best semi auto rifle ever built?


PDA






trigga
May 26, 2009, 03:11 AM
I've been looking for a thread about this but can't seem to find one so I'm gonna make one up. sorry if this is a re-post but some guy on youtube was saying that the ruger mini 14 was "the best semi auto rifle ever built" and going as far as quoting "the mini 14 is far more superior over any ar15", a little over exaggerating. i believe it's a personal preference that you base it onto many things of your liking, whether from experience, appeal, etc. the question is what do you think is the best semi auto rifle made and why? meaning it's just that good that you would pick it over any other.

If you enjoyed reading about "best semi auto rifle ever built?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
wayne in boca
May 26, 2009, 04:36 AM
M1A is obviously the finest semiauto rifle ever built.Anyone who believes otherwise is mentally ill.:)

General Geoff
May 26, 2009, 04:52 AM
Best in what way?

armoredman
May 26, 2009, 05:08 AM
Patton believed it was the M1 Garand, and considering what was accomplished with that rifle, I can't argue with his ghost.

22LRFan
May 26, 2009, 05:09 AM
The best semi-auto rifle is one that is in your hands and works for you in a time of need. If I have to actually choose, I may say something built off of an AR platform. I think it has the most aftermarket diversity for one to create their own "best rifle ever."

Tim the student
May 26, 2009, 07:40 AM
The Garand. Call me crazy :what:

Creade
May 26, 2009, 07:44 AM
Garand baby!

sparkyguy66
May 26, 2009, 07:46 AM
I don't own a Garand, but hope to one day. I do have an AR, though. I can't imagine anything else to be more add-on friendly, accurate, reliable and generally fun to shoot. And since I reload, a case of 1k costs me around $200.

SP Shop Foreman
May 26, 2009, 07:51 AM
My rifle is the best semi auto ever built, but I'm not saying what it is. If I do that then everyone will want one. :D

Latigo

elktrout
May 26, 2009, 08:17 AM
It depends on what your intended use is for the rifle. No one would expect one particular semi rifle to cover all shooting aspects, such as short-range hunting, long-range hunting, plinking, 1000 yard target shooting, etc. Just like no single bolt gun covers it all, neither will any semi. If you just want to stay generic with the adjective "best", I would vote for the Garand - a proven rifle worthy of its praise and chambered in a truly substantial caliber.

Fosbery
May 26, 2009, 08:22 AM
Depends entirely what you want to do with it. Do you want to reach out and touch someone a 1000m away? Or fight a battle at 300 yards? Plink? Shoot targets? And at what range? Hunt? Hunt what? Do you want maximum firepower or accuracy or minimum weight? Is cost an issue? What type of environment are you in?

Having said that, I personally can't really see any niche were the Mini 14 is a clear winner over the competition, especially with newer guns like the SU16 out.

H2O MAN
May 26, 2009, 08:50 AM
best semi auto rifle ever built?

It depends on who built it. My M14s are built by Ron Smith and SEI.

jpwilly
May 26, 2009, 09:28 AM
There are many. One of my favs is the M1 Garand. The M14 or M1A is a close second. Then there's the AR-15 & 10 variants, AKM, FAL, G3 / HK91, SKS, Mini 14...too many to list. Very subjective.

ParaElite
May 26, 2009, 09:34 AM
The AR platform in .308Win/7.62x51mm. It will out shoot any Garand or M1A/M14. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that!

ijosef
May 26, 2009, 09:39 AM
Another vote for the Garand. The AR-15/M-16 and AK platforms are great for their own unique and individual reasons, but I don't consider them true semi-automatic rifles. We gun owners in the states are largely reduced to owning semi-auto only versions of these rifles, but in their true form they're capable of full auto or at least three round burst. The M1 Garand was designed to be a semi-auto rifle from the ground up. If it's good enough for Walt Kowalski, it's good enough for me!

MTMilitiaman
May 26, 2009, 09:58 AM
I'll throw my hat in with the M14/M1A crowd. When you consider mechanical reliability, intrinsic accuracy, long-term durability, range, power, ergonomics, balance, the quality of the sights and trigger, and all the other factors that go into making a good rifle, the M14 has to rank pretty high up there. I've shot AR-15s and M16s. Stoner's rifle is versatile, accurate, and generally reliable. But it never came across as solid or as robust as the M14 to me. In terms of general shooting characteristics, no other rifle is as pleasant for me as the M14. It it truly a rifleman's rifle.

Next I would have to put the Kalashnikov, then the FAL, then the AR-15.

Not only is the Ruger Mini not the finest rifle ever, but it isn't even the finest poodle shooter. Heck, far from being the finest, it is almost the worst. I would imagine the engineers at Ruger had to try really hard to change a rifle known for its accuracy and reliability into that bastard abomination of a rifle known for its lack of both, but they managed. There are a lot of fine poodle shooters out there--everything from time tested classics like the SIG 556 and the AUG that have made it to the American commercial market only relatively recently--to newer designs like the XCR and the FS2000. Of course there is a plethora of fine ARs, as well as various more obscure designs as well like the Daewoo K2, Galil and other 5.56mm and 5.45mm AK-clones, and the AR-18 (which actually shouldn't be that obscure considering its simple short-stroke gas piston operation has been copied in many other designs). The Mini-14 is not on this list and indeed, any of these choices are almost guaranteed to be more accurate and more reliable than Ruger's underwhelming little carbine. The only reason I can think of that someone might consider the Mini-14 over any of these designs barring being obviously brain-dead is economic and even then, an SKS can be had for hundreds less and aside from being more accurate and reliable is easier to find parts and accessories for, and is a lot more durable than the Ruger.

P.B.Walsh
May 26, 2009, 10:14 AM
A gas piston AR, like POF, SCAR, or LWRC.

testosterone
May 26, 2009, 10:19 AM
10/22

xbox360
May 26, 2009, 10:22 AM
m1 grand what else? :D

shaggy430
May 26, 2009, 10:25 AM
m1 grand what else?

I don't know, maybe an M1 GArand.

TeamRush
May 26, 2009, 10:27 AM
I have to say the best 'Semi-Auto' rifle ever built is the Ruger 10/22.

I've been shooting mine for more than 30 years now,

It's put more meat on the table than all the other rifles I own (one squirrel or rabbit at a time),

It's provided me with a way to 'Clear Out' the local varmints and chicken thieves,

It's VERY effective at putting down cattle & hogs when we butcher,

And it's provided me with countless hours of entertainment 'Plinking'...

I was in the military for 16 years, and my 10/22 has done more for me than any of the 'Military Clone' rifles I own, and is my constant companion over the visor of my truck.

I can not remember ONE TIME that rifle has failed to feed or failed to fire, and it's always been more accurate than I am trying to shoot off hand in some awkward stance when I get a snap shot at something!

Lightweight, Durable to the point of being RUGGED, Cycles clean or dirty, and doesn't break the budget, shoulder or ear drums!

I just wish someone made a 20" LIGHT WEIGHT barrel for them!

GRAYRID3R
May 26, 2009, 12:23 PM
#1 M1 Garand
#2 M1A
#3 M1Carbine

Ignition Override
May 26, 2009, 12:44 PM
Having stood in two foxholes (hurriedly dug by the 101st Airborne in Dec. '44) outside Bastogne, Belgium about three weeks ago on a personal tour, it makes me want to own an M-1 Garand, but can not recommend what the best semi-auto is.

If we can assume that the Garand functioned very well in what were then ('44) much shallower foxholes than they are now, then it could be the best.

Matrix187
May 26, 2009, 12:48 PM
M1A for sure (since it's basically a 20 rd garand), then the garand, then the FN FAL :)

ForneyRider
May 26, 2009, 01:34 PM
BAR: because it comes in 338 Win Mag.

H2O MAN
May 26, 2009, 01:40 PM
MK14 SEI

http://www.athenswater.com/images/MK14_SEI_EBR-a.jpg

Why?
It's a battle proven 52 year old rifle that is benefiting from modern enhancements that make it ultra durable, ultra reliable and extremely accurate.






.

gga357
May 26, 2009, 01:52 PM
I would have to choose my POF 308. Garand would be second choice.

Uncle Mike
May 26, 2009, 02:56 PM
There was only ONE semi auto rifle ever built.

THE CALIBER 30 U.S. M1 GARAND
There is no comparison! :D

I think the FAL is great also-

45B@cav
May 26, 2009, 03:16 PM
What about a HK91? Reliable, bullet for every job, and easy to maintain. Accurate enough to feed you and protect you.

RP88
May 26, 2009, 03:18 PM
M1 Carbine and Garand, since these were actually semi-auto and not designed to be select-fire like everything after them.

Yo Mama
May 26, 2009, 03:23 PM
Come on! Rolling up sleeves. Where are all the AK votes!

running iron
May 26, 2009, 03:41 PM
Not only does the B.A.R. come in rounds like the 338, but in a few more too. No semi-auto I've ever fired game close to the accuracy of a B.A.R.. I'm sure you could make some others that accurate, but out of the box........

NELSONs02
May 26, 2009, 03:47 PM
10/22 haha indeed....

armoredman
May 26, 2009, 04:54 PM
I voted Garand because it was built semi auto, unlike almost all the other choices here, being modified from original select fire to civilian legal semi auto.

Duelist
May 26, 2009, 05:15 PM
Semi Auto, as in never manufactured with a select fire variant: M1 Garand.

Semi Auto with select fire variant:

M14 tied with AKM
G3
Piston AR/SCAR

SharpsDressedMan
May 26, 2009, 05:24 PM
Sig AMT or StG 57. Not sure which one, but supposedly they are crafted like Swiss watches, and everyone one that owns them or has shot them thinks they are great. The Garand is just fine with me. Simple, rugged, and proven.

