The Greatest Battle Rifle Ever Devised


PDA






A.M. Baer
November 21, 2008, 09:21 PM
Hello,

I am conducting a survey to determine the popular opinion of the Greatest Battle Rifles in history. I am doing this because from what I have found, previous similar surveys have been innacurate. "Battle Rifle", in this survey, is defined as any rifle, of any model, version, edition or variant which has been used as a general issue rifle for any military or militia force, or law enforcement.

Please be clear and specific of which rifle(s) you beleive is the greatest battle rifle, if you list more than one, please number them in order, with number one being the greatest. Keep in mind, in this survey "greatest" applies to design, functionality, reliability, accuracy and versatility combined. Please be sure the explain your decision(s) and specify reasons for your choice.

Here is a list (in no particular order) of various battle rifles from history, to refresh your memory.
-AK Platform
-AR15/M16 Platform
-M14/M1A
-M82
-BAR
-Lee-Enfield SMLE
-Springield 1903
-M1 Garand
-Mauser Kar98K
-Mosin Nagant
-FN FAL
-G3
-G36
-XM8
-FN SCAR
-Dragunov
-Steyr AUG
-FAMAS
-Enfield L85
-FN F2000


Please try your best to avoid simple and underthought posts such as "AK47: It's super reliable!". With a little effort we should be able to get a list of ten of the greatest battle rifles together; have at it.


Thank you, A.M. Baer.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Greatest Battle Rifle Ever Devised" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bobotech
November 21, 2008, 09:25 PM
Well I like the AK because it's super reliable.

:)

Just couldn't resist...

gvnwst
November 21, 2008, 09:26 PM
M82


You are kidding right? This isn't a battle rifle.

Most will say the M1 or AK.


Since you put in the SCAR and XM8, i will say the bushmaster ACR. It is developed at the same time, but better, IMO.

Im283
November 21, 2008, 09:28 PM
M1 Garand. No need to look any further for the best battle rifle.

To justify it I guess you could say it whipped the Nazi's arse in the big one.

And of course, its super reliable!

Lets see an AK make a shot at 800 or 1000 Yds.

A.M. Baer
November 21, 2008, 09:31 PM
"You are kidding right? This isn't a battle rifle."
No, it isn't, is it. The list was copied and pasted from a list I had put together of the most common rifles in history, from a few months back.

mordechaianiliewicz
November 21, 2008, 09:42 PM
G3 or FAL

Kymasabe
November 21, 2008, 09:50 PM
While I do like the AK...I'd have to give the title of "greatest" to the M1 Garand.

Thermactor
November 21, 2008, 09:51 PM
HK G3. Because you suck, and we hate you.

Avenger
November 21, 2008, 09:57 PM
Garand.
Then the Mosin-Nagant, AR, AK, and 1873 Springfield.

earlthegoat2
November 21, 2008, 10:14 PM
In terms of service length and sheer numbers of peoples lives ended by it: AK variants.

Timradcliffe345
November 21, 2008, 10:17 PM
Ruger 10/22

Shade00
November 21, 2008, 10:22 PM
Hmm.

M14!

Onmilo
November 21, 2008, 10:28 PM
Any full power cartridge battle rifle that has enough merit to be product improved and recalled to active service would gain the distinction of being the greatest battle rifle to date.

50 years later and still soldiering on, the distinction goes to the M14.

I should add the M14 never went out of active service, the US Navy continues to use them even before they were rediscovered by the active duty Army.

Golden Hound
November 21, 2008, 10:29 PM
Century CETME. Becaaus u suk and we hait u.

Extra points if it's loaded with Pakistani ammo.

SlamFire1
November 21, 2008, 10:32 PM
Best Battle rifles in the first fifty years of the 20th Century

Garand
Lee Enfield
Mauser 98

Best Battle rifles of the second half of the 20th Century

AK
M14
AUG

camslam
November 21, 2008, 10:32 PM
Got to go with the AK.

If the M1A had a pistol grip, I would probably have given it a closer run to the AK, especially since it is shooting a .308, but overall due to the reliability/caliber/longevity/and quality results based on expectations, I'm sticking with the AK.

Lots of good rifles though, and usually the most important thing about the rifle, is the person shooting it.

HOLY DIVER
November 21, 2008, 10:38 PM
this is a tuff one......i never served in the military ........based on what i've read i'd say a toss up between an M14 AK-47

everallm
November 21, 2008, 10:47 PM
OK,

These 4 are not battle rifles and not for the list, either don't really exist (XM8 , SCAR) or sniper platforms (M82, Drangunov)

M82 Barret
XM8
SCAR
Dragunov

This was already done on the Military/Discovery channel with the top 10 combat rifles based on capability. length of service, innovation etc.

http://military.discovery.com/technology/weapons/rifles-intro.html

jcwit
November 21, 2008, 10:49 PM
It all depends on the time frame of when the rifle/firearm was used. During the Revolutionary War the Penn. rifled long rifle was a great advancement over the smoothbore musket. In todays world I would pick the AK-platform.

Mossberg88
November 21, 2008, 10:52 PM
You have to take into account that the AK is the single most mass-produced weapon in history

Javelin
November 21, 2008, 10:58 PM
M4


:)

dispatch55126
November 21, 2008, 11:03 PM
The best battle rifle of all times is the Brown Bess. It was the one rifle used my all imperial forces that largely conquered the world. It wasn't until the advent of rifled muskets and caplocks that the Brown Bess was finally made obsolete. It was also in continual service for over 100 years.

From the early 1700's to the mid 1800's, the Land Pattern musket was as iconic as the AR or AK is today. Most other rifles, the 1861 Springfield, 1853 Enfield, Trapdoor Springfield, 1903, M1 Garand, Lee-Enfield, K98, SKS and FAL are significant to a specific time frame or war, but never had the continued legacy.

Even the AR and AK are relics of the cold war. Most college students today were conceived or just born when the wall came down. The primary technology mover of the mid to late 20th century was thus eliminated. This meant rifles were tweaked and "modernized" instead of completely new designs and directions.

Just as the Land Pattern was made obsolete by rifling and caplock, the rifled musket was made obsolete by the self contained cartridge, the single shot made obsolete by the bolt action to be made obsolete by the autoloader, the AR/AK series will remain the primary weapons until they too are made obsolete by something radically new.

If the AR/AK can hold out for another 50 years, then they can take the place of the Land Pattern "Brown Bess".

XTerminator
November 21, 2008, 11:04 PM
If I was going into battle and had someone else to carry most of my ammo, I would choose the M-14. :) Otherwise I'd have to go with the Kalashnikov
:cool:

Steve

WardenWolf
November 21, 2008, 11:08 PM
Honestly, I'd have to say the AK platform. It's not fair to judge it by the crap copies made in 3rd world countries, although it's a testament to its simplicity and reliability. In its modern AK-74 form, it's even got halfway decent accuracy, too.

ar10
November 21, 2008, 11:09 PM
How many own a 80+yr old battle rifle and it's still as accurate as it was 70 yrs ago.
Which battle rifles have you peed on to cool the barrel and also to clean it.
How many have had jambs just when you needed the battle rifle most.
How many can field strip their battle rifle in under 1 minute then slap it back together in the same amount of time.
Which battle rifles can make the same 4" pattern at 500yds in the most crappiest weather.
Finally which battle rifle can do all the above.
There's more I just can't think of any more right now.







M1 Garand. :D

Hoppy590
November 21, 2008, 11:13 PM
most common rifles in history, from a few months back.

m82 under " most common in history" ehh that makes less sense

if its by commonality it should read AK, Mosin, SMLE.... etc

mgregg85
November 21, 2008, 11:21 PM
Any votes yet for the daisy red rider?:neener:

Nah really I think I would have to pick the AK-47 for sheer numbers produced and the number of countries that use it. Its a tough, reliable, powerful and cheap weapon that is simple to clean and use.

jpwilly
November 21, 2008, 11:34 PM
I should add the M14 never went out of active service, the US Navy continues to use them even before they were rediscovered by the active duty Army.

No offence but the M14 being used by the Navy to shoot mines is hardly MBR status. Don't get me wrong I like the M14 and it's daddy the M1 Garand plenty.

deerhunter61
November 21, 2008, 11:39 PM
This survey is simply not realistic. This is the same as asking who the greatest baseball player of all time is...or who is the greatest Quarterback of all time is...the athletes of yesterday did not train year around nor did they get paid much realitive to todays athletes. The only way to compare is the greatest of eras.

Technology is such that as good as the M1 was during WWII it is not the best today so to say it is the best of all time is inaccurate at best. Why not group Battle rifles of different eras and pick the best of each era. Then perhaps you can compare them realitive to certain criteria using length of service, impact on the war which was fought at the time, impact on battle rifles that followed and present a top 5? Even this is not really going to mean much.

DoubleTapDrew
November 21, 2008, 11:41 PM
I always thought a "battle rifle" was a rifle that fired a full power cartridge, whereas select fire guns that fired an intermediate cartridge (M16, AK-47, etc) were "assault rifles".
I'd pick M-14. Hard hitting round, accurate, ability to go full auto although it's not exactly controllable as such.
P.S. my answer may be a little biased due to my immediate thoughts of George C. Scott playing General Patton and referring to the M1 Garand and the greatest battle implement ever devised and my thoughts of the M14 as the cooler younger brother of the M1 Garand :)

Loomis
November 21, 2008, 11:51 PM
The brown bess is a smooth bore...ie not a rifle

The greatest ever devised?

That would have to be one of the newer designs based on the M16. Those would be:

magpul masada
bushmaster ACR
FN SCAR
robinson arms XCR

et al

lipadj46
November 22, 2008, 12:09 AM
Personally I like the M14. 7.62x51, steel, wood and detachable magazine are a potent combo. A close second would be the M1 Garand, the only big drawback I see with the M1 is the "ping! hey everyone I'm out of ammo!" flying clips. A tie for 3rd would be the M16 and AK47, both are classics in their own right.

Kind of Blued
November 22, 2008, 12:32 AM
I can't name a "greatest" unless you're asking which one has the most acclaimed reputation, allowing for a sort of historical "greatness". I can name a "most influential", most "highly-acclaimed", or most "versatile", but comparing a 1903A3 to a M16 is pointless.

