With the Daewoo, it is essentially similar to the HK416, but I think more people are familiar with the 416, hence its neglect. If you want an extrensive list of combat rifles, you'll have to go to the Modern Firearms and Ammunition Site run by Max Popenker.
I later ran a thread on developing a cartridge for an assault rifle and I came up with two options:
-A 6x40mm round that weighs a little more than the .223 and shoots a 105-grain bullet at 3000 f/s for 2000 ft-lbs energy (using improved powders that I was made aware of) in a bullpup or conventional layout rifle that weighs about as much a 416.
-A 5.56x28mm round that weighs considerably less than the .223 and shoots a 90-grain bullet at 3100 feet per second for 1700 ft-lbs energy (also using improved powders) in an Uzi-style (through-the-pistol-grip) layout with a longer barrel that weighs maybe as much as an MP5 with shoulder stock.
Both of those has a case width the same as the 5.56mm round, and overall lengths shorter than the 5.56mm (~40mm for the 5.56, approximately the same as a 7.62x39 for the 6mm) and both use a bullet that I designed that combines a hollowpoint with an armor-piercing core.
Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but I think I like the 6mm more. I'm still working on the rifles, though.

Nolo
September 9, 2007, 04:27 PM
As far as the U.S. Military goes right now, I have a relatively easy solution: make 40-round magazines your standard issue and build in a 2-round burst function. there are some things left unsolved, but the basic power issue is remedied.
Also, I think that using the Abakan's 2-round burst action (similar to the G11's) would help out a next-gen rifle's performance alot.

GunTech
September 9, 2007, 04:42 PM
Nolo, I can tell you've not been an infantryman. Shooting from the prone is bad enough with 30 round magazines. And when thr sh*t starts flying, you can't get too low.

If I were an individual, I like several others would opt for the M-14 type rifle. It is heavy, but it can reach out and is rugged and relable as all get out. It will make a very decent DMR when equipped with a telescopic sight. and it's pretty easy to make hit on a man silhouette at 600 meters. There is also some energy left at that range.

However, If we are talking about an assault rifle ub use as part of an infantry squad, and doing routing combat tasks like patrolling, assalts, etc. I'd take the M16. There are times when you really want auto fire, and if Uncle Sugar is providing the ammo, I'm not worried about expending a little extra. In a military action, I've got my squad mates to provide cover fire during maneuver. I'm also in a much better position to close, contact and destroy the enemy.

It really depneds on the scenario - but what works for an infantryman as part of a unit is very different from what work best for an individual.

GunTech
September 9, 2007, 04:44 PM
Beast is right...as pictured, it weighs right around 18 Lbs.

That weighs more than my 27.5 inch Remington 40X!! It hope it can do at least 1/2 MOA.

Nolo
September 9, 2007, 04:51 PM
I never said the 40-round had to be a box mag... :evil:

But you are correct. And that does add weight. No, I have never been an infantryman, and I probably never will be. I don't handle authority too well, unfortunately.
Personally, my favorite out there right now is the FAL. It just has that endearing quality to me. Like a thoroughbred horse.

If you enjoyed reading about "Best Assault Rifle (Poll)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!