Uncle Mike
May 26, 2009, 05:27 PM
:evil: What does AK stand for..... :neener:

Art Eatman
May 26, 2009, 05:34 PM
Garand/AK/AR/Mini ain't worth squat if you're hunting rabbits or squirrels to eat. 10/22 or a little Browning or a Remington 550 series are beaucoup better.

Purpose. Always purpose.

jd46561
May 26, 2009, 05:36 PM
Three letters.... FAL...

MTMilitiaman
May 26, 2009, 05:40 PM
.22 is worth comparatively even less of a squat if you're hunting deer or other medium game, or holding down the fort against bipedal predators. So all said and done, I choose to error on the side of caution and bring enough gun to handle bigger chores than rabbits. I'd rather have to head shoot rabbits for food with an AK/SKS or M1A than have to rely on head shooting bad guys with a .22 under comparatively much greater pressure.

Which BTW I am surprised at the lack of votes for the Simonov. The SKS was designed as a semi-auto carbine (it's in the name, in fact) and aside from being a great buy for the money provides a ranch/trunk rifle extraordinaire.

351 WINCHESTER
May 26, 2009, 05:41 PM
How about the .351 winchester self loader? Never jams. Ammo is expensive and it's a short range carbine. Shoots a 180 gr. bullet at about 1850fps. Nothing to brag about, but check out it's performace @ www.brassfetcher.com

22lr
May 26, 2009, 05:42 PM
Well the Garand certainly is the greatest battlefield tool ever invented. The M1a comes pretty close but just isn't that same.

Hostile Amish
May 26, 2009, 05:42 PM
The CETME and the Garand designs are probably the best.

SquirrelNuts
May 26, 2009, 06:06 PM
I'm with General Patton on this one. M1 Garand.

trigga
May 26, 2009, 06:15 PM
i would have to vote for the kalashnikov design (ak47) because more than half the world use this gun. quality isn't always the best but offers a little bit of everything.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
May 26, 2009, 06:44 PM
Depends on how you define "best", but I'm sure a pretty good case can be made for putting these in the top 10, just for starters:

HK PSG-1
Mk 11, Mod 0 SWS (aka M110)(K.A.C. Stoner SR-25 variant)
A good AR15 (Noveske, for example)
A good AK47 (Arsenal, for example)
Mk 15, Mod 0 EBR (M14 variant)
(arguably) Volquartsen Inferno, Fusion, etc.



Mini-14? Idonthinso. It's ok, I guess, for what it is, decent, reliable rifle. But teenage pissin matches ain't worth gettin wrapped around the axle for, obviously. :p I cannot really argue with the Garand, if we add a "for its time" clause.

351 Winchester, I like that site; thanks. You got a pic of your Winchester rifle?

H2O MAN
May 26, 2009, 06:47 PM
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow Depends on how you define "best", but I'm pretty sure a good case can be made for putting these in the top 10:

HK PSG-1
K.A.C. Stoner SR-25
A good AR15 (Noveske, for example)
MK 15, Mod 0 EBR (M14 variant)

MK 15 Phalanx :evil:






I bet you meant MK14 ;)

ScareyH22A
May 26, 2009, 06:48 PM
50 cal.

JShirley
May 26, 2009, 06:50 PM
There is no best. This is true of any object in any field. There are only best for a particular purpose.

There can be worst, though. The M14 comes to mind. :)

John

benEzra
May 26, 2009, 06:54 PM
Best for what?

Best for LOOOONG range target shooting? Barrett 98 Bravo or M82A1.

Best for rimfire plinking and hunting squirrels? Marlin Model 60 or Ruger 10/22.

Best for an all-around defensive carbine under adverse conditions with little maintenance? Civilian AK.

Best HD and plinking carbine that can also double as a 500-yard rifle in a pinch? AR-15.

It depends greatly on the application, IMO. I don't think there is one single answer.

H2O MAN
May 26, 2009, 06:57 PM
I believe John has lost his mind :)

IndianaBoy
May 26, 2009, 07:05 PM
The one you own.

For me that would be an AR-15. I don't deny the greatness of the Garand. But the AR fits my needs better. That doesn't mean I don't want a Garand. ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/gnieman/100_8224_crop.jpg

H2O MAN
May 26, 2009, 07:10 PM
As a former Indiana boy I have to agree with IndianaBoy :)

bigalexe
May 26, 2009, 07:38 PM
Im going to go out on a limb and state the OP has asked a very unanswerable question and also looking for gun information in a Youtube rant is about as ridiculous.

There are many rifles made for many purposes which are probably all great at what they do. The best combat utility rifle may not be the best long range target rifle (both semi-auto) and neither of those may be the best varmint rifle.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
May 26, 2009, 07:42 PM
There can be worst, though. The M14 comes to mind.

Hang on - popping popcorn now!! :D

Yeah, I meant Mk14, and yeah, add the Barrett M82 / M107 to my list!

Horsemany
May 26, 2009, 07:55 PM
The Browning BAR is THE Cadillac of semi-auto's. Hands down.

It's interesting the vast majority thought of military rifles first.

JShirley
May 26, 2009, 07:57 PM
OH, shucks, we've had this discussion. Whether it's used in limited numbers for umpteen years or not, any rifle that's discontinued by the largest service before all the troops are even equipped with it can hardly be considered a success! :D

The Navy Lee seems to have been the only U.S. service rifle less successful.

SHvar
May 26, 2009, 08:16 PM
My father, and 4 uncles served in WW2, one uncle in Korea, a brother in Vietnam, myself in the Gulf. Both grandfathers served in wars before (WW1, Spanish American war).
A few of them were infantry, artillary, Army-Air corp, and throught that the BAR was a better rifle than the Garand was. A quote from my father who, after recovering from 9 months of hospitalization from D-day, who used to train other airmen and soldiers how to hit moving targets and vehicles. A favorite quote of that short little guy was "pick anything out to a 1/2 mile away, if you can hit it once Ill guarrantee 2 hits on it moving".
I like the design of the garand for its time, it was the best anyone could have made for the situation. Today its nothing compared to whats available.
The FAL, from what I can remember it was given away by European countries to as many 3rd world countries as possible to make way for newer better rifles, lighter, more reliable, more accurate rifles. Anyone I knew who had experience with the FAL in combat complained about them being too long, too heavy, and not being very reliable.

H2O MAN
May 26, 2009, 08:20 PM
JShirley OH, shucks, we've had this discussion.

And you have never prevailed!
Never have and never will :D

berettashotgun
May 26, 2009, 09:05 PM
Depending on the use, but a Glenfield model 60 is awfully hard to beat.
I really like my mini-30, other than lame magazine offerings.
The FAL from the pawnshop has worked out excellent after I got the trigger spring installed correctly, just got too pricy to drop the hammer on to call "best" anymore.
AR's are really fun with the correct A2 config; still want one in 7mm-08 from remmy. Wife wants some 20's for the Avalanche and she is the boss 'round here:o
won't be getting the r25 in 7mm-08 anytime soon.:banghead:

Dr.Rob
May 26, 2009, 09:08 PM
Browning's .22 take down auto was the ONLY semi-auto I used for years. For a design thats pretty old, like 100 years? I'd say that's pretty darn successful.

I don't THINK that design has changed since WW1-ish?

Uncle Mike
May 26, 2009, 09:10 PM
I'm going after tacos.
And if were making a list.... stand by...:rolleyes:

Mtn395
May 26, 2009, 09:11 PM
M1a then the M1 Garand

benzy2
May 26, 2009, 09:48 PM
I'll take the Garand. It tops(though maybe not always alone) the fun factor, the lower 48 game factor, the reliable factor, the history factor not to mention accurate enough out to the ranges I come across. Sure others may tie it in some categories or even pass it when it comes to accuracy but in total its the complete package. A BAR in some of the bigger calibers sounds like a lot of fun too though.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
May 26, 2009, 11:29 PM
The Browning BAR is THE Cadillac of semi-auto's. Hands down.

OK. What would that make the Benelli R1 then? The Bentley?

http://www.benelliusa.com/rifles/benelli_r1_rifle.php

Dr.Rob
May 27, 2009, 12:40 AM
That would make it an over priced and as yet unproven Bently.

Arbor
May 27, 2009, 12:53 AM
M1a then the M1 Garand

These rifles are both very heavy and difficult to keep on target under recoil. Great for breaking down doors or shooting moose, but not the most practical for carrying around and shooting offhand.

easyrider6042004@yahoo.ca
May 27, 2009, 01:42 AM
The original question was vague but I'll jump in and second King Ghidora: SKS.

Simply elegant mechanical design. Handy and reliable. Just like KG, never experienced a hiccup on cheap surplus ammo. 3 to 4 inch, 5-shot groups at 100 yards. Ammo used to be cheap enough to allow practice to gain then maintain proficiency.

My M1 Garand and Mini 30 would FTE or FTF. Didn't get to shoot my M1A enough to experience any FTF or FTE but she was getting too expensive too feed, so was the M1. Both had to go. I'd rather have 3 Russian SKS's than a Garand or M1A.

The 7.62 x 39 is an intermediate power cartridge but good enough for any of my foreseeable needs.

LoneStarWings
May 27, 2009, 01:45 AM
M1A

'nuff said :D

woad_yurt
May 27, 2009, 12:02 PM
I'll vote for a Norinco SKS Paratrooper/Cowboy Companion model. It's the short one with no bayonet lug. It's like carrying a Glenfield 60, almost, it's so light. You can regularly pop clay pigeons on the 100 yard berm with it. 7.62 is a good utility caliber, too. SKSs are reliable simple and robust. I think the Norincos are the best. I had a Yugo and it felt like a telephone pole in comparison.