For 95% of all situations, I'd say AK-47 hands down. For the other five percent, give me a population, a conflict, a terrain, a climate, a supply chain condition, level of training, then tell me how the enemy is doing on every one of those elements, and I'll tell you which rifle to field. :) Hi ho.

Retro
November 22, 2008, 12:33 AM
In combat situations, the most effective mode of firing is semi-auto.

M14 or FAL.

FAL: Left arm of freedom, shoots .308, incredibly reliable, and durable.
M14: shoots .308, incredibly reliable, durable, and accurate.

others:
G3/CETME: very accurate, reliable, but NOT durable, once the delayed blow-back mechanism wears out, you need a new receiver.

To take to combat, I would bring a SA SOCOM 16 in USGI heavy contour walnut stock (equipped with ARMS #18 railmount), with 20 rd mag, with Aimpoint M68 Red-dot with ARMS quick-take-down mount (for factory scout rail), and with ACOG with ARMS quick take-down mount (for #18 rail). Aimpoint/ACOG can go on interchangeably, depending on the distance of engagement. This set-up is simple, reliable, powerful, and effective.

Retro

RonE
November 22, 2008, 12:49 AM
You left out the Martini 577/.450 and the 45-70 Springfield Trapdoor. Both of which were technical marvels in their times.

lev83
November 22, 2008, 12:56 AM
I had a lot of trouble chosing between these two but ended up giving the M-1 the nod because it offers more versatility than the AK-47

black_powder_Rob
November 22, 2008, 01:41 AM
most defiantly the m1 Garand :D

maddog1775
November 22, 2008, 01:55 AM
The Garand wins hands down. No other rifle in history outclassed its peers the way the M1 did when it was put up against the bolt action rifles used by the Axis powers.

Golden Hound
November 22, 2008, 02:28 AM
M14 more durable than the G3? That is one claim I've never heard before.

tribbles
November 22, 2008, 03:24 AM
If things had developed like they SHOULD have, it would have been the FN-FAL in a .280 cartridge, but no, we pushed a shortened .30-06 round on NATO, then went with a mag-fed Garand derivative while the rest of the free world told us to get stuffed and went with the FAL instead.

woodybrighton
November 22, 2008, 04:33 AM
lee enfield 17 million made. 1895-not out of service yet 113 years
convinced the Germans in WW1 they were facing mass machine gun fire
served through ww2 1939-1945
Korea
Malaya
Falklands as a sniper rifle
still on issue with Canadian rangers and Indian police so longest serving military bolt issue rifle ever.

db_tanker
November 22, 2008, 07:20 AM
I would have to pick two. And they are the two that opposed each other for a goodly portion of the late 20th.


AK

FAL

Nowhere in the world can you find two more prolific and reliable weapons. Two totally different schools of thought went into those firearms...and they were both right.

You compiled a helluva list...and many on there I wouldn't feel undergunned carrying...but I won't go into why I would not carry each and every other firearm...

but the two I listed...those would be the ones I would go pick up first.

MTCW
D

Shawnee
November 22, 2008, 07:42 AM
Spencer.

:cool:

highlander 5
November 22, 2008, 08:01 AM
Garand,nuff said

lipadj46
November 22, 2008, 08:37 AM
Someone mentioned above that the M14 is only being used to defuse IEDs and mines in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tell that to SEI and Fulton who are making money hand over fist converting old shot out M14s into sub MOA DMR rifles for the army. There are a whole bunch of M14 DMRs and there would be many more if there were more M14s available and more armorers knew how to squeeze the accuracy out them (it is an expensive proposition). From what I've read the M14 is pretty sought after over there due to the accuracy and penetration power of the 7.62x51 nato round.

Harve Curry
November 22, 2008, 08:51 AM
The Greatest Battle Rifle Ever Devised

The M1 Garand.
Because:
1). It was was the first semi-auto rifle to be issued to a army as a main battle rifle. M1 Garand set the standard for others to overcome.
2). With it in hand the United States were the main player in WWII that eliminated a pestulence that had killed people on two opposite parts of the world. It was truly used for good.
3). The M1's 30-06 cartridge is a true rifle cartrdge. Together they are accurate and lethal beyond any AK 7.62x39.
4). They worked and are still reliable.

Harve Curry
November 22, 2008, 09:01 AM
If your survey was going further back you would have to include the Henry rifle of 1860 and the Spencer.
During a muzzleloading era the fixed ammunition of both weapons. Large magazine capacity of the Henry, but a low power cartridge. The 56-56 Spencer cartridges were hard hitters and accurate, capable of 3 MOA.

Frank A
November 22, 2008, 10:34 AM
Interesting question and I have not really been surprised with the answers. Most is seems like either the AK or M1. Good choices, but their reasoning is often left out.

When you consider what a battle rifle has to go through to be acclaimed "best" they are all remarkable, with a couple of exceptions.

With that said, I would like to throw my idea into the quest for the best.

I think first of all you are trying to compare apples to oranges. By that I mean you are comparing bolt actions to semi and full auto's. I really think they should be separated. One answer did with the offering of the Brown Bess, and his thinking was good on the subject. I would have to say he is correct with the proviso that you only compare it to other front stufers. They could not begin to win a battle against even the worst of the rifles you have on you list.

As far as the bolt action rifles you have listed, it really comes down to just two. The Lee Enfield is one of the greatest and for sure was issued a long time to a lot of troops and decided many battles. If I may include all mauser 98's and not just the kar98, then it too requires a place right along side the Enfield. If we must consider only the kar98 then it drops in its value as a battle rifle. Those two are almost neck and neck, but I would place the mauser 98 a half a nose ahead of the Enfield, and would not argue with anyone who thinks they are reversed.

On the other hand the Mosin Nagant is not to be put out of the race either. It is a very superior firearm. To place then in a 1,2,3 order, I would put them Mauser 98, Lee Enfield, and Mosin Nagant. They are all three great firearms, and I would not want anyone using any of the three against me.

As for the semi-auto's that is much easier. First, if you consider which one can be dropped into a mud hole and fired, or into a pile of sand and fired with the fewest problems, then the AR has to be placed on the bottom of the list. The only thing the AR has going for it is its inherant accuracy. But others are capable of sub minute accuracy as well, but usually not right out of the box.

Now which one can endure that kind of punishment and still fire. For sure we again come down to just two. First I want to put all the M1 and variants such as the M1A and M14 into one family and say it is tops, with the M14 being the best of the three.
Next, no one can argue the AK (considering both the 47 and 74) and its variants has passed the test as well. It has been issued longer and to more soldiers than any of the semi autos listed. It is still being issued 60 years after its invention. (I believe only the 1911 was issued longer.)

So again to list 1,2 it would have to be the AK first and the M1 family second (with M14 being best of family). Again, I would not argue with anyone that would reverse the two, they are so close.

You have put together a great list, and I would like at least one of each.

And so the argument continues.

Chilean
November 22, 2008, 11:02 AM
Mauser K98k

flyboy1788
November 22, 2008, 11:33 AM
Mauser kar98k. Your welcome

Shear_stress
November 22, 2008, 01:26 PM
The greatest battle rifle ever devised...

Is obviously the Ruger 10/22.

No army carrying the Ruger 10/22 has ever been defeated in battle.

Right you are. The Israelis have a pretty good track record:

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/0003ze.jpg

elmerfudd
November 22, 2008, 01:30 PM
You have to define the criterion by which "greatest of all time" will be judged by. Will it be it's impact on history, numbers produced, superiority to it's contemporaries, current superiority or something else entirely?

In terms of impact on history, I think it may be hard to beat the AK. There were just so many produced and in the early years it was about the best CQB rifle on the planet. They were also distributed worldwide and effectively armed nations and guerrillas that would otherwise only have been able to afford obsolete surplus weapons. Aside from being cheap, it also turned out to be perfectly suited to rough use and abuse by these peasant soldiers. It's a rifle that has seriously changed the course of history for 60 years and filled a role that few of it's contemporaries could have. It also shows few signs of fading and will probably still be around when our grandchildren are being issued lasers.

#2 would probably have to be the Garand. It outclassed just about everything else out there during WW2 by a large margin, with the one exception of the sturmgewehr, and made everything else obsolete. Unlike other significant breakthroughs like the Lebel, the Garand was in full production just in time for the most important conflict in world history.
Unfortunately, the Garand was itself obsolete not long after WW2.

The Lee Enfield was a great rifle in it's day as well and so was the Sharps.

dodging230grainers
November 22, 2008, 02:06 PM
Right you are. The Israelis have a pretty good track record:

Nice pic, I've seen it before a couple times.

Technically they only use the Ruger .22 against violent protesters, etc. You would never catch that gun in an actual arab-israeli war.

If you want to argue the FAL using the Israelis as a case, Israel used the FAL in two of its biggest wars (Six Day War, Yom Kippur War) to great success.

Granted, there is much more to war than rifles.

Vern Humphrey
November 22, 2008, 02:32 PM
The best battle rifle of all times is the Brown Bess. It was the one rifle used my all imperial forces that largely conquered the world.

The Brown Bess was not a rifle -- it was a smooth bore.

And while the British Army and Navy were good -- especially the Navy, which allowed Britain to project power -- the Brown Bess wasn't so hot. For one thing, it had a gooseneck cock, which was much more fragile than the Charleville's double-throated cock. And for another, it had a pinned barrel, as opposed to the Charleville's banded barrel.

For a musket that was frequently used in hand-to-hand combat, the Chartleville was superior. That's why the first standard US Army Musket, the M1798, was a copy of the Charleville, not the Brown Bess.

elmerfudd
November 22, 2008, 02:45 PM
And while the British Army and Navy were good -- especially the Navy, which allowed Britain to project power -- the Brown Bess wasn't so hot. For one thing, it had a gooseneck cock, which was much more fragile than the Charleville's double-throated cock. And for another, it had a pinned barrel, as opposed to the Charleville's banded barrel.


The Brown Bess may have been used for just about forever, but as you noted, it wasn't because of any superiority that it had. While it was undoubtedly a decent musket it wasn't a great leap forward nor was it any better than it's contemporaries. It's biggest "innovation", was that it was a standardized weapon. Prior to the Brown Bess, British commanders supplied their troops with weapons they purchased with funds provided to them. Some commanders bought good gear and some didn't. The Brown Bess was a standardized musket that ensured that British troops were all armed similarly and properly.

Shear_stress
November 22, 2008, 02:48 PM
Nice pic, I've seen it before a couple times.

Technically they only use the Ruger .22 against violent protesters, etc. You would never catch that gun in an actual arab-israeli war.

Yeah, I was kind of being a smart ass.

Anyway, my problem with the term "battle rifle" is that I think it's a great piece of jargon in search of a solid meaning. What makes a "full power" rifle more of a "battle rifle" than an intermediate cartridge, full-auto assault rifle, especially when there were full-auto full-power rifles and merely burst-capable "assault rifles"? By definition, any rifle used in battle is a battle rifle. Anyway, I'm just being picky.

Onmilo
November 22, 2008, 02:54 PM
What defines a modern BATTLE RIFLE.
1. Weapon is chambered for a FULL POWER CARTRIDGE.

The AK/AKM/AK74/M16 series of rifles are chambered for INTERMEDIATE CARTRIDGES.
None of these weapons are capable of effectively engaging targets at ranges exceeding 600 meters, this eliminates them as candidates for this poll.

2. DETACHABLE BOX MAGAZINE.

The pinnacle of modern weapon design was the incorporation of the detachable box magazine.
The increase in onboard cartridge capability and the ability to quickly reload or replace a defective/empty magazine makes the detachable box magazine a hallmark of the modern battle rifle design.
This innovation effectively removes the M1 Garand and K-98 from consideration for this poll.

There are four serious candidates for this poll
1. The M14
2. The FN-FAL
3. The H&K G3
4. The Dragunov, ( go to Afghanistan if you seriously think this weapon is not used as a battle rifle.)

A.M. Baer
November 22, 2008, 02:59 PM
I would very much like to know where you got that information (multiple sources) and why you agree with it. Personally I do not.

Shear_stress
November 22, 2008, 03:01 PM
What defines a modern BATTLE RIFLE.

Hi Onmilo. I'm aware of the connotation. I just think that the use of the term "battle" to describe these rifles is vague and arbitrary, especially when engagements in modern warfare occur at relatively close distances (Afghanistan excepted).

Onmilo
November 22, 2008, 03:08 PM
1. Edward Clinton Ezell
2. Julian Hatcher
3. Janes Defense
4. Palladin press
5. United States Military
6. West Point Military Academy Museum
7. Been there, done that.

You need some more or is that enough source material?

I should also add that the 600 meter effective ranging requirement is seriously pushing the limitations of the G3 rifle.
I am also well aware that someone, somewhere out there, knows this guy who knows this guy who killed a bad guy with one shot from his M4 carbine at a laser ranged 875 meters,,,

Shear stress, that is exactly why the intermediate range cartridge, large capacity, select fire Assault rifle was developed.

ds92
November 22, 2008, 04:11 PM
+1 for the Garand

all the other guns of WWII were outclassed for an urban-style war, and in the countryside, the M1 still performed quite admirably...even as a sniper system in Korea.

tnieto2004
November 22, 2008, 04:13 PM
I would add the SKS

maddog1775
November 22, 2008, 05:01 PM
lee enfield 17 million made. 1895-not out of service yet 113 years
convinced the Germans in WW1 they were facing mass machine gun fire
served through ww2 1939-1945
Korea
Malaya
Falklands as a sniper rifle
still on issue with Canadian rangers and Indian police so longest serving military bolt issue rifle ever.
Speaking of which, when I was in Afghanistan we found an Enfield in perfect working order. If I recall correctly it had a date stamped on it, sometime around the 1920s I think.

It was loaded, too.

d2wing
November 22, 2008, 06:12 PM
I have been in battles if it were me I rather be looking down the sights of an M14 or M16. An AK or SKS has almost no accurate range. I love the Garand and the 06. But the M14 is better, and the M16 is quicker, and more accurate. A lot depends on what kind of battles you're going to be in. Imagine guys hunting each other in all kinds of terrain. I would go with the M16. If you happen to be in wide open country with no cover, or with body armor the M14 wins.
The rest aren't even it the running if I had to pick and hunt and be hunted.

elmerfudd
November 22, 2008, 06:30 PM
An AK or SKS has almost no accurate range.

I have shot out to 400 yards using iron sights on a PSL, which is basically just a big, long barrelled AK. I don't find it particularly difficult to keep all my shots on an 8.5x11 piece of paper at 200 yards with a regular AK either. It's true that AK's aren't MOA weapons like free floated AR's, but they're a lot more accurate than they're given credit for.

If you have trouble hitting things with an AK and there's nothing wrong with the rifle, then it's probably because you're not very good with the AK sights. Notch and post sights are more difficult to use well than the truly excellent iron sights on either an M14 or an M16.

Most AK's will shoot around 4 MOA. You won't win any shooting competitions with that kind of accuracy, but it's still good enough for a head shot out to 200 yards.

priler
November 22, 2008, 06:56 PM
best battle rifle of all time: M14

best assualt rifle of all time: AK

best bolt action rifle of all time: MAUSER,probably the only time in history that something was done right the first time.

i find your question extremely flawed but i think i understand.you want something like from those highlander movies,there can be only one....but that is not real life.ask me what you want it for and the answer may become clear.

battle rifles are a direct descendent from when armies used to line up in front of each other and take aim.

assault rifles come from what the germans learned during WW1 and they were correct.

HorseSoldier
November 22, 2008, 07:11 PM
What I think elmerfudd already said -- what does "best" even mean? Production numbers, technological/ergonomic superiority that makes it superior to contemporaries, or some other criteria?

What defines a modern BATTLE RIFLE.
1. Weapon is chambered for a FULL POWER CARTRIDGE.

Invented by apologists for the 7.62x51 round and the rifles that fired it (primarily the M14) to explain why the US and NATO had decided to adopt weapons that were intentionally less well tailored for real combat than the AK-47.

Picking which conventionally/traditionally defined "battle rifle" is best, is kind of like debating who made the best Betamax VCR at this point.

There are four serious candidates for this poll
1. The M14
2. The FN-FAL
3. The H&K G3
4. The Dragunov, ( go to Afghanistan if you seriously think this weapon is not used as a battle rifle.)

The AR-10 probably deserves a nod as well, if we're considering the Dragunov and considering the M14 as something besides a short-lived failure as a service rifle based on its limited use as a DMR. The SR-25 and M110 are going strong and look likely to be around when the last M14s are back in their crates or helping build a nice reef off the coast of Florida.

In 7.62x51, though, SCAR-H is probably the winner -- though it should be, being 50 years younger than its competitors.

Deputy25
November 22, 2008, 10:21 PM
Garand.

Onmilo
November 22, 2008, 10:31 PM
The AR10 may very well end up on the list in future times as may a host of other rifles.
Time in use, combat involvement, and numbers issued decide whether a rifle is truely qualified enough to end up on a best of list.

The M1 Garand would certainly capture the title if this Poll had instructed "Prior to 1950",,,

camies
November 23, 2008, 03:19 AM
L39Al 7.62 sniper.
Tough as old boots and reliable out to 1000 yards.

mopar92
November 23, 2008, 03:20 AM
For a non scoped, durable, powerful rife... the M1 Garand...

But the way times changed you can't compare a semi to an auto with a huge magazine... Otherwise my vote is..

AK
M1 Garand
M-16
Enfield .303

Ignition Override
November 23, 2008, 03:51 AM
Aren't most combat encounters 300 yards or primarily much less, except in desert, mountains?

What was the average range at Stalingrad, Berlin and Hue?
How about right now in Iraq?
Being sort of new with guns, curious about some real-world distances.

Am re-reading the superb book about Marine Lt. Philip Caputo's experiences ("A Rumour Of War") near Danang, Viet Nam, 1965-.
Quite grim but fascinating. How could the much faster, but slimmer, smaller mass of the 5.56 compete through jungle growth against the 7.62x39?
How was it? Wasn't the round much more unstable, easier to deflect when it hit any object before hitting the enemy? I don't quite understand debates about tumble etc in typical combat settings, or anywhere else.

Having owned just two Minis (14/30), an SKS and MN 44s for less than a year, although a novice, there is something very simple and extra appealing about the SKS. If they all were designed for AK mags, and original combat issue versus Norinco etc, how would they then rank?

woodybrighton
November 23, 2008, 07:31 AM
the mauser makes for a good hunting action.
but not a combat weapon especially against the lee enfield
10 round mag vs 5
much faster to shoot and easier to load.
was winning battles and wars before the m1 and m14 existed and was still on issue when those two had faded away.

hawmanai
November 23, 2008, 12:44 PM
The M1 Garand Rifle


"The greatest battle implement ever devised."


-- General George S. Patton, Jr.

English Bob
November 23, 2008, 02:05 PM
Garand

elmerfudd
November 23, 2008, 02:26 PM
the mauser makes for a good hunting action.
but not a combat weapon especially against the lee enfield
10 round mag vs 5
much faster to shoot and easier to load.
was winning battles and wars before the m1 and m14 existed and was still on issue when those two had faded away.

The Enfield had much better sights too.

I actually think the K98 Mauser was a pretty poor battle rifle. It had bad sights, a slow action and a low capacity. The only reason I'd rank it ahead of the Mosin Nagant would be the better craftsmanship and safety.

sinistr
November 23, 2008, 02:48 PM
onmillo,i have to disagree with you on the g3,i consistantly hit targets out to 600m with one.best battle rifle would be an ak series(sig 55x in 6.5 or 6.8)

MTMilitiaman
November 23, 2008, 05:52 PM
In terms of overall effectiveness and taking into account the combination of reliability, long term durability and service life, accuracy and ergonomics, shooter friendliness, as well as influence, I would have to rate the M1 Garand as first among the semi/fully autos and the Mauser first among the pre-autos. I believe Patton got it right when he called the Garand the best battle implement ever devised, and certainly is imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the Mauser deserves its spot at the top of the list for its pre-Garand era. To the Garand, I would of course add the M14, because while it was never as revolutionary as the Garand, it did refine it and make it into a weapon that would continue to be relevant, despite the denial of its critics, for the next fifty years or so. Saying the M14 has only been used to shoot mines or as a DMR isn't technically correct. The Navy SEALs never stopped issuing it as a standard battle rifle alongside the M16 and other weapons, for situations that required a little extra authority.