FullEffect1911
May 27, 2009, 02:37 PM
What is with all the Garand votes? Is there really nothing better now-a-days? In it's time it was pretty darn good compared to what was around... probably even the best, for it's time.

However if Germany was all armed with SturmGevehr-44s we may have a differing opinion on the Garand.

My vote is for an AR-15 carbine with midlength gas system in 6.8 SPC with SPCII chamber. As close as I can figure it, it is the best do all rifle and cartridge combination.

benzy2
May 27, 2009, 02:47 PM
It all depends what you classify as important. I honestly don't clear rooms or go to battle with any rifle I own. I just play with them and enjoy them. Under my criteria the M1 Garand is the best. Its the most fun to me, and is reliable and accurate. Nothing to complain about. If I were looking for the best battle rifle for today or the best cqb rifle it would certainly be different but I don't do any of that. I shoot at the range and at a few animals. For that heavy and big with a bunch of power works out real nice.

I can see why other rifles have their votes but to not understand why the M1 Garand/M1A get as many as they do certainly doesn't take into account the vast majority of the shots that go down range today and only considers the few that are used in true SHTF situations, be them hd or what not, or small game hunting. I can see why someone would pick an AR as well. Not quite as fun to me which is why it missed my #1. I can also see why some people are picking only from rifles designed to be semi only from the start and not those that have been civilianized from MG into semi auto. Its all how you define best.

Limeyfellow
May 27, 2009, 02:59 PM
Patton believed it was the M1 Garand, and considering what was accomplished with that rifle, I can't argue with his ghost.

He also said that the Sherman tank was so superior we didn't need a better tank before invading Europe. At times I believe Patton was lucky to die before he could have been courtmartialed and disgraced from the military.

UKJ
May 27, 2009, 09:06 PM
Cool, I want to play -

Best Semi Auto -

Sniper Rifle - Walther WA 2000 / AI AS50
Military Style Rifle - AR 18 / AK 47 / HK 91 / Sig 550 / AR15
Value For Money Rifle - SKS
Range Pimp Rifle - SCAR 16 / HK MR 556
Hunting Rifle - Browning BAR
Cheap Plinking Rifle - Ruger 10/22
Silly Fun Rifle - FN PS90

And there you have it.;)

Claymore1500
May 27, 2009, 09:39 PM
http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq155/claymore1500/DSCN0028.jpg

I vote this one.

Hunt3r
May 27, 2009, 09:49 PM
Best tacti-cool weapon that doesn't cost a million billion fanboy dollars: XCR.

Best classic semi-auto: Hard to argue with a Garand.

Best purpose-built semi auto: An XCR or the XCR-M. Maybe in the future, the ACR.

Best weapon ever: I'm not sure you can't solve anything with a Mk48.

Nhsport
May 27, 2009, 09:54 PM
I like the solid construction of the Garand.
The history of this gun and the men who carried it just plain speaks to me in ways I can not speak of

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
May 27, 2009, 10:13 PM
Best tacti-cool weapon that doesn't cost a million billion fanboy dollars: XCR.

Absolutely - Welcome, Hunt3r - great first sentence of first post! :D

FullEffect1911
May 27, 2009, 10:14 PM
t all depends what you classify as important. I honestly don't clear rooms or go to battle with any rifle I own. I just play with them and enjoy them. Under my criteria the M1 Garand is the best. Its the most fun to me, and is reliable and accurate. Nothing to complain about. If I were looking for the best battle rifle for today or the best cqb rifle it would certainly be different but I don't do any of that. I shoot at the range and at a few animals. For that heavy and big with a bunch of power works out real nice.

I can see why other rifles have their votes but to not understand why the M1 Garand/M1A get as many as they do certainly doesn't take into account the vast majority of the shots that go down range today and only considers the few that are used in true SHTF situations, be them hd or what not, or small game hunting. I can see why someone would pick an AR as well. Not quite as fun to me which is why it missed my #1. I can also see why some people are picking only from rifles designed to be semi only from the start and not those that have been civilianized from MG into semi auto. Its all how you define best.

I can get behind that, my definition of best would be an all purpose rifle for HD, Survival, SHTF, War, EOTWAWKI and zombies. But I really can't argue with it being the best for you because you have the most fun shooting it, that reason is as valid as it gets.

Truthfully, I would love to have an opportunity to shoot one as well.

The M1 probably did have more of an effect on the history of the world than any other rifle except maybe the Mosin Nagant. And I know which of those two I'd rather have.


I think the M1 wins in that race, but that's just my opinion.

The fact is we had the Garand in numbers, just like our tanks. Just like the Soviets had their tanks in numbers. WWII was arguably about production numbers/quantity, and with the Garand it was quantity and quality.

But I suppose that discussion gets a bit OT.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
May 27, 2009, 10:26 PM
Claymore, how can the many "improvements" of the FAL over the FN-49 not make it better? Just askin... :p

jackdanson
May 28, 2009, 03:05 AM
Everyone knows that the Recon CS-6 is the best semi-auto ever made.

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m37/jackdanson2/63552165b001_main400.jpg

These threads make me feel like this>>>>:banghead:

noob_shooter
May 28, 2009, 03:17 AM
Ak 47 :d

Claymore1500
May 28, 2009, 05:53 AM
Claymore, how can the many "improvements" of the FAL over the FN-49 not make it better? Just askin

Bare with me, and keep in mind that this is just one man's opinion.

The old FN49 functioned very well, was availiable in several substantial loadings, and while the improvements made it a more up to date "battle rifle", they destroyed the asthetics of a fine looking machine, ( sorta' like putting a "wing" on a 1966 corvett stingray)

If that makes any sense!

JShirley
May 28, 2009, 10:14 AM
Claymore, I love shooting the FN49. Sweet gun. If you're talking looks/nostalgia, that's different than usability, of course. But there is no best.

And you have never prevailed!
Never have and never will

If by "prevail", you mean change some one else's mind, that's impossible. People can be presented with facts and learned opinions, but the people have to choose to change.

Here's a wiki quote for you: Though the M14 has remained in service longer than any U.S. infantry rifle with the exception of the Springfield M1903 rifle, it also holds the distinction of serving as the standard infantry rifle of the U.S. Army for a shorter span of time than any other weapon. Not exactly covered in glory. :rolleyes:

Here's the M16 Review Panel report (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA953110&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) from 1968.

Many of the deficiencies that make the M14/M1A less than ideal for almost anyone were identified before the fact by a War Department board all the way back in 1928. I quote: wound basistics tests were conducted using live pigs as targets, investigated three calibers of projectiles, caliber .30, .276, and .256. It concluded that if a semiautomatic rifle were developed using the standard .30-06 cartridge, it would be as heavy, if not heavier, than the then standard Springfield M1903; that in order to develop a lighter weapon, the Army would have to go to a small caliber, higher velocity round; N 4 and finally, that the small caliber, high velocity bullets were more lethal within the normal effectiveness range of a rifle.

(Rifles developed using an "improved" 7.62x63mm- the 7.62x51mm- would of course suffer from these same deficiencies.)

Still quoting from the M16 panel report: The M14 rifle as finally developed and standardized in 1957, was a minor improvement over the M1 which it replaced. It did not weigh less, nor was it really acceptable in the fully automatic role when fired from the shoulder. Although with the selector lever the M14 could be fired in the automatic mode, only those men designated as automatic riflemen and equipped with a bipod were issued the selector lever. The standard M14 was in reality a semiautomatic rifle with a 20-round magazine, too heavy and too long to replace effectively the M2 caliber .30 carbine and the M3Al caliber .45 submachine gun.

We can contrast this with the M16 (http://www.army.mil/factfiles/equipment/individual/m16.html), which first entered service with the Army in 1964, and which has been the standard service rifle longer than any other rifle in history.

USSR
May 28, 2009, 10:39 AM
...in order to develop a lighter weapon, the Army would have to go to a small caliber, higher velocity round; N 4 and finally, that the small caliber, high velocity bullets were more lethal within the normal effectiveness range of a rifle.

Therein lies the logic for moving to the .223. When a conscript with minimal training and range time is given a rifle, the effectiveness of his rifle fire is perhaps around 300 yards. Given this and the ability to carry more ammo, the decision was made to go the small caliber, high velocity route.

Don

JShirley
May 28, 2009, 10:53 AM
Well, you should consider that (at this time), they were still looking at rifle cartridges considerably more powerful than .223 Remington/5.56x45mm.

You'd be looking at something more like the .280 British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British) or .276 Pedersen (http://www.gunsandammomag.com/cs/Satellite/IMO_GA/Story_C/The+.276+Pedersen)round~ somewhat more powerful and considerably better ballistics than 7.62x39mm. Something actually closer to 6.8 SPC or 6.5x39mm in power. But certain die-hards just wouldn't change. (Like that grandstanding idiot MacArthur, the one who lost thousands of U.S. troops because of his refusal to obey standing orders in the Philippines in December of 1941, and who almost started WWIII because of refusal to follow orders in Korea. But I digress.)

In the current age, these same type of folks are the ones trying to hang onto the M14. If you appreciate it for its beauty or its historical oddity, that's one thing. I wouldn't mind a ChauChat hanging on my wall, either. If you think it's the greatest battle rifle ever, you're delusional.

John

H2O MAN
May 28, 2009, 01:33 PM
JShirley
If by "prevail", you mean change some one else's mind, that's impossible.
People can be presented with facts and learned opinions, but the people have to choose to change.

Both you and Wiki are stuck on Vietnam era M14s and refer to information as it was up to 1968.

The year is 2009 and the modernized and enhanced M14 is very different from the rifle that you can't get out of your head.

I invite you to join the rest of us here in the present and the the past in the history books were it belongs.

taliv
May 28, 2009, 01:41 PM
so if you're making a distinction between the modern and vietnam era m14, then i'd have to ask, exactly how many "modern" m14s have been fielded? are there even 1000 in service?

you also lose the ability to claim it was ever the standard infantry rifle.