Though technically an assault rifle, for the purposes of this thread, the Kalashnikov would have to be next. No other weapon in history can claim the numbers, distribution, or influence of the Kalashnikov series. It has proven durable and reliable in every part of the globe, simple to operate and maintain, adequately powerful and accurate enough in trained hands to kill reliably at the limits of most modern combat (300 meters).

Next among the battle rifles I'd list the FAL. It is the only modern battle rifle to compete with the influence of the Kalashnikov. I commonly refer to it as the Capitalist Kalashnikov.

Then you'd probably have the include the M16/M4, then the G3, among modern designs.

But all said and done, I'll put the Garand firmly in the lead.

ar10
November 23, 2008, 07:22 PM
Hope this finally answers everyone's arguments.
http://www.thecmp.org/m1garand.htm
Now I'm done.

H2O MAN
November 23, 2008, 08:03 PM
The Greatest Battle Rifle Ever Devised

That would be the M14


Don't give me an M-16,
Whose bullets all seem so green,
Up close, it's just fine,
But for my peace of mind,
Don't give me an M-16.

Don't give me an M-21,
For long distance, it was great fun,
It's optics were Starlight,
And made the whole night bright,
But don't give me an M-21

Don't give me an M-24
It's recoil made me so sore,
It's heavy and slow,
But accurate...... I know,
Still, don't give me an M-24

Just give me my old M-14,
Her's lines are so basic and lean,
She's no lightweight hitter,
And never a quitter,
Just give me my old M-14.


Long live the M14!

The Annoyed Man
November 23, 2008, 09:58 PM
NRA Top 10 Military Rifles (http://americanrifleman.com/rifles_military.html)

Onmilo
November 23, 2008, 10:39 PM
Patton died in 1946.
He would have changed his view if he lived long enough to admire the M14-FAL-G3

For M1 lovers, and I count myself among them, read Julian Hatchers views on the shortcomings of the M1.
If that isn't enough, read Roy Dunlaps views on the weapon.

It was a good weapon for the time it was used.
It was improved upon to become the M14.

ironhorse43
November 24, 2008, 02:51 AM
1. M14!
Because: It proved itself in limited service in Vietnam. The weapon excelled as a replacement for the M1 Garand rifle, fixing many of the previous rifle's shortcomings. Shooting through heavy brush and cover at high velocities even at extended ranges with knock down power. Large caliber, high capacity magazine, Selective fire, the many different platforms it offers and it breaks down pretty much the same as the M1 Garand and is easy to clean. All of these reasons the M1 Garand has except the bottom feed magazine well, and selective fire. I owned a M1 Garand and loved it but really didn't like only eight rounds, loading enblocs by hand with no bullet guides and loading from the top.

Although I consider this rifle my pick for the greatest Battle rifle ever. I still have some issues with it but they are outweighed by the other competitors on the list. Because of the M14's powerful 7.62x51 mm cartridge, the weapon was virtually uncontrollable in fully automatic mode. The handle acted as a pivot point for the repercussion of the round going off. Earlier somebody said a pistol grip would have solved this. It did, this is where Mr. Stoner come up with his idea for the M16. To be honest, I hate full auto anyways. You can't hit anything, you waist ammo, endanger the lives of your soldiers and make yourself a marked target for the enemy. Also mudd is a M14 killer as it is for any weapon except the AK platform. Even though I was in the service for almost 10 years and cut my teeth on the M-16A2, A3, A4 and M4 platform and consider it a great platform, despite my biased opinion, I have to say the M14 takes the cake.

2. AK- Damn near indestructible, reliable and easy to clean, high caliber, high capacity mags and has been in service since early 70's
3. AR
4. Lee-Enfield

Leatherneck0321
November 25, 2008, 01:59 PM
It's amazing that nobody has mentioned the "Henry Rifle." This rifle changed history as we know it. High capacity magazine, could be loaded in complete darkness, and could be fired from a running horse. Can you imagine going into a frontal assault with a musket and your enemy had this weapon?

Leatherneck0321
November 25, 2008, 02:10 PM
It's amazing that nobody has mentioned the "Henry Rifle." This rifle changed history as we know it. High capacity magazine, could be loaded in complete darkness, and could be fired from a running horse. Can you imagine going into a frontal assault with a musket and your ememy had this weapon?

Float Pilot
November 25, 2008, 02:33 PM
Patton died in 1946.

Actually December 21st 1945

Vern Humphrey
November 25, 2008, 03:13 PM
It's amazing that nobody has mentioned the "Henry Rifle." This rifle changed history as we know it. High capacity magazine, could be loaded in complete darkness, and could be fired from a running horse. Can you imagine going into a frontal assault with a musket and your ememy had this weapon?

Actually, the Henry was not a battle rifle. Only a few hundred were ever purchased by the Union Army (and a few hundred more by private individuals.) In terms of power, it was a glorified pistol -- the case held 28 grains of black powder, making it much less powerful than the .44-40 which came later.

The Spencer repeating rifle and carbine, however, were purchased in quantity -- mostly the carbines. After the War, the Spencer was the standard cavalry carbine until the '73 Springfield supplanted it.

.308
November 25, 2008, 03:25 PM
I'll vote for the AK, but if that wasn't an option I would vote M14.

CYANIDEGENOCIDE
November 25, 2008, 03:34 PM
garand ?!! gag me with a spoon! If it really was the greatest people would still be using it. AK pattern is rifles aren't THAT much younger and they are still being used.
Richard Venola, Editor Combat Arms "If I was to go to an unknown planet, and I was allowed to take one firearm it would be an AK-47. When western civilization melts down I want an AK-47." A pretty rousing endorsment

HorseSoldier
November 25, 2008, 04:32 PM
garand ?!! gag me with a spoon! If it really was the greatest people would still be using it.

Garand is pretty much recognized as the best major production/standard service rifle of WW2 (had the StG-44 seen wider production that would probably be different). Given a choice between a Garand or one of the bolt guns that most guys in other armies carried, I think most guys in uniform -- not just American troops -- would have picked the Garand. It wasn't perfect for how combat is actually conducted but it was much more optimal than bolt guns. On the other hand, the Garand was obsolete by the end of the war -- StG-44 was a much better combat rifle, and the SKS was superior for combat shooting though not as much as the StG.

The AK probably had similar status as the best widely available combat long gun in the 50s and 60s but the differential between it and the M14/G3/FAL is narrower than Garand/bolt action rifle. The AK in 7.62x39 is pretty much obsolete today -- and recognized as such by pretty much everyone outside of the 3rd World who ever issued them to organized military forces -- but the differential between the AK-47/AKM and more modern, better optimized designs is also less pronounced than Garand/bolt gun.

So, on the one hand, I'd say you had a weapon that was more technologically superior for its time, and on the other hand you have a weapon that has aged better alongside current state of the art.

Which represents "better" or "greatest" is debatable. These threads always end up with different answers based on different criteria.

HorseSoldier
November 25, 2008, 05:58 PM
Oh, and the ol' Garand has to be just as indestructabler as an AK.

As long as you only feed the Garand mil-spec ammo. Hotter/higher pressure loads might make this claim debatable.

kevin tole
December 4, 2008, 01:11 AM
For me it was no contest. The SCAR comes in first, followed by the HK 416

BENELLIMONTE
December 4, 2008, 01:22 AM
M1 Garand!

nwilliams
December 4, 2008, 01:35 AM
+Whatever on the AK platform.

As far as battle rifles go I would choose decent quality AK over anything else out there.

foghornl
December 4, 2008, 09:34 AM
For me (a 55+ year old coot) my preference is the US Rifle Cal .30 M1 popularly known as The Garand. I can reload it faster than anything else I have fired, and it just "feels right" to me. And it puts those 150-Gr chunks of pointy FMJ alloy where I point. Plus, if you get down to that situation, makes a better club and/or pike than just about anything else.

Now, Mr. Kalishnikov has made a fine weapon, but it feels 'clunky' to me, and that short sighting radius...well I need all the help I can get.

jackstinson
December 4, 2008, 10:48 AM
Brown Bess musket(in all it's forms)
Charleville musket (and the subsequent Springfield 1812)
Springfield rifled musket
Mauser 98 (and it's stepchildren)
Mosin Nagant (in all it's forms)
Lee Enfield (still see it today used by India policemen)
M1 Garand
AK (in all it's forms it's the most prolific)
AR (in all it's forms)

ZeBool
December 4, 2008, 01:03 PM
From American Rifleman, 2008 (all Credit goes to AR)

American Rifleman “Top 10” Infantry Rifles

1. The U.S. Rifle, Cal. .30, M1 “Garand”
2. The Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK-47)
3. Mauser 98
4. The M16
5. Brittish P1853 Enfield
6. Lee-Enfield
7. StG44
8. FN Fusil Automatique Leger (FAL)
9. Dreyse Model 1841 “Needle Gun”
10. The Henry Rifle

Personally, I believe the AK-47 is the best battle rifle. Why aren't militaries around the world still using Garands if they are better???

Vern Humphrey
December 4, 2008, 01:10 PM
Why aren't militaries around the world still using Garands if they are better???
For the same reason they aren't still using the British Pattern 1853 Enfield rifle-musket.

ZeBool
December 4, 2008, 01:13 PM
Precisley. There came about a better rifle than the garand, that being the AK-47. Thanks for the help :)

Vern Humphrey
December 4, 2008, 01:26 PM
Actually, the AK 47 (and the M16) are assault rifles -- they are selective fire and chambered for an intermediate cartridge.

The M14 corrected all the minor flaws the Garand had.

H2O MAN
December 4, 2008, 01:31 PM
Vern Humphrey Actually, the AK 47 (and the M16) are assault rifles -- they are selective fire and chambered for an intermediate cartridge.



The M14 corrected all the minor flaws the Garand had.