JShirley
May 28, 2009, 01:46 PM
Even "fielded" is tenuous, at best (though I'm waiting for H2O's answer with baited breath): I was attached to the 45th Infantry Brigade in Afghanistan. We had a Connex full of M14s that we didn't use. They might have shown up as "fielded", but we used almost none of them...no point. Of course, this might be H2O's supposed "Vietnam" rifles that shouldn't be considered, anyway. :rolleyes:

The (two different teams of) ODA I was attached to had M14s, too. They never used them. No point. Even the grizzled 18B I talked to at length about it told me he mostly played with his accurized M14 as a historical curiosity. (I don't think I saw him pull it out in the two months I was around him.) He said he much preferred the Knight. I saw shorty and full-sized M4s, MP-5s, two Barretts, MK 19 and 47s, M249, M240s, M2s, several different types of shotguns (including one Serbu), M16s, Carl Gustaf, M136s, and three different types of mortars used in Afghanistan by U.S. troops. I think I saw two M14s carried my entire time (10.5 mos) there. :)

It might be especially germane to repeat that I was attached for several months to troops who had access to virtually any weapon in inventory. I never saw them use an M14. Not once. The couple of times I did see M14s, they were carried by regular troops, and did not have optics.

John

Lazuris
May 28, 2009, 01:47 PM
Hate to say it but the AK47 is the best semi ever built.

ARNETT44
May 28, 2009, 01:49 PM
The question should be the best semi auto rifle for you.
As in one size does not fit all.

The answer is the rifle that you know, its reliable, you can take it apart, clean it, its accurate, (can YOU hit with it),you can operate it in second nature mode, clear malfunctions, and you have confidence in it. Can ammo, mags, or parts be found easy and cost effectively?

Best does not always translate to most accurate, or THE most reliable. Or CDI factor. (Chicks did it)
If the above criteria is a 10/22 or M-14 or M1 Garrand so be it. To my father it is a M-1 Garrand, to my uncle it is a M-14, to me it's the AR to my Friend Boris its an AK.

H2O MAN
May 28, 2009, 02:26 PM
taliv...so if you're making a distinction between the modern and vietnam era m14...
How can you not make the distinction between the old Vietnam era m14 and today's modernized and enhanced M14s ??



taliv ...you also lose the ability to claim it was ever the standard infantry rifle.

No ability lost here, I never claimed it was a standard infantry rifle.



taliv ...i'd have to ask, exactly how many "modern" m14s have been fielded? are there even 1000 in service?
Add up the total number of Crazy Horse M14s, MK14 SEIs, Crane built MK14s and TACOM RI built M14
EBRs issued over the past few years and we have thousands of enhanced modern M14s in service.
The does not count the M14s that were put into SAGE stocks by individual units back in the early days.

Remember this... the official M14 modernization program is only about two or three years old.


Hold your baited breath...
JShirley I was attached to the 45th Infantry Brigade in Afghanistan....the (two different teams of) ODA I was attached to had M14s, too.

What year was this??

Do you realize the current M14 modernization program is geared specifically towards use in Afghanistan??













best semi auto rifle ever built?

It depends on who built it. My M14s are built by Ron Smith and SEI.

.

JShirley
May 28, 2009, 03:27 PM
I was in OEF from July 06 to May 07. I was part of a fire support/counterbattery team tasked out to first 3rd Group, then 7th Group from Jan to April 07.

As I said, I saw two M14s carried, no optics, and by regular troops, the entire time there. That's it.

John

taliv
May 28, 2009, 04:08 PM
How can you not make the distinction between the old Vietnam era m14 and today's modernized and enhanced M14s ??

the same way i don't make a big deal about M16A1, A2, M4, etc. it's the same gun, they just changed the stock and barrel length. it's the action we're talking about here mostly.

so it's got a SAGE stock? that makes it a new gun?

natescout
May 28, 2009, 04:08 PM
M14/M1a

H2O MAN
May 28, 2009, 05:21 PM
taliv


so it's got a SAGE stock? that makes it a new gun?
:rolleyes: Only in your close minded world

H2O MAN
May 28, 2009, 05:23 PM
JShirley I was in OEF from July 06 to May 07.

This confirms to me that you have not seen any modernized and enhanced M14s.

LoneStarWings
May 28, 2009, 06:13 PM
A good friend of mine was a scout sniper in Iraq in the '03-05 timeframe, he swears by the M14 and used it very succesfully. Sure he carried an M4 for CQB, but favored the reliability and power of the M14 for battlefield-type scenarios in the gritty desert envrionment.

With that said the AR is undoubtely a better automatic weapon, which is the point most arguments against the M14 hinge on. When you bring full auto into the equation, then the point about ammo capacity and weight also become an issue, but not so much in semi. This thread is about semi-automatic weapons, and in that case I'll take the M1A.

JShirley
May 28, 2009, 07:09 PM
Even- or perhaps, especially- for the lone rifleman, the additional ammunition a .223 user can carry, to me, is an important factor.

Don't get me wrong- I AM NOT one of those who claims the AR-15 or M16 is teh ultimate!!!1! or anything. I just don't think the M1A or M14 is, either.

modernized and enhanced M14s

I suppose the ones the ODA had were not "modernized or enhanced"?! Whatever, man. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

John

waiotahi52
May 29, 2009, 06:16 AM
It is said, by extremely wise people that the AK47 is the greatest weapon of mass destruction ever made. It is responsible for more deaths than any other rifle. Might be a contender????

H2O MAN
May 29, 2009, 10:44 AM
JShirley

I suppose the ones the ODA had were not "modernized or enhanced"?!

And that's my point :neener:

Tim the student
May 29, 2009, 11:28 AM
Whatever, man. Keep drinking the kool-aid.
This is high road? Seriously?

Vern Humphrey
May 29, 2009, 11:57 AM
I trained on the Garand in 1962 (the last AIT company at Fort Polk to do so) and at OCS. In Viet Nam on my first tour as an Adviser to Viet Namese Infantry, I was issued an M2 Carbine which got wrapped around a tree, and I bummed a Garand off the unit I was advising and carried that from then on.

As a company commander on my second tour, I bullied my battalion commander into getting me two M14 sniper rifles (this was before the M21 was standardized.) I had one man in the company who had been through sniper school, so he got one of them and I got the other.

The M1's great weakness was the en block clip -- that made it overly complicated, hard to manufacture, and difficult to mount a scope or starlight scope. Yes, it was a great battle rifle, but the M14 was better.

H2O MAN
May 29, 2009, 12:00 PM
Old School...

http://www.patriotshome.net/albums/Vietnam/M14_Sniper_Weapon.sized.jpg




Modernized and Enhanced...

http://www.athenswater.com/images/Ft.Bliss-2.JPG

Art Eatman
May 29, 2009, 12:29 PM
"Best"? For what purpose? Within what military doctrine of battle tactics?

What works in one might not be "the deal" for a different doctrine.

For instance: Pretty much beginning in the Vietnam era, the idea was to be able to carry a lot of ammo, and control one's environment within some 200 meters while using the primary weapon, the radio, to call in support from air or artillery. The M16 worked pretty good at that.

The Russian battle doctrine, OTOH, was for massed assault by tanks, with infantry support. The old WW II-era slam-bang standup and clobber against fixed positions. The infantry would go into action at close range. So, the AK47 sort of critter fit the doctrine.

For their design, the doctrinal purposes, then, the two rifles were equal.

To me, then, when you look at an M1 or FAL or whatever, the main question has to do with the intended purpose at the time it was designed.

Not all "improvements" work as intended. For instance, the M14 was basically an M1 with a box magazine and select-fire capability. It was discovered that the rifle was too lightweight for controllable full-auto fire. Same for the German G3 or the FAL. Doesn't mean they're "bad"; just that once again there is no "One size fits all". Still, it's pretty obvious that for a battle rifle, the box magazine is the way to go.

Consider purpose and military doctrine within one's judgement of good/better/best.

H2O MAN
May 29, 2009, 12:33 PM
Art Eatman

Not all "improvements" work as intended. For instance, the M14 was basically an M1 with a box magazine and select-fire capability. It was discovered that the rifle was too lightweight for controllable full-auto fire. Same for the German G3 or the FAL. Doesn't mean they're "bad"; just that once again there is no "One size fits all". Yeah, but select-fire capability is not part of the equation here :)



Art Eatman Still, it's pretty obvious that for a battle rifle, the box magazine is the way to go.

I agree!

Vern Humphrey
May 29, 2009, 12:40 PM
It was discovered that the rifle was too lightweight for controllable full-auto fire.
Full auto fire in any shoulder weapon, including the M16 and the AK 47 is tactically worthless.

The M14 was originally supposed to have a sister weapon, the M15 to replace the BAR. The M15 was never fielded, and many automatic rifle versions of the M14 were tried, including the M14E2. None of them panned out.

1KPerDay
May 29, 2009, 01:48 PM
garand for me... nothing cooler.

JShirley
May 29, 2009, 05:54 PM
I assume this is the situation you are referring to.

You'd be wrong. MacArthur was the one who refused to give the order to allow his B17s to hit previously designated Japanese targets. While waiting for the go order from Mac, the 17s were finally ordered off the ground so they wouldn't be sitting targets. After MacArthur finally authorized the attack hours later, the B17s were landed, and were on the ground being fueled and armed when the Japanese roared in. This was just one of the situations we studied in my American Military History course. (No-one knew about this until well after the fact, because virtually all of the surviving involved parties were captured by the Japanese. By the time the refusal to follow orders was discovered, Mac was already the "Hero of the Pacific". :barf: It has been suggested the reason for the delay was the many years of collaboration between the MacArthur family and the Philippines, and the hope that, if U.S. forces based in the Philippines did not become involved, that the Philippines might be able to stay out of the war.)

H2O, the OBVIOUS answer was, that OF COURSE the accurized M14s the ODA had were "modernized and enhanced" (since you're not claiming glass bedding and such on the original M14...are you?). I'm sorry the obvious is lost on you.

Luv my 1897
May 29, 2009, 05:58 PM
I agree, the M1A. My second would be an Armalite AR10T with free float barrel and flat top receiver.

Supertac45
May 29, 2009, 06:05 PM
The Mini-14 isn't even worth talking about.

Reid73
May 29, 2009, 06:18 PM
"Best" for rimfire plinking and hunting squirrels? Winchester 490 or Weatherby XXII (semi-auto version).

"Best" for an all-around defensive carbine under adverse conditions with little maintenance? Mini-14.

"Best" battle rifle? FN L1A1 / C1A1.

"Best" big game rifle? BAR.

Hunt3r
May 29, 2009, 06:24 PM
Hate to break it to you, but if China is ever a big enough threat and intel is strong enough that troop planes seem to be flying over the Pacific in the millions, we're going to have a press conference while nukes are dropped on China. Then we'll end up having the AF intercept every single plane.

That is, if we haven't deployed every single soldier we've got to the Middle East.

I think of the SAGE and SOPMOD stocks for the M14 as the "A4" version of the M14. It's loads more accurate, a bit heavier, and generally a better weapon then the A1 version.

The very best rifle in my eyes would be a SCAR/XCR/ACR type weapon in 7mm-08. In an 18 inch barrel, it'd be accurate, pretty deadly, fast, the ability to add things that make the rifle a pound heavier, the picatinny-mounted toaster, the automatic oven, the battery-powered green-laser, a shark, and a kitchen sink. :D

I just believe in having plenty o' rails, just in case I want to put on a light or bipod, possibly a battery pack, etc.

Air,Land&Sea
May 29, 2009, 06:28 PM
"Best" can't be found in any one rifle. Prolly better served to say what 3 rifles are the best mix. If that, then maybe a CZ 452 Scout (.22LR), my trusty Armalite M4-ish thing and an M1A Scout. Now we're onto something right here. Might even throw in a no-frills Remington 870 for sh*ts and giggles.

Reid73
May 29, 2009, 07:44 PM
Modernized and Enhanced...To each his own, but it's not apparent how an M-14 is 'improved' by the addition of:


a rail mounting system that is obviously too long for the rifle
a heavy bipod
a large scope in a non-matching finish
a plastic stock with some sort of do-dad screwed to the right forearm
a funny-looking cover (two-sided cheekpiece) on the rear of the stock

BTW, the geezer shooting the rifle should be counselled to put on his sunglasses, and get some ear plugs. Hearing and eye protection is a must for safe shooting. :cool:

Full auto fire in any shoulder weapon, including the M16 and the AK 47 is tactically worthlessHard to disagree. This guy makes it look easy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOxntuXpfdM), but not in my experience. Anyone remember the old C1A1Ds?

cipher
May 29, 2009, 08:46 PM
M14, but once i get to shoot a garand I might change my mind.

Hard to disagree. This guy makes it look easy, but not in my experience.

I feel that's part of the point. Obviously 16 year old draftees weren't gonna perform at that guy's level, but traditionalists take the view that a warrior works to be worthy of his weapon. That's why the best rifle ever made can be an "impractical" weapon. Even though its not worth a cent to a bloated superpower trying to mass-produce an army.

Also, WWII was the last symmetrical war we fought in. Nowadays we don't even meet other armies in the field. Mostly just air raids followed by years of police work. I think if the cold war had had any US-USSR battles, the M14 would have kept on rolling. Would you honestly want a 5.56 in a wide open battlefield against guys with .308's and level III vests?

JShirley
May 29, 2009, 09:19 PM
The way the history books tell the story about Mac's relationship with the Philipino people was that he didn't want to abandon them so he didn't want to retreat despite overwhelming forces breathing down his neck. Maybe that was a bad decision but it wasn't done out of any selfish motive. He simply wanted to defend the people he had lived with for many years.

I don't know which "history books" you read. The MacArthurs were deeply connected to the Filipino ruling family, beginning with Arthur MacArthur. Douglas also took a secret $500,000 payoff from the Philippines, back when that was real money.

High Planes Drifter
May 29, 2009, 09:23 PM
Hard to say. Possibly Garand, as said before, it was designed as a semi from the ground up.

H2O MAN
May 29, 2009, 09:47 PM
I'm sorry JS, but you are incorrect.
The the accurized M14s the ODA had are not "modernized and enhanced".

H2O MAN
May 29, 2009, 10:25 PM
Quote:
Modernized and Enhanced...

Reid73

To each his own...


It's readily apparent that you haven't the slightest clue what a modernized and enhanced M14 is.

Hunt3r
May 30, 2009, 12:51 AM
The only reason why I don't like the M14 is that it's heavy. And if you have some hot loads the op-rod is going to feel like popping out of place. Both of which aren't real problems if you don't do much but shoot irons with it on the USGI stocks.

CZguy
May 30, 2009, 03:29 AM
The only reason why I don't like the M14 is that it's heavy.

You could go to the gym. :D

Just kidding............actually that's one of the reasons that I like it. It soaks up recoil.

Sunray
May 30, 2009, 03:41 AM
"...saying that the Ruger Mini 14 was "the best semi auto rifle ever built"..." He's nuts. It's an over priced, inaccurate, big kid's, toy. Reliable, but not worth the money Ruger wants for one. They seem to have fixed the accuracy issue with their Target model, but it isn't worth $1082 MSRP.

MTMilitiaman
May 30, 2009, 06:45 AM
To each his own, but it's not apparent how an M-14 is 'improved' by the addition of:

Okay, one at a time, in crayon:

* a rail mounting system that is obviously too long for the rifle

It's not. The scope mounting rail is intentionally longer than the optic to allow Night Vision Devices, such as the PVS-14, to be mounted to the rifle in front of the objective bell of the optic.

* a heavy bipod

On a scoped rifle designed as a DMR or sniper rifle intended for extended ranges, a bipod may be worth its weight. Bipods are mounted on a variety of weapons for this reason.

* a large scope in a non-matching finish

Again, considering the intent of the rifle, an optic is useful. As for the finish, you'll have to forgive them. I am sure matching your taste in aesthetic preference wasn't as high on their list as getting a functional optic mounted to the rifle and in the hands of the troops.

* a plastic stock with some sort of do-dad screwed to the right forearm

It's probably easily to direct you to Smith Enterprise's website for details on the stock and other internal modifications they make to the rifle. But the Picitanny rail on the right allows the user to mount infrared lasers and illuminaters like the PEQ-2 or a visible white light like a Surefire. These are combat multipliers that increase the soldier's ability to identify threats and engage targets quickly and accurately. For a long time, the primarily complaint with the M14 was its inability to accept these accessories.

* a funny-looking cover (two-sided cheekpiece) on the rear of the stock


Same reason you'd mount an aftermarket cheekpiece on any other rifle--a quick and economical way to achieve proper cheek weld for use with optics on rifles with stocks that lack integral cheek piece adjustment.

rocinante
May 30, 2009, 07:46 AM
10/22 haha indeed....

surely YOU jest.

Sure most here are gun enthusiast and are leaning toward the military battle rifles but the number of 22 rifles out there dwarfs all others and as demonstrated kill more game albeit small.

EVERYBODY owns a 22 and more often than not it is a 10/22.

rocinante
May 30, 2009, 08:40 AM
King thanks for the info and I stand corrected. I have a marlin 1894CB and love it. Still I wouldn't jeer at anyone suggesting a 22 is the best semi automatic ever just based on the production numbers and popularity. The 10/22 has a vast aftermarket to turn it into just about anything you want from faux machine pistols to very accurate target rifles.

Just another note concerning McArthur. I wish Truman would of let him put the FULL smack down on North Korean and China. We wouldn't be reading what we are reading in the paper today with a unified Korea.

Coyote_Hunter_
May 30, 2009, 09:00 AM
Best semi-auto rifle ever?

Browning take-down .22LR.

Don't know what the Browning model is but they are still making them. Got mine in '74, Granddad got his Remington made version during the Great Depression.

H2O MAN
May 30, 2009, 09:00 AM
EVERYBODY owns a 22 and more often than not it is a 10/22.

No they don't.

ambidextrous1
May 30, 2009, 09:14 AM
QUOTE:
Patton believed it was the M1 Garand, and considering what was accomplished with that rifle, I can't argue with his ghost.

Patton was correct when he said that in the mid-1940s, when the Garand was competing with (mostly bolt action) rifles. I don't think he would say that today. A battle rifle than isn't magazine-fed has serious drawbacks in the
21st Century.
__________________

sprice
May 30, 2009, 10:14 AM
its been around forever and its FN 20 round brother is great too!

Vern Humphrey
May 30, 2009, 11:06 AM
browning BAR
I carried one for a bit as an enlisted man, and actually used one in Viet Nam. A great gun, but too heavy and with too little ammo capacity. A lighter belt-fed version with a quick change barrel would be ideal.

JShirley
May 30, 2009, 11:53 AM
It was China that pushed the button for WWIII to start.

Not really. The U.S. backed the Chinese Nationalist Party under Chiang Chou-t'ai. The Chinese Communists were right to be concerned about U.S. efforts to retake China, and had therefore warned the U.S. (and de facto proxies) not to cross the 38th Parallel. MacArthur initially obeyed his orders to only let Korean troops in the areas nearest the Chinese border, but then rescinded them. This was disobeying a direct order, but of course not the first time he had done so.