Well said Vern :)

ZeBool
December 4, 2008, 01:40 PM
And here all along I thought the M14 was selective fire also, thus placing it into the same category as the AK-47.

woodybrighton
December 4, 2008, 02:42 PM
it might have a select fire capability but unlike the AK its full power cartridge made
that capability practically useless.
the m14 was a good idea poorly implemented and put back western firearms 20 years compare with say the enfield em2

Vern Humphrey
December 4, 2008, 02:49 PM
First of all, the M14 was selective fire only with the selector switch installed. Selector switches were issued separately. Wise company commanders locked them in the company safe and forgot the combination.:p

Next, having used both the M1 and the M14 in combat (the latter being the pre-M21 sniper version), I have to say no other full-power battle rifle is as good as those two.

ZeBool
December 4, 2008, 03:37 PM
I respect your opinion, and in that vein, respectfully disagree. M249 SAW for the win!!!!! :neener:

Vern Humphrey
December 4, 2008, 03:47 PM
When the M249 was in the final phases of adoption, I was at Benning, talking to a few enthusiasts:

Me: "Is this M249 more powerful than the M16?"

Them: "No, it fires the same cartridge."

Me: "But it's more reliable, right?"

Them: "Well, we have a few problems there . . ."

Me: "But it's more accurate, right?"

Them: "Well, we have a few problems there . . ."

Me: "But it's lighter, so you can carry more ammo?"

Them: "Well, actually it's heavier."

Me: "So you have a heavier, less reliable, less accurate weapon that uses the same cartridges, but shoots them up faster?"

Them: "Well, you make it sound so . . ."

Me: "I guess the problem you're trying to solve is having too much ammo left over after a fire fight.::p

ZeBool
December 4, 2008, 03:54 PM
Naturally, bad guys are like deer, rabbits, and pheasants, if you shoot them all there won't be any left for seed :)

jerry46
December 4, 2008, 04:19 PM
Without a doubt, the M14.

cland
December 5, 2008, 01:54 PM
Elmer Keith didn't like M1 Garands, I saw women firing 03s at 1000 yds on the rifle range at MCRD in Korean War era doing better than we with M1s. The Guadalcanal Marines would have been better equipped with M1s than 03s but The big three, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin cared less for the Pacific War. O3 is much more accurate but slower to fire and slower to load. But much better than Arisaka Japanese rifles.
We whupped 'em!

Rossshady120
December 5, 2008, 01:59 PM
Many of you have probably seen this on tv, but **** it. Don't know what's up with the Chinese subtitles but here are the top 10 combat rifles according to the discovery channel.

1.) AK47 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvrG4...elated&search=

2.) M16 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11rDd...elated&search=

3.) Lee Enfield SMLE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck66O...elated&search=

4.) M1 Garand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRCOr...elated&search=

5.) FN FAL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrSWp...elated&search=

6.) Mauser 98K Carbine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG6Oe...elated&search=

7.) Steyr AUG http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UVsW...elated&search=

8.) Springfield 1903 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y6nk...elated&search=

9.) STG44 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2Xf0H-WkX0&NR=1

10.) M14 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ8pKd2Hn28

MTMilitiaman
December 5, 2008, 02:28 PM
And here all along I thought the M14 was selective fire also, thus placing it into the same category as the AK-47.

Except by technical definition, the M14 fires a full-power, rather than intermediate power, rifle cartridge which qualifies it as a select-fire Main Battle Rifle rather than an assault rifle.

O and lest we forget, the AK-47 has been replaced as well. Which by your criteria, automatically disqualifies it from contention for the belt.

Blakenzy
December 5, 2008, 02:36 PM
The M14 corrected all the minor flaws the Garand had.

...except the weight...

ar10
December 5, 2008, 02:53 PM
Quote:
The M14 corrected all the minor flaws the Garand had.
...except the weight...
__________________

Sorry that's just plain horse pucky. I went through boot with the M1, then to SE Asia. two mths into the first tour "they" took away the M1's replacing them with M14's. "Minor flaws" included, dirt, jambing every 6 or 7th round, and having to clean them all the time. As far as weight, strap on an M1 cartridge belt along with the M1 and run awhile. Then do the same with the M14 and that cartridge belt. Of course when we were issued the M16's I dearly wished I had the M4 and/or my M1 back.
Disclaimer: The opinions represent my own, and not of the "officers and gentlemen".

texas bulldog
December 5, 2008, 04:01 PM
well, i don't presently have the resources to lay my hand on one, but i'll throw in a vote for the M14/M1A.

guess i'm not old enough to vote for the M1.

Rossshady120
December 5, 2008, 04:28 PM
okay let me put this out on the table the ak-47 has taken more soul's then any other gun and it is used the most there for its the "Greatest Battle Rifle Ever".

HorseSoldier
December 5, 2008, 07:18 PM
Except by technical definition, the M14 fires a full-power, rather than intermediate power, rifle cartridge which qualifies it as a select-fire Main Battle Rifle rather than an assault rifle.

If we're being technical it should be noted that the term for a full-power select fire long gun is "battle rifle." "Main Battle Rifle" was a term made up by gun rag writers who thought "main battle tank" sounded sexy and whose application to rifles would make them feel more manly waving their M1As around.

It probably also bears noting, however, that the "battle rifle" terminology is often used to obfuscate the fact that the M14 and AK-47 are contemporary designs both intended to be one-size-fits-all weapons optimized for real battlefield use. The M14 was a total failure in this role because it was chambered for an inappropriate cartridge (the design was sound enough -- had they done it in 280 British or 276 Pedersen things would have been much more interesting). The "battle rifle" term, based on mythologized claims exaggerating the difference between US and Soviet small arms doctrine/training, was invented after the fact to try and explain the failings of 7.62x51 for general service use.

If we're looking for "greatest battle rifle of all time," I'd tend to think "significantly failed to meet design requirements" would be the sort of knock in the M14 that would kick it right out of the running.

MTMilitiaman
December 5, 2008, 08:12 PM
The M14 was a total failure in this role because it was chambered for an inappropriate cartridge (the design was sound enough -- had they done it in 280 British or 276 Pedersen things would have been much more interesting).

And because military brass and politicians at the time were unwilling to show it the patience and development that they showed the rifle that replaced it, which, it should also be noted, also failed to meet the "one size fits all" criteria. Hence the adoption of the M249 to fit the Squad Automatic Weapon role.

So by your own standards, your own pet rifle is an abysmal failure as well. Welcome to the club.

interlock
December 5, 2008, 10:29 PM
Ok guys my opinions on this.

#1 FN FAL a great rifle, accurate, super reliable, super tough fires a big round, istrong enough to withstand FIBUA and robust enough to withstand me. i have lived with one on a number of tours. Superb.

#2 mauser k98 action family. a great rifle, a timeless design, accurate saw real service for the wermacht in 2 wars and many many other areas.

#3 AK47 /akm family. This is for different reasons. reliable tough, cheap, massively produced, simple.

I have used the M16 family and i like them, i believe the later ones are really good pieces of kit.

I have also used HK g3 family. also very good. the one i used was a 7.62 varient with a very short barrell in a carbine size frame with collapsing stock. They were used by the british in various theatres. When firing on full auto from within a car..... well it was life changing.

I have not used your M1 or M14.

I would rate the british SA80 at number 9,999,999

uk interlock

HorseSoldier
December 6, 2008, 12:27 AM
And because military brass and politicians at the time were unwilling to show it the patience and development that they showed the rifle that replaced it, which, it should also be noted, also failed to meet the "one size fits all" criteria. Hence the adoption of the M249 to fit the Squad Automatic Weapon role.

They did so because the M14 was so broken from the start -- bad caliber and obsolete ergonomics. So they decided to go with a completely different replacement. Happens sometimes. Sadly, R&D on the M16 was the cheaper solution -- the amount of money thrown into the M14 program with so little real advancement to show for it by the time it got passed over in favor of the M16 is a pretty embarrassing moment in military procurement. I can see why the powers that be thought pouring even more money into a bottomless pit was not the answer.

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j132/jboschma/ExpUSAssaultRifles.jpg

They did, however, give the M14 a shot at performing in a more suitable caliber, as illustrated above second from the top. It was ergonomically inferior to the competition, and also shuffled off this mortal coil.

So by your own standards, your own pet rifle is an abysmal failure as well.

This is probably an appropriate place to note that the USMC apparently just selected a modified (but still direct impingement) version of the M16 as the winner of the IAR competition, making it the SAW replacement for that service. That pretty much completes the hat trick of Garand, M1 Carbine and M3 SMG, and BAR replacement PDW that the M14 was advertised as doing until it actually got to troop units and revealed it simply couldn't do several of those roles.

lipadj46
December 6, 2008, 12:44 AM
Some people act like the M14 bullied them around when they were in high school or touched them in bad places when babysitting them, I don't really get it.

The way I see it all of the modern war rifles from the M1 on up all were great and have their strong and weak points. Personally my vote goes for the M14. To say the M14 failed misserably I think is really a distortion of history and also narrow minded. If the M14 was given the chances the M16 got who knows how long it would have lasted. All I know is that the marines I have spoken to from the vietnam era who actually carried the M14 thought it was the greates battle rifle ever and refused to switch to the M16. And today there is a serious shortage of M14s in Iraq doing jobs the M16 was supposed to be able to do but can't. There are just things the can't 5.56 does not do well and the same goes for the 7.62 nato, physics is physics and does not play favorites. We could argue the limitations of all the platforms all year round.

Another thing also, I truly believe if clinton did not order the destruction of so many M14s and gave so many away, we would be seeing a true return of the M14 in modern warfare as opposed to the limited DMR and IED killer role it is playing now. I believe it would have been part of the stopgap solution until the military roles out the next generation battle rifle and we all know it will not be 5.56 or 7.62 but will be somewhere in between.

frogomatic
December 6, 2008, 01:01 AM
MAUSER,probably the only time in history that something was done right the first time.


except it wasn't done right the first time...are you aware of the 1891 and 1893 Mausers? The '98 was simply the perfected version of what started with the '91

MTMilitiaman
December 6, 2008, 01:23 AM
They did so because the M14 was so broken from the start -- bad caliber and obsolete ergonomics. So they decided to go with a completely different replacement. Happens sometimes. Sadly, R&D on the M16 was the cheaper solution -- the amount of money thrown into the M14 program with so little real advancement to show for it by the time it got passed over in favor of the M16 is a pretty embarrassing moment in military procurement. I can see why the powers that be thought pouring even more money into a bottomless pit was not the answer.


As if all the money poured into the M16 has led to all that much more advancement. They've done what? Add a forward assist and ejection port cover, change the shape of the blades that protect the front sight and the shape/construction of the handguards a couple times, added some chrome lining, and gave it a faster twist rate. And that is all 40 years and how much money has to show for itself?

Meanwhile, the M14 made big changes to the gas system of the parent rifle, and added a completely different feed system, in a different cartridge, in 1/3 the time and is considered a failure? And we're the ones drinking Kool Aid?

Some of you AR guys are so far gone you're one step away from chasing Eugene Stoner into the wild blue yonder behind the tail of a comet.

Don357
December 6, 2008, 01:44 AM
Best-.308 Draganov, Cetme or G-3, or the M-1A/M-14. Not necessarily in that order. Worst- .223 AR platform

The Janitor
December 6, 2008, 01:56 AM
The best way to do a test would be like this:

A big list of rifles displays in front of you.

You check down the ones you're familiar with.

Then you put said rifles in order from best to worst.

From there, the points are tallied up.

Can't do that with the current THR system though.

Golden Hound
December 6, 2008, 04:04 AM
Best-.308 Draganov, Cetme or G-3, or the M-1A/M-14. Not necessarily in that order. Worst- .223 AR platform

Could you explain the reasoning behind that? I've never heard anyone list the .308 Dragunov (why the .308 specifically) as one of the best, and the AR as the worst.

anymanusa
December 6, 2008, 05:26 AM
By USAnumberONE

Garand. Hands down.

Here is how I got there:
I am an untrained loser with a gun.

I have had the chance to shoot the FAL, the HK, the AK, the '14, etc. ad nauseum, back to back against the Garand.

The Garand wins. Feels best, shoots best, runs best. And who can argue with the .30-'06? Not me, dude.

Thank you.


Not only do I take issue with shoots best and runs best, but I especially take issue with 'feels best'. No traditional monte carlo style rifle feels better/more ergonomic in hand than a pistol grip rifle, none. Period. So I'm not gonna even bother with the other points, and just say your opinion is obviously biased and therefore means nothing in the context of this discussion.

I will add to the OP topic though, and say imho, the AK and the FAL are my top choices. They always go kaboom when I pull the trigger.

anymanusa
December 6, 2008, 05:30 AM
Worst- .223 AR platform

I second that. It is a finicky piece of chit that requires a lot of babying and special care when feeding. I can see a swat team using the AR, but as a battle rifle? I would RUN from an AR.

POLITICS is the reason that the AR is so prevalent in our society/culture/standing forces. Nothing else, imho. The weapon sucks as a mbr.

xd45gaper
December 6, 2008, 06:16 AM
the FAL

U.S.SFC_RET
December 6, 2008, 06:38 AM
In all of my 20 years in the Army I have never had an M16 jam on me. I can't remember and I am trying my hardest. I retired in 2005. I have had to tap the forward assist a couple of times and that's it.


My vote still goes for the M1 Garand though. Nothing speaks with authority like an M1 garand, does the job like one either.
Two soldiers could hold that thing on the level and let another soldier use it like a step to clear a wall. Can't do it with an M16.:neener:

Vern Humphrey
December 6, 2008, 09:35 AM
Elmer Keith didn't like M1 Garands,
Elmer Keith was never in combat.
I saw women firing 03s at 1000 yds on the rifle range at MCRD in Korean War era doing better than we with M1s.
Combat is one thing, a rifle range is another. But ultimately the accurized M1 trumped the accurized M1903 on the range.
The Guadalcanal Marines would have been better equipped with M1s than 03s
We did not have enough M1s to equip all our forces until mid-'43. We couldn't produce them fast enough.

Rossshady120
December 6, 2008, 12:56 PM
i just love you guys blow past the topic and keep going on about the m14. how many lives did the m14 take not as many as the ak-47 i rest my case. AK-47 when you need to Do Work.......

U.S.SFC_RET
December 6, 2008, 01:29 PM
One reason why the AK isn't as good is longer range. An opposing force can take out the other by longer range. You can lay down effective fire at longer distance where the AK 47 couldn't. This is one of the reasons why the AK will never get my vote. In closer yes. Open warfare? No. The 1903 bolt action, M1 Garand could lay in some effective interlocking fire with a unit doing it right. AKs were designed with assaulting in mind, not that assaulting should have been a dirty word. I would never choose to fire an AK from the prone defensive.

HorseSoldier
December 6, 2008, 01:30 PM
Meanwhile, the M14 made big changes to the gas system of the parent rifle, and added a completely different feed system, in a different cartridge, in 1/3 the time and is considered a failure? And we're the ones drinking Kool Aid?

I gather you don't really know much about the history of US rifle R&D/procurement from the end of WW2 until the adoption of the M14. I'd recommend tracking down a copy of Edward Ezell's The Great Rifle Controversy, which breaks down the mountain of money the military poured into a replacement for the Garand before the powers that be insisting the program derail itself in favor of a product-improved Garand whose main claim to fame was that it (allegedly) could use M1 Garand tooling and would fit in existing rifle racks and require no changes in D&C procedures. Besides the FAL, there were competing US designs that were significantly better designed for a select fire weapon, etc. Interesting read.

But, we got the M14 not because it was the best rifle tested in terms of end user requirements, but because the powers that be thought it would be cheap to produce in the short term because they could use already paid for machinery to make it. And, I think most are familiar with the fact that even that selling point proved to be false, and the manufacturers of the weapon failed for most of its service history to meet quality control, production, and cost requirements. TRW finally sorted things out, but, by that point claiming the M14 had done anything in 1/3 the time or for less money than the AR is simply incorrect.

Paladin_Hammer
December 6, 2008, 01:41 PM
Lee-Enfield SMLE or Mauser 98K. The British thought the SMLE was crap due to the Boer War, when FARMERS with Mauser 98s beat the hell out of them, but then in WWI the Germans would charge the line and swear that they were under machine-gun fire! Both are tougher than nails, I've yet to see either a surplus Mauser or SMLE cease to function due to operation. Both are accurate regardless of age, and both pack enough of a punch to kill a man outright with a single shot. These are two weapons everyone should shoot at least once, if anything just to know what its like to fire a REAL rifle.

When two rifles are so good each side wants one, you know its good. I would say the same with the AK-47 and M16, but I've never heard of a story in Nam or in modern Iraq where the VC or Insurgents dropped they're AKs for M16s. I've heard plenty of stories of Vietnam where GI's dropped the M16 (original) for an AK, and I've seen videos on youtube of American soldiers holding, shooting, and using AKs in combat, but I haven't heard much about Insurgents using M4's/M16's. In Afghanistan I've seen photos of Northern Alliance members using M16s, but as I understood they were free from us. Who'd pass up a FREE gun?

The AK wouldn't be the greatest in my mind though due to one thing: accuracy. Sure, production model AKs from 1950 will probably be around long after were all dead. Sure, its round packs a good punch within its ranges. But, none of that matters if you can't hit anything with it! The few stories from the VC about the AK during the Vietnam conflict always say on the lines of: "We had to get as close as possible" and "I'd fire all thirty rounds and only kill one or two Americans". Some people complain about its lack of range, but according to a Marine posting on the Saiga forums about his experience in Fallujah, he never engaged an insurgent at more than 200 meters. So it doesn't lose point on range to me.

lipadj46
December 6, 2008, 02:07 PM
Have you seen the Designated Marksmen in Iraq with an M14 strapped to their back and an M4 strapped to their front? That pretty much sums it up perfectly without words. Neither rifle is the perfect platform for the the modern battlefied no matter what the pundits say.

If I had my choice I would take an M14 but I could see why someone would want an AR or AK or garand or....

HorseSoldier
December 6, 2008, 02:38 PM
When two rifles are so good each side wants one, you know its good. I would say the same with the AK-47 and M16, but I've never heard of a story in Nam or in modern Iraq where the VC or Insurgents dropped they're AKs for M16s

Somebody must have forgotten to tell Zarqawi that back before he got JDAM'ed.

http://www.needlenose.com/i/swopa/ZarqawiGroup.jpg

Might be a jihad-wide problem with information flow . . .

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y3/briansmithwins/08190102.gif

Possibly Nguyen and friends didn't get the memo also (seems like they may be M14 and M1 carbine fans, too . . .). Looks like Miss Peoples' Revolution 1968 didn't hear about either.

http://vietnamresearch.com/nvavc/vcwpns.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y3/briansmithwins/621_pic5_vietnam_pic1.jpg

I've heard plenty of stories of Vietnam where GI's dropped the M16 (original) for an AK, and I've seen videos on youtube of American soldiers holding, shooting, and using AKs in combat, but I haven't heard much about Insurgents using M4's/M16's.

In Iraq, right after the invasion during initial stabilization operations you had a lot of guys whose assigned weapon at the time was an M9 pistol (tank crews for instance) and who were being sent out in humvees to do presence patrols. A lot of those guys picked up AKs, since a long gun is better than a pistol. You've got to look pretty hard to find someone who carried an AK after basis of issue was changed to put long guns into the hands of guys who had only rated a pistol originally.

"We had to get as close as possible" and "I'd fire all thirty rounds and only kill one or two Americans".

If you look at the rounds expended for each reported kill we got on the US side (and lots of those were inflated claims during the height of the body count days), I'd think you're describing a general problem in combat and especially in combat in restrictive terrain or built up areas, not so much an AK problem.

An AK is capable of acceptable combat accuracy (call it hits on a man-sized target out to 300 meters with irons) out of the box and even with cruddy ammo. But the shooter has to be able to do his part, with it or any other weapon, and I don't think NVA and VC combat marksmanship training programs were terribly good.