It was only after this that the Chinese troops crossed the Yalu in October 1950.

But enough history. Feel free to email me, if you want.

J

Art Eatman
May 30, 2009, 12:17 PM
Love him or hate him, "Dugout Doug" ain't s'posed to be part of this thread. Nor China, etc., etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum.

:D:D:D

Koos Custodiet
May 30, 2009, 12:19 PM
browning BAR

I carried one for a bit as an enlisted man, and actually used one in Viet Nam. A great gun, but too heavy and with too little ammo capacity. A lighter belt-fed version with a quick change barrel would be ideal.

You guys are talking about two different BARs, the one's a 30-06 machine gun from WWII (and I want one) and the other's a modern semi in 338 and more.

But I think it's clear that whatever is the best semi, it's NOT the mini 14 :-)

maskedman504
May 30, 2009, 12:39 PM
I vote for MTMilitiaman

DannyinJapan
May 30, 2009, 12:49 PM
I am late to the party but I will say that obviously, different rifles excel in different situations.
Personally, I think the M1A and the Mini-14 are outstanding rifles and preferable in many ways to other choices.
Second choice: An HK 91 is probably the best, all around, SHTF type rifle.

CLIFF 11
May 30, 2009, 01:14 PM
The Military Channel placed the AK 47 as number 1 in their Top Ten rifles all around. My vote is for the M1 Grand by far
cliff

Reid73
May 30, 2009, 11:25 PM
The scope mounting rail is intentionally longer than the optic to allow Night Vision Devices, such as the PVS-14, to be mounted to the rifle in front of the objective bell of the optic.By the time you get all that stuff mounted, the rifle will be so top-heavy and unbalanced that it will sure need that huge bipod! :D

I am sure matching your taste in aesthetic preference wasn't as high on their list as getting a functional optic mounted to the rifle and in the hands of the troops.Shiny stuff is never functional for military weapons. :scrutiny:

It's probably easily to direct you to Smith Enterprise's website for details on the stock and other internal modifications they make to the rifle. Thank you for the reference.

But the Picitanny rail on the right allows the user to mount infrared lasers and illuminaters like the PEQ-2 or a visible white light like a Surefire. These are combat multipliers that increase the soldier's ability to identify threats and engage targets quickly and accurately. For a long time, the primarily complaint with the M14 was its inability to accept these accessories. All these silly rail things and desire to bolt gizmos onto weapons! It just makes them heavier, bulkier, and fragile.

KISS is always a good principle. For a good example of a real sniper rifle, let's consider the No4 MkI(T) or its 7.62 successor, the L42A1. Fool-proof Lee-Enfield action. Simple, light, fixed power scope. A rugged, accurate, low-tech package that (amazingly enough!) helped to win several wars despite the complete absence of bipod, laser range-finder, night vision illuminator or similar "accessories". :cool:

MTMilitiaman
May 31, 2009, 04:31 AM
By the time you get all that stuff mounted, the rifle will be so top-heavy and unbalanced that it will sure need that huge bipod!

Amazing how it works out almost like it was planned that way?

Shiny stuff is never functional for military weapons.

Which is why the scope isn't shiny. It's matte and colored a distinct light brown that looks [GASP!] strangely similar to the color of the ground visible behind it. Again, it's almost as if they planned it that way...

All these silly rail things and desire to bolt gizmos onto weapons! It just makes them heavier, bulkier, and fragile.

It does make them heavier and bulkier, and a to degree, more fragile. But it doesn't "just" make them such things. These things are combat multipliers. By necessity, they are going to be put on any rifle taken into combat today. If the government decided to adopt your precious Enfield, it would still have these things on it.

When you're cursing the lack of field of view, the lack of depth perception, the monochromic green, the weight on your head, and yet another thing to carry batteries for, it's easy to hate the PVS-14. When you then realize that it is pitch black outside, but you can still see well enough to identify facial expressions on an enemy over a hundred yards away, long before he can see you or even knows you're there, you suddenly realize you hate the thing, but it works. And for as long as it works, it's worth the weight, the two dimensional, limited field of view, the batteries, and the risk it will break. Same thing with the PEQ-2. It's a little bulky and kind of a PITA to sight in, but having the option of an infrared laser that is going to put a dot directly where the bullet is going to go regardless of cheek weld, shoulder weld, or shooting position, you think--this is pretty cool. And when you kick down the door of a dark house and emerge on the other side in a dark room, the inhabitants tend to like it, eventually if not at the time, if you take the time to splash 125 lumens of white light in their faces and identify them as unarmed civilians rather than dusting the room with automatic rifle fire, even if they are temporarily blinded and confused by it when it occurs.

These things are combat multipliers. It means they multiply the effect a unit has in combat. Any rifle the US goes into battle with is going to have them. This is a good thing. For as long as the disgruntled goat farmers we are fighting only have your Enfields, they will continue to give us an advantage that will keep us alive by allowing us to kill them when we get on target faster and more precise than them and are often able to see them better than they see us.

Of all the issue pieces of gear available to the modern Marine infantryman, the RCO was distinguished as the greatest increase in firepower available to the Marine since the inception of the M1 Garand. That would be Rifleman Combat Optic, a 4x version of the Trijicon ACOG equipped with a dual illumination system and a built in BDC/rangefinder. It comes equipped as standard issue on all M16A4 rifles issued in the fleet. It is so rugged, it is the only piece of gear I never saw a Marine break. So rugged, in fact, that the Marines don't even issue rear sights on their rifles any more. They aren't needed. So while this gear can fail, most of it is far from fragile. And even if it fails, it can be quickly removed, which means at worst, the soldier is only as poorly equipped as the person he's fighting.

Weight is still an infantryman's nemesis. Most are quick to shed every ounce of weight they feel they can part with and still remain effective. So even against orders, none of these things would make it outside the wire if the soldiers carrying it didn't feel like it was worth the weight.

HeavenlySword
May 31, 2009, 04:40 AM
+1 to mt

sterling7c
May 31, 2009, 05:39 AM
The FAL, from what I can remember it was given away by European countries to as many 3rd world countries as possible to make way for newer better rifles, lighter, more reliable, more accurate rifles. Anyone I knew who had experience with the FAL in combat complained about them being too long, too heavy, and not being very reliable.
You're kidding right :) I never knew any guy who didn't like them. As for lack of reliability ... (repeat the above) you're kidding right :) The FAL was ready for anything anywhere anytime and in any conditions ... and the 90 or so countries that adopted them did so only because they were "given" them? I don't think so. Sure the FAL wasn't and isn't the most accurate battle rifle that ever was but it sure was accurate enough to get the job done well. Is it /was it the best battle rifle ever ... I don't think so even though I have a good one. Still got to love the (non magazine fed) Garand though. Times and technology have changed, that's for sure. But then again ... hasn't everything.

Medusa
May 31, 2009, 05:46 AM
Another vote for MT, but I do have to say that the possibility to add different gadgets to a weapon does not mean they actually are all the time, KISS applies here too, soldier keeps on the weapons only those things that are actually needed, while others may be in the rucksack or whatever. Thermal sight is a wonderful thing, I even saw the place where "enemy combatant" had been a while ago and site was still warmer than surrounding ground. But I wouldn't keep it on all the time, only when it's actually needed.

Best is subjective, depending on many things, but for me it would be this baby (open sights are good, but optical sight is better - view of the world through optical sight is much more realistic):

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=94616&d=1237390646

And I like it's clean lines, it looks much more graceful/slim than HK G3 (shorter and more bulkier) for comparison. And it could be tuned to suit whatever the need is, within the weapon's capabilities of course, it's not the best choice for CQB or shooting someone in the face a mile away. But the best additions are optical sight, suppressor, and a quick-mount bipod (to keep it off if not needed).

Silverado6x6
May 31, 2009, 07:05 AM
I vote for the M1A and the 10/22, I have both plus a pair of AR15's.

What most people do not talk about is what would our future enemies have in weapons and armor, where will our battles be and at what point will the average gun owning American have to use his/her choice as a defensive weapon?

Will we be facing invasions of a foreign nation? Not hardly unless there was a massive killoff of most of America, a gun behind every blade of grass is truly a profound deterrent to our enemies. Lets suppose a civil war was repeated and all of America armed as it is now had to shoot at possibly its neighbors or brothers? The killing field then so to speak would most likely be raids and skirmishes, sniping and probably the use of lots of body armor and police raids.

To me I would choose an ammunition with superior 200 yard or less penetration that would deliver enough energy to at the least incapacitate the wearer of the latest body armor, shots any further would fall into a different category such as snipers, in that respect at the bottom end I would chose the .308, the .338 Lapua and the the 50BMG.

Any platform with the 5.56 I think should be kept as light as possible and compact, I would keep this caliber for in close suburban problems such as in buildings or where the enemy may be in numbers, myself I have little faith in the 5.56/.223 unless its superior bullets like frangibles or steel cored AP bullets, best advantage I see is of course you can haul more ammo but for the average American there would be little chance of surviving an encounter with a more equipped enemy, best to give out something strong enough to suppress fire and light armor and then egress to attack again. I will probably upgrade my ARs to the 6.5 or 6.8 caliber.

The modern day hunting version BAR in .338 would be my choice for heavy firepower from a semi-auto. The M1A with some replacement parts can handle 180gr bullets but its suggested in stock form to use up to 168gr. A .338 can fire much heavier bullets such as Barnes all copper solids. I would say its not a matter of THE best but the best for what you are facing.

For getting food on the table the 10/22 is my first choice with the Mini 14 close.

For urban social work anything in 7.62x39, an excellent cartridge for 100 yard shots. Here is where the simple SKS works well.

For under 400 yards the .308 in the M1A is my choice, I have never owned or fired a Garand but the 30-06 is the best cartridge around for variety in bullet weights from light to heavy, if anything I would like to see a modernized version of a Garand produced, lighter, magazine fed, able to be solidly scoped.

I love the M1A but its not for the average person, it is heavy and would tire an average person if they had to wear it 24/7 such as most Israelis do. To me it is basically a prone firing gun best used with a bipod and quality optical gear both long range and night vision. I would say thats probably its best use and more than likely what an average person would have a use for. Myself I would build my M1A with a rail system that would be able to use any current long range optic with night vision/thermal imaging, whatever I can afford to give me an edge. Fire as few shots of limited ammunition, make them count, no sense in spraying lead in a flood of bullets hoping to get lucky, not unless you have a massive supply of bullets for many years.

Travis Bickle
May 31, 2009, 07:40 AM
The guy is smoking crack, if you ask me.

I'm not a Mini-hater. In fact, I happen to own one myself. I think it's a fine little carbine for its intended purpose and lots of fun, too. But anyone who calls it the best semi-auto rifle ever built is probably on some sort of mind-altering substance.

H2O MAN
May 31, 2009, 07:42 AM
M14 transformed into the modernized and enhanced Crazy Horse M21A5 EBR SASS

http://www.athenswater.com/images/H2O-M14-2.jpg

The VFG is not essential kit.

Reid73
June 1, 2009, 10:36 AM
the disgruntled goat farmers we are fightingThis sort of disparaging remark reminds me of all the racist slurs that were commonly applied to the VC/NVA. And we all know how that one ended. :scrutiny:

JShirley
June 1, 2009, 01:26 PM
And when you kick down the door of a dark house and emerge on the other side in a dark room, the inhabitants tend to like it, eventually if not at the time, if you take the time to splash 125 lumens of white light in their faces and identify them as unarmed civilians rather than dusting the room with automatic rifle fire, even if they are temporarily blinded and confused by it when it occurs.

Okay...so you're saying it's logical to tart up an M14 to make it a SDM-type rifle- adding significantly more weight than it already had to begin with, and then go kick doors in with it?!

As far as "disgruntled goat farmers"- that seems to indicate a popular uprising. Most of the folk we're fighting aren't even native to the countries we're engaging them in, so "goat farming" has nothing to do with their occupation, which is in fact imported insurgent/terrorist. :rolleyes:

John

H2O MAN
June 1, 2009, 01:28 PM
:rolleyes: Tart Up

Is it logical to tart up an AR? An AK or FAL?

Reid73
June 1, 2009, 01:41 PM
The VFG is not essential kit.No argument from me! :)

Is it logical to tart up an AR? An AK or FAL?No, No and No.

JShirley
June 1, 2009, 01:58 PM
Is it logical to tart up an AR? An AK or FAL?

The discussion at this point was really about suitability for mission. The type of accessories that would make a firearm more practical for hitting targets at 450 meters may not be the ones that would be most useful for clearing rooms, and vise versa. Unless you disagree, in which case, I must be wrong. :rolleyes:

I mean, seriously? You really think a bipod and high-power optic are going to be what you need at 4 meters?

John

Dan Crocker
June 1, 2009, 02:23 PM
Never mind. My post was off-topic.

JShirley
June 1, 2009, 02:28 PM
Again- the people we are fighting in the Middle East are now typically those who came into country just to fight us. If they are "goat farmers", they are not indigenous goat farmers.

CZguy
June 1, 2009, 02:53 PM
As far as "disgruntled goat farmers"- that seems to indicate a popular uprising. Most of the folk we're fighting aren't even native to the countries we're engaging them in, so "goat farming" has nothing to do with their occupation, which is in fact imported insurgent/terrorist.

That was particularity well said. It demonstrates a good understanding of what we are facing in that theater of the war on terrorism.

H2O MAN
June 1, 2009, 02:57 PM
What does any of this have to do with the best semi auto rifle ever built?

JShirley
June 1, 2009, 03:12 PM
Again- there is no best, there is only best for a certain purpose. Your DMR/SDM rifle will not be best for hunting elk, your house-clearing carbine will not be best as a DMR or SDM rifle, and your elk gun won't be perfect for clearing houses.

That's the point, which is why you (wisely) don't try to do everything with one arm. I know, I've seen the pictures. :)

J

Dan Crocker
June 1, 2009, 04:25 PM
Sorry, I meant that my posts were off-topic.

JShirley
June 1, 2009, 04:36 PM
If you'd like to contact me directly, I'd love to see your sources.

John

Tim the student
June 1, 2009, 04:44 PM
Most of the folk we're fighting aren't even native to the countries we're engaging them in

That has not been my experience. Falluja was a huge exception however. Most of the enemy in my old AO were Iraqis who came into our AO to fight us, not foreigners who came to fight us. Can you PM me a source for your info?

Now then, can we get back on topic before this thread gets locked? K, thanks. I don't think that the makeup of foreign fighters in Iraq/Afghanistan is really firearms related, which is what I understand THR guidelines to be regarding posting. Absolutely interesting, but not firearms related, IMO. Maybe we can all PM each other about that topic. If anyone would like to PM me about that, and share some experiences or data, change my mind, whatever, please do so.

Air,Land&Sea
June 1, 2009, 05:48 PM
Give me 200 Marines with K-Bars and my rules and the war's over.

Dan Crocker
June 1, 2009, 05:54 PM
I seem to recall Fetterman saying something similar...

atomd
June 1, 2009, 06:40 PM
http://www.athenswater.com/images/H2O-M14-2.jpg
*tongue planted in cheek*
All those parts...and being different colors reminds me of those cars you see with one door primer and a different color hood from their "parts car". Something about that stuff doesn't fit right. All it's missing is a giant spoiler on the back and some chrome rims. If that's not enough, you can puzzle your enemies with the giant list of acronyms in the name of the rifle. :D True I'm judging purely based on looks. I'd take your word that it's a shooter....but it's definitely not my thing.

I must admit that I like the SOCOM NAFTA GOP HULK HOGAN CIA TACOP DOD SWAT FUBAR version slightly better. :evil:

taliv
June 1, 2009, 07:08 PM
I'd take your word that it's a shooter

actually, i'd kinda like to see some mid- to long-range groups. have you posted any?


(not calling you out or anything... just curious how it shoots with the suppressor. i think i told you how my SEI suppressor shoots via PM a year or two ago while you were waiting on your paperwork)

Reid73
June 1, 2009, 07:31 PM
I suspect that it shoots pretty well. Gotta agree with atom on the 'parts car' look, though! ;)

I don't think that the makeup of foreign fighters in Iraq/Afghanistan is really firearms relatedAgreed.

H2O MAN
June 1, 2009, 10:30 PM
I have not had much time to shoot over the past year or so... work and my future wife are keeping me busy :)

I have fired both my MK14 with the 18" standard profile chrome lined barrel and my Norinco 7.62
T56SHTF with the M14DC 0.30 Caliber Sound Suppressor installed and both are very accurate.

The Crazy Horse M21A5 EBR pictured above is brand new and only test fired by SEI before they shipped it to me.
The different colors are not nearly as bad as the camera flash makes them look - they actually match up very well.

MTMilitiaman
June 2, 2009, 02:42 PM
Okay...so you're saying it's logical to tart up an M14 to make it a SDM-type rifle- adding significantly more weight than it already had to begin with, and then go kick doors in with it?!

Yes and no. I don't really consider any version of the M14, no matter how it is equipped, as being ideal for kicking down doors. But if I am kicking down doors, I would rather have something like a Mk 14 with a Surefire, PEQ-2, VFG, and a good red dot or reflex sight than a Plane Jane M14.

The point of my entire post, in case you missed it, is that these items are going to be present on any rifle or carbine that goes into battle with our military because they work and they increase the capabilities of the soldier. So whether it is an M4A4, Mk 14 Mod 0, or something else, "tarting" it up makes sense because the capabilities of things like PEQ-2s, PVS-14s, ACOGs, and Surefire lights are worth the increase in weight and the chance they will break. If they weren't, no amount of B&M by the higher ups would get our grunts to carry them outside the wire. Modern infantrymen have enough stuff to carry without carrying useless junk and ineffectual gizmos. The gear in question is carried by almost everyone because it is neither useless nor ineffectual.

trigga
June 2, 2009, 10:27 PM
i see a lot of people favoring the m1/m14 design. what is it about this design that makes it so popular?

LoneStarWings
June 2, 2009, 10:48 PM
i see a lot of people favoring the m1/m14 design. what is it about this design that makes it so popular?

Reliability and ease of maintenance, great iron sights, plus a lot of people favor .30-06/.308 over .223 in a semi-automatic rifle.

Full auto an room clearing, I'd probably take an M4, MP5, uzi, etc...

Pure long distance (500 yds+)....some type of bolt, or maybe an sr 25....

Little bit of everything in semi-auto? M14/M1A.

MTMilitiaman
June 3, 2009, 04:37 AM
i see a lot of people favoring the m1/m14 design. what is it about this design that makes it so popular?

Reliability and ease of maintenance are two big reasons. While not as intrinsically accurate as an AR, they are pretty accurate for a standard battle rifle and with a little work, can be accurate by the standards of pretty much any rifle. The sights are second to none and they tend to have excellent triggers and good ergonomics as well, which helps people shoot them accurately. The M14 was the last of America's wood and steel guns, and no matter what configuration you have them in, they never lose that "they don't make em like this anymore" character. Plus they offer something for everyone. The old timers and traditionalist can have the wood/blued steel look in a National Match and shoot it alongside his CMP Garand. The younger ones and those who like rails can drop one in a Sage or other chassis system. You can use them for pretty much anything from High Power competition to hunting to defense. Lots of reasons. But overall they are just solid shooting guns with a lot of history and a real rifleman's rifle feel.

woodybrighton
June 3, 2009, 02:30 PM
also built in the states. much like the 1911 A us thing like pick up trunks doesn't really travel.
the FN FAL was used by a lot more countries than the M14.
The British issued it as an SLR in a purely semi automatic form.

Reid73
June 3, 2009, 03:46 PM
But if I am kicking down doors, I would rather have something like a Mk 14 with a Surefire, PEQ-2, VFG, and a good red dot or reflex sight than a Plane Jane M14.I would rather have a stock M-14, which at least would be relatively light and compact. Better yet, a SMG of some sort.

The gear in question is carried by almost everyone because it is neither useless nor ineffectual.Perhaps. Or perhaps because they are compelled to carry it by their platoon officer and NCOs. Or because 'everybody else does'. Or because they have a touching faith in the power of technology, and have never really thought things through.

There are a multiplicity of reasons why people do things, and soldiers are no different. It is also idle to presume that because many people do something, it is necessary wise and desireable.

RockyMtnTactical
June 3, 2009, 03:48 PM
Based on what I have chosen to buy, I have to say AR15.

H2O MAN
June 3, 2009, 04:03 PM
This is probably the best semi auto that I own. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5633826&postcount=26)

It's relatively compact, lighter than it looks, very accurate and reliable.

Reid73
June 3, 2009, 04:16 PM
What, no PEQ-2 and VFG?! :eek: ;)

How much does it weigh, loaded? Sure looks heavy ... but appearances can be deceiving.

MTMilitiaman
June 3, 2009, 04:39 PM
Dropping a standard 18 inch barreled M14 into a Sage chassis system doesn't add all that much weight. The Navy specified in the contract that the rifle had to be under 11 pounds unloaded, and it is. So the chassis system and all the advantages it offers only adds about 1/2 a pound.

The PEQ-2, VFG, and a Surefire might add a pound and a half to two pounds. As with all battle rifles, it is the weight of the ammunition that adds the most weight. A loaded 20 round magazine weighs about a kilogram.

So depending on what optics you choose, the setup is going to be fairly heavy when loaded, but this is true of all battle rifles. The weight of the accessories is almost completely irrelevant given the weight of the ammunition. If you're rolling with a battle rifle instead of a poodle shooter, you probably expect a corresponding increase in weight to go with the increase in range, power, and lethality. So a 14 pound rifle with the capabilities of a PEQ-2, white light, and VFG is acceptable.

Reid73
June 3, 2009, 05:09 PM
the setup is going to be fairly heavy when loaded, but this is true of all battle rifles.... a 14 pound rifle with the capabilities of a PEQ-2, white light, and VFG is acceptable. Well, 14 pounds is more than 25% heavier than, e.g., a loaded FN (with 21" barrel). That might be acceptable to some ... but I suspect that pretty much anyone except Hercules will find it less and less so, as the hours spent carrying it go by.

If you're going to carry all that weight, might as well go all the way and get a BAR.

Doug S
June 3, 2009, 08:48 PM
If I were going to choose the best based on reliability (at least in my experience), I'd choose an AK/SKS. For class and history, I'd choose a Garand/M1 Carbine (I should note I've never had reliability issues with my carbines, and I haven't yet shot my Garand to know).

justashooter in pa
June 3, 2009, 09:56 PM
FN/FAL by a mile. rugged, reliable, ergonomically sound, suitable cartridge for anything that walks the earth.

SHvar
June 4, 2009, 03:06 AM
Well, according to the original date of the first real AR-15/M-16 that was developed for the DOD it was 52 years ago. It may have not been completed, or bugs worked out, but its been around a long time. Its been in use by more professional soldiers willingly, and sucessfully for longer than any rifle. Id say the AK-47 and its variants are a close second, but made for a bit different purpose and set of tactics.
So, Id say the AR/M-16 platform is the best for a load of reasons more than any other rifle.

brigadier
June 4, 2009, 06:59 AM
Oh, another "What's the best" debate.

The answer to the original question is simple. There is no straight answer. Unfortunately, guns, like sports teams, have their loyal fans who will never budge no matter what anyone says, often resorting to highly detail issues to support their general opinion. Not to say that the points made are not real and valid, but when you look at the big picture, they prove to be less defining then wished.

Let's have a look at some of the guns that are often held as the best.


M-1 Garand
The M-1 Garand is a large and powerful rifle that isn't as heavy or hard kicking as it's reputation suggests, but most of it's reputation about the business end is underrated.

It only holds 8 rounds but it reloads extremely fast and ammo is held in a small clip rather then a large magazine, making it easier to haul large amounts of ammo around on you. It can handle more pressure then any other battle rifle ever, accuracy is great, the cartridge is a powerful "one hiter quiter" and it handles very well.

However, it's still a heavy gun and quite large. Recoil climbs allot and is off-center which makes it hard to stay on target compared to newer guns like the M-16. A gun that is so large that it's intimidating to look at is a gun that is too large for a variety of functions, CQB being the most obvious. In short, the M-14 replaced it for a good reason, yet it remained in service along side the M-14 for a good reason.

M-14 Another gun that is far lighter and easier to haul around then it is made out to be. If I were a soldier in Viet Nam, this is the gun I would have wanted to carry. The Scout model FEELS about the same as the AR-15 in terms of weight, though I have never actually weighed the two. The M-14 is an extremely reliable gun yet extremely accurate as well, and one of the better handling rifles ever made. It fires the 7.62 NATO/.308 round, which is legendary for it's versatility.

AK-47/AK-74. This gun is both underrated AND overrated. It was built around reliability. Accuracy is good, but reliability and firepower are the main advantages. It can take a ton of beating without failure and kill just about any land animal on earth with reasonable accuracy. Those features alone make the Kalashnikov type rifle one of the best "doomsday" survival rifles in the world.

However, the AK is not without faults. It has a shorter accurate range then Most of it's rivals and it's stability is not that great. The AK-74 fixes allot of the issues with the original 1947 pattern, but not all of them.

AR-15. This gun was literally designed around stability, so it's ease of handling and accuracy are almost second to none. Only some of the newer battle rifles rival it. It's firepower is also highly underrated. Those who know ballistics know that energy is an incredibly important factor, and a .22 caliber bullet moving at over 3000fps is nothing to take lightly. On top of that, some of the loads that get in the 3000fps ballpark in full size rifles get up to 80gr and maybe even higher. That is serious firepower with some serious range potential. When you see those numbers, it's no wonder that the M-16 has been known to take on and defeat M-14s in 1000 yard iron sight matches.

As with all guns, the AR-15 is not without shortcomings. Though reliability is far better then it's reputation suggests, it is still nothing special in this department. In fact, it's reliability is average at best. Although it's smaller caliber may be sufficient for the human beings and medium game that it was designed for, it may prove to be less suitable and effective against larger and more dangerous game then it's rival, the AK.

On a personal level, when I think of best rifle, I think of what would I want to have with me in an war time survival situation, considering what my circumstances might be like in real life. With countless factors considered, I think it would be a close call between the AK-74, M-14 Scout and FAL, ammo availability being one of the most important factors.

The likely case of an SHTF situation on American soil is either war with Russia or a revolt. If there is a revolt, it's hard to say what will be most common. .223 and .308 will probably get sucked up allot and suddenly appear in short supply, but .308 probably wont get it as bad as .223. The exact same will be true if Russia were to invade. However, if they did, the ammo that will be up for grabs is what the Russians bring with them, and that will be 5.45x39.

Reid73
June 4, 2009, 07:58 AM
The likely case of an SHTF situation on American soil is little green men invading from Mars.

In which case, no rifle is going to be a match for their death rays.

Silverado6x6
June 4, 2009, 08:53 AM
Traditionally and I mean not in a Hollywood fashion superior technology can be defeated with quantity which in itself is a quality. In a s such as a "what if" and we actually had to go against ray guns then there is always a way to defeat that with simple measures, most lasers will not work in a fogged environment or around mylar chaff, or mirrored surfaces. And of course there is bio weapons.

I think we are reaching a crescendo in firearms technology that will take us beyond traditional gunpowder cartridges, already we now have projectiles with time in flight impact fuses and it won't be long before civilian products are available. Imagine a 12 gauge shotgun with an air burst feature like a mini flak gun.

And there is now a proven man portable laser rifle being field tested, soon a railgun, so its realistic to say its absolutely possible to make an astounding leap in firearms improvements in a few years, look at how computers evolved in just a few years.

With a nationwide demand for ammo so severe that police departments are restricting the use of practice time and a year or more back order in primers its going to demand that the mother of necessity give birth to alternative means. A wise investor should pay more attention to new ideas.

stubbicatt
June 4, 2009, 09:33 AM
The likely case of an SHTF situation on American soil is little green men invading from Mars.

In which case, no rifle is going to be a match for their death rays.

True. But if you just pour water on the aliens they burst into flames, or melt. I saw it once in a Mel Gibson movie, so it has to be true. Therefore a semi automatic water pistol is just the thing.

Mp7
June 4, 2009, 09:47 AM
Nylon 22LR

H2O MAN
June 4, 2009, 11:07 AM
Reid73

How much does it weigh, loaded?
Sure looks heavy ... but appearances can be deceiving.

About 10 lbs.

Deutsche Schuetzen
June 4, 2009, 12:24 PM
+With 20+ years as a combat Marine I have seen and tested and been shot at (and once by) a good many rifles for what it is worth. I personally believe that the M-14 took a great battle rifle and made it a little better *M-14:Accuracy A+ /Reliability A+/Maintainance A+/Ergonomics ,trigger and sightsA+/Stopping power A+/ Ability to shoot through obstacles A+. I got to test a Spesnaz