Vern Humphrey
December 6, 2008, 03:25 PM
i just love you guys blow past the topic and keep going on about the m14. how many lives did the m14 take not as many as the ak-47 i rest my case. AK-47 when you need to Do Work.......
The minnie ball has killed more men than the Atomic bomb. Does that make the minnie ball a more effective weapon?

Vern Humphrey
December 6, 2008, 03:38 PM
The British thought the SMLE was crap due to the Boer War
The SMLE did not exist during the Boer War. You're thinking of the Long Lee Enfield (which supplanted the Lee Metford.) The Short Magazine Lee Enfield was developed in 1907, six years after the Boer War ended, to address shortcomings identified in that war.

HorseSoldier
December 6, 2008, 05:39 PM
As a footnote, it's interesting to note that the British longer-term answer to experience in the Boer War was to adopt their P-13 Mauser clone in .276 caliber, though that was scuttled by World War One logistical demands (and I suspect because MkVII bullet design addressed much of the problem the P-13/276 combo was supposed to solve).

seeker_two
December 6, 2008, 06:37 PM
Bolt Action: SMLE (esp. #4 Mk.I type)

Semi/Full Auto: FN FAL (esp. L1A1 type)


.223/5.56 makes a great submachine gun round, but not for a battle rifle.....

MTMilitiaman
December 7, 2008, 03:03 PM
I gather you don't really know much about the history of US rifle R&D/procurement from the end of WW2 until the adoption of the M14. I'd recommend tracking down a copy of Edward Ezell's The Great Rifle Controversy, which breaks down the mountain of money the military poured into a replacement for the Garand before the powers that be insisting the program derail itself in favor of a product-improved Garand whose main claim to fame was that it (allegedly) could use M1 Garand tooling and would fit in existing rifle racks and require no changes in D&C procedures. Besides the FAL, there were competing US designs that were significantly better designed for a select fire weapon, etc. Interesting read.

But, we got the M14 not because it was the best rifle tested in terms of end user requirements, but because the powers that be thought it would be cheap to produce in the short term because they could use already paid for machinery to make it. And, I think most are familiar with the fact that even that selling point proved to be false, and the manufacturers of the weapon failed for most of its service history to meet quality control, production, and cost requirements. TRW finally sorted things out, but, by that point claiming the M14 had done anything in 1/3 the time or for less money than the AR is simply incorrect.

I am well aware of the general ins and outs of the procurement processes for both the M14 and the M16. It is humorous at best for one to advocate the M16 while calling to M14 a mistake due to mistakes made during this process. At least the M14 wasn't solely adopted based on claims of its terminal effect demonstrated to politicians by shooting watermelons...

Blunders of procurement acknowledged and all things considered, no advocate of the M16 can call the M14 a mistake with a straight face and expect to be taken seriously. Even presently being modified for the role of the SAW, no one is qualified to say that the M14 wouldn't have filled the role better if given the time to develop and evolve that was given to the M16.

I am simply stating that the modifications done to the M14 were more drastic than any changes done to the M16. If the government had been as patient with that platform as it was with the M16 in terms of addressing failures, it could easily still be with us on the front line. Even without being the standard issue rifle, the M14 has continued to evolve, albeit at a slower rate. Now days, for example, bedding is a thing of the past. Several chassis systems exist (Sage, Troy, JAE...) that provide the accuracy enhancement benefits of bedding without the maintenance. The M14 remains heavier than the M16. In a Sage with the PEQ-2, an ACOG, Surefire, and VFG, an 18 inch barreled M14 would weigh about the same amount as the SAW. So it isn't an amount of weight we don't already expect people to carry.

HorseSoldier
December 7, 2008, 03:53 PM
At least the M14 wasn't solely adopted based on claims of its terminal effect demonstrated to politicians by shooting watermelons...

I reiterate my previous statement that you obviously don't know much about the history of either rifle's procurement. Or prefer to repeat mythology because it's less difficult to deal with than facts.

If the government had been as patient with that platform as it was with the M16 in terms of addressing failures, it could easily still be with us on the front line.

Not unless they divorced the M14 from the 7.62x51 cartridge for general service use. Had the same folks who rigged testing to get the M14 adopted in the first place not also insisted on the 308 cartridge, things might have been different. Or maybe not -- as noted, they tried that, and lost to the AR-15.

There still would have been a whole lot of ergonomic issues to correct, that even the new tacticool stocks don't address, though (charging handle misplacement, poor safety design, magazine well design, etc) . . .

because volume is fine, but accuracy is final.

I find it amusing that your signature line is borrowed from a pretty well known authority on guns whose opinions include the stated belief that the M14 is an inferior battle rifle and we'd have been better served by adopting the FAL . . .

Matrix187
December 7, 2008, 08:30 PM
For today: FN FAL, G3, and the M14. About in that order. Back in WW2, I would say the garand by far.

anymanusa
December 7, 2008, 10:40 PM
USAnumberone, that's funny for real, but seriously, are you trying to tell me that a monte carlo rifle feels anywhere near as comfortable on your wrist as a pistol grip rifle?

I think if you thought about it, held each again, and thought about it some more, the pg rifle would be the clear victor.

Art Eatman
December 8, 2008, 10:57 AM
But anymanusa, you mean to tell me that in my sixty-some years of carrying a non-PG, I've been uncomfortable?

I never knew that.

FWIW, I've owned and shot four previous ARs, and have one now.

I'm more comfortable with the non-PG.

From what I've seen, shooting a conventionally-stocked rifle comes naturally. Shooting a PG-stocked rifle must be learned/taught/trained in order to overcome what seems to be to be a built-in awkwardness.

Fireman67
December 8, 2008, 11:39 AM
The Romak 3 7.62x54 was made to be used in the infantry as a battle rifle that extended the range out to about 800 meters to give the regular infantry a better chance in the field, and does a great job. I bought one about a month ago and really enjoy shooting it.

PryItFromMyColdDeadHands
December 8, 2008, 12:45 PM
If rated by "fame" my vote goes to
M1...

If rated by effectiveness- AK ...you just can't beat its simplicity and durability.

Oddbod
December 8, 2008, 02:10 PM
Best bolt action battle rifle: SMLE

Short bolt throw for a fast rate of fire.
Ten round magazine - capable of being topped up with individual rounds & detachable if necessary.
Reliable under adverse conditions.

Best semi auto battle rifle: FAL/L1A1

Reliable
Ergonomic
Easy & fast to field strip & clean.
"Minute of man" accurate to 600 yds.

Best assault rifle: AK47

Simple
Reliable
Survives a lack of maintenance

There's no point in having any kind of "battle rifle" that wont survive abuse & sulks if it isn't kept clean, no matter how accurate or "advanced" it is.
Nor should it have fiddly parts that need removing in order to clean or maintain in the battlefield.
Its function & upkeep has to be simple enough to be understood by the dumbest person it's likely to be issued to.

woodybrighton
December 8, 2008, 02:36 PM
The L85a2 solves most of the 5.56mm problem long enough barrel so you can hit out to 600metres but still compact enough for cqb no reports from iraq afghanistan or anywhere else of people continue to fight when hit by it.

I liked the SLR but would rather carry more rounds with an sa80

MTMilitiaman
December 8, 2008, 04:46 PM
I reiterate my previous statement that you obviously don't know much about the history of either rifle's procurement. Or prefer to repeat mythology because it's less difficult to deal with than facts.


So you're denying that the picnic and the demonstration took place?

Not unless they divorced the M14 from the 7.62x51 cartridge for general service use. Had the same folks who rigged testing to get the M14 adopted in the first place not also insisted on the 308 cartridge, things might have been different. Or maybe not -- as noted, they tried that, and lost to the AR-15.

That's okay, they tried the AR-15 chambered in 7.62x51 (AR-10), and it lost out to the M14.

There still would have been a whole lot of ergonomic issues to correct, that even the new tacticool stocks don't address, though (charging handle misplacement, poor safety design, magazine well design, etc) . . .

There is nothing wrong with any of the features you listed from a functionality nor ergonomic standpoint that hasn't currently been addressed and fixed. The safety and mag release are both fine. They are functional, and located so as to be quick and easy to reach and fully ambi, a feature which puts them above the M16 series from an ergonomic standpoint. The charging handle is awkward for right-handed shooters to charge quickly, esp with optics on the rifle, but current modifications made to the rifle in the Mk 14 Mod 0 address this problem by modifying the bolt stop to work in a manner similar to the AR-15, so that right-handed shooters need only slap the side of their rifle to release the bolt and charge the rifle after a magazine change. The mag well is already funneled and is easy to use. The rock and lock action required to lock magazines in place is not a deficit if training is administered. I taught myself how to do it and can now change magazines in my M1A as fast, if not faster, than I ever could with the M16.

The technique is simple, really, and matches what people have been doing with the AK for some time. When the bolt locks back on an empty magazine, from a position of underarm-assault, the user drops to a knee and calls "reloading!" Then he grabs the easiest to reach mag, already pre-positioned in its pouch with bullets facing the rifle across the body and the top of the magazine facing the ground. The magazine is pull from the pouch and held "low beer can grip" similar to performing a reload in the M16, except it is oriented parallel to the deck with the rounds facing forward, or downrange. In one smooth motion, the front of the loaded magazine is struck against the paddle style mag release and into the back of the empty magazine, knocking it free of the rifle. The loaded magazine is then rotated 90 degrees so that the top is oriented up and is rocked and locked into place as a continuation of the same movement used to clear the empty mag from the rifle. A left-handed shooter can then flip the palm of the hand up and grab the charging handle with the meaty part of the hand, in the exact manner the charging handle of the M249 is manipulated. It is pull back and released, charging the weapon. Right-handed shooters would simply hit the bolt stop on the left-hand side of the receiver. It is very simple, very quick, and very smooth. I put my mind to it for 15 minutes in my boxer shorts one night before bed and was changing mags as fast or nearly as fast as I ever changed them on the M16.

Speaking of charging handle misplacement, have you seen where they put that charging handle on the M16 lately? Talk about awkward...

So yes, the M14 is ergonomically not the M16, but again, that is part of the point. The M16 is not without its own ergonomic faults, esp when shot left handed.

As for my signature line and the supposedly authority I supposedly borrowed it from, we're all free to have our opinions. But if I believed everything "authorities" told me, I'd be in a pretty bad place.

Wanta B
December 8, 2008, 05:56 PM
I've been watching this thread from it's inception and find everyone's opinions quite interesting.I agree that it should be more specific but with it as it is these are my picks...

#1-AK and company.A picture says a thousand words and she is on flags and currency!
#2-FAL,as has been said about the M-14,in the hands of the right armourer they can be just as accurate.

In both cases I'll some it up in one word...Africa.Many systems that go there are 1/2 used up on arival.Maitenance is poor at best,by and large.Parts are harder to come by than many may think.The enviroment is beyond harsh.Simple lube,please.Taining...some of the best live and work there but again,please.Hot,wet,hot,dry...sand,mud,dust,you name it,only the hardiest survive. Out of all in the list only these two are seen in any number that is significant.And both can be fired emidiately after being submerged.

FAL in the original chambering!

Wanta B
December 8, 2008, 06:05 PM
Vaporware

Masada!
LWRC SABR,with FAL charging handle!

anymanusa
December 8, 2008, 09:48 PM
From what I've seen, shooting a conventionally-stocked rifle comes naturally. Shooting a PG-stocked rifle must be learned/taught/trained in order to overcome what seems to be to be a built-in awkwardness.


:scrutiny:

I don't doubt that you think a traditional rifle is more comfortable, but the proof is in the puddin'. Take a woman or a small child to the range, one that has never held a rifle, and have them hold each. The victor of ergonomics is very clear cut. Their is no learned/taught/trained to holding a pg rifle, regardless of your testimony.

Sorry, but it must be a generational thing or something.;)

Mastiff
December 9, 2008, 02:30 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb here.

I'd go with the French MAS 49/56. Full power 7.62x54 round in an SKS sized package. Check out the following articles if you are interested.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_6_48/ai_85472061

http://cosmolineandrust.blogspot.com/2008/05/mas-4956-end-of-era.html

d2wing
December 9, 2008, 02:28 PM
I repeat, being French, has only been dropped once. LOL I put much more stock in the opinion of guys who have actually used rifles in combat. The reason being there are many things that happen that you can't forsee. You only know if you have been there. Many contenders but the M16 is better than many of you realize in an actual battle. Just the same others have alot going for them and deserve respect and consideration. Keep in mind, each rifle is designed for a different user and different battle conditions and you can only pick one for millions of soldiers and anything they may encounter over a period of years. And you have to balance all factors on a large scale.
Firepower, the ability to direct more hits on them than they can at you and sooner. No contest really, the M16 can put more hits on target quicker than any other issued rifle. There is arguement over which is the best round
and there are times for bigger rounds than the .223. But you run the risk off not being able to control rapid fire if you go bigger. And you will fire rapidly.
The debate remains but no one has proved anything is better. I know the ak is reliable but I have been alone in the open with an M16 in an ambush zone.
At that moment in 1969 I wouldn't chose anything else if I could have.

SATX man
December 9, 2008, 05:16 PM
What about the B.A.R?

Meeteetse
December 9, 2008, 10:39 PM
This post is interesting in that it seems to come down to the modern way of thinking of fire power (rnds on target) vs. aimed fire.

I am, unfortunately, old enough to remember and train on three of the guns on the list, the M1 Garand, M14 and M16. I have no hands on experience with any other gun on the list including the AK. Those men I have known who had experience with the AK found it to be a reliable weapon. My experience is with American products.

I love the M1 for its simplicity, accuracy, durability and ease of maintenance. I own one. The M1 clip is a little bit of a pain but the reliability of the weapon over shadows some of the other characteristics. At nine pounds for the weapon plus ammo and other gear, it is a load.

Everything I said about the Garand I believe applies to the M14. I see the argument between the M14 and the M16 as apples and oranges. Both have their good and bad points, with the biggest advantage to the M16 in fire power. The problem with fire power is hitting the target. My family has fought in all previous wars before the "Sand Box", so I can only address those issues. The M1 worked well for my father in both Europe and the Pacific campaigns, and at 87 years old he still talks of it like a good friend.

My brother and I began in the military with the M14 and ended with the M16. He served in combat, I did not, but I know he has great admiration for the M14 as a reliable weapon that could reach out and touch someone. My experiences with the M16 were not good. I do not know if the newest iteration has improved, but given a choice I prefer the M14 platform based on my experiences. I might change my opinion if I had the opportunity to try the new M16 versions. Certainly weight is an issue, but I like the longer range of the 7.62 vs. the 5.56. Your experiences may vary.

Claymore1500
December 10, 2008, 12:06 AM
In my opinion, And I am not an expert by any means, As far as wars and or battles are concerned.

Given the chance I think that this one would have given the garand a run for the money, (FWIW, I am aware that it saw very little time in any battle, I am talking about the design)

http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq155/claymore1500/DSCN0028.jpg

The FN49, Weight approximately the same as the garand, Cal. choice/ 7MM, 7.62x51, 30.06, 8MM.

More rounds, no ping, About the only part of the rifle that I can find that is stamped, is the dust cover, and the magazine, the rest is machined, Granted they were costly,but you get what you pay for.

Paladin_Hammer
December 10, 2008, 12:17 AM
Can we all agree on this much though:

If you had the jump on the enemy, just one enemy, you'd rather use a Remington 700 in .308 at 600+ yards than an AK at 100?

elmerfudd
December 10, 2008, 12:26 AM
I've got both and it's immeasurably harder to get a hit at 600+ yards with just about anything hand held than it is to get a hit at 100 yards with an AK. AK's can easily hit a human torso at 100 yards. They might not be the worlds most accurate rifle, but they can do that much all day long.

Trying to connect at 600+ yards is another matter entirely. Just getting your range off by a little or some gusting winds can throw you way off target.

To put things into a little perspective, with a 10 mph breeze, you'd have to make a 30" correction at 600 yards for windage. At 700 it goes up to 43". At 600 yards with a 100 yard zero you'd have to aim more than 7 feet high to correct for elevation. At 700 you'd have to aim nearly 11' high. Trying to estimate that range correctly and then making the proper correction isn't something even many skilled riflemen can do, at least not on the first shot.

Dday
December 10, 2008, 12:44 AM
This discussion is precisely why many shooters have 5.56, 7.62x54, 30-06, and an AK or two in their cabinets and enjoy shooting them all. Just as more than one wrench is needed in a toolbox, so too should we have several rifles. But if I had to choose only one and I could have no others, I'd have to go with either the M14 or AK. Both cartridges are powerful enough to tackle most situations I'm likely to face, the rifles are batle tested and proven reliable, and ammo is readily available in most of the world.

HeavenlySword
December 10, 2008, 02:10 AM
Best military rifle, all around?

Not the .308 + calibers, recoil is too high for anything other than Sniper/Marksman work.

The AK was very good for untrained peasant armies, that you sent out in massive waves to die.

Given that I am not a peasant sent to die, and have enough knowledge to handle another gun, ill pass.

The AR-15 type would be the best for me... 20 years ago.

Lets see... the modern versions have decent reliability, are suitable both for marksmanship and for CQC, and while the 5.56 NATO isn't the 6.8 SPC, its a heck of alot more common.

Its very ergonomic... for something designed so long ago. Its NOT bullpup, so either you are holding an unwieldy long object in CQC or you are unable to hit a target around 500m

Enter the bullpups.
The FAMAS is so crappy there is no need to talk about it.

The Steyr AUG types look cool. Are fairly ergonomic and very reliable. Bullpup which means shorter Over All Length, but more barrel. Unfortunately, it comes in at around 8.4 pounds, which is significantly more than your 7 pound M4 carbine.

The FN F2000, while slightly less exotic looking than the AUG, is one of the sexiest looking guns around (subject to ones opinion, some claim it is butt-ugly)
Its very ergonomically designed, and can be easily accessorized, although it is NOT the SCAR.
Its also overweight, like the AUG

Enter the IMI Tavor 21. At a mere 7.2 pounds it is not much heavier than the M4, which has other deficiencies. At only 28.5 inches long, it is shorter than the M4 carbine, even when you retract the M4's stock!

Simultaneously, it has 18.1 inches of barrel (standard) compared to the M4's 14.5 inch barrel, granting greater accuracy and more FPS (feet per sec, not frames per sec)

Basically, a low recoil, very lightweight CQC-oriented full length rifle easily capable of DM work as well.:cool:

Best in existence.

Plus, it is the weapon of choice by Israel. If the Jews use it, and their Spec Ops like this, then I will choose the weapon that a nation that not only survived war against all the Arab nations (well, most of em) but WON designed, built and use, even over the fact they cost much more than the M16-M4s the United states sends them for $10 apiece.:cuss:

Theres one problem..... Its not legal in the US:banghead:

English Bob
December 10, 2008, 03:42 AM
I repeat, being French, has only been dropped once. LOL I put much more stock in the opinion of guys who have actually used rifles in combat.

Does Dien Bien Phu ring any bells?

elmerfudd
December 10, 2008, 10:44 AM
Does Dien Bien Phu ring any bells?

No one ever accused the Germans of dropping their weapons. ;)

d2wing
December 10, 2008, 02:43 PM
Sorry. I regret my remark about the French rifles. I meant that to be seperate from the fact that the opinion of a combat veteran about his rifle means way more to me than someone who has never been in combat.
My hat is off to those who died in battle. And to those who bear arms for freedom.
I do feel a need to defend our arms that our soldiers use. I would not want them to feel that our country sent them to battle with inferior equipment as I do not think that is the case. How they can be improved is a billion dollar question and deserves thoughtful discussion. Ok I'm off the soapbox.

Paladin_Hammer
December 10, 2008, 02:59 PM
Okay, seeing as were nit-picking, how about this:

We'd all prefer to use a Remington .308 at 600+ yards ON A BIPOD, IN A PRONE POSITION, than an AK at 100 yards standing straight up (wearing festive multi-color vests and moon-shoes)?

Now are we all in agreement?

woodybrighton
December 10, 2008, 03:01 PM
are the moon shoes tacticool?:evil:

skeet king
December 10, 2008, 06:51 PM
Hmmmm..... K98 or AK?

If you enjoyed reading about "The Greatest Battle Rifle Ever Devised" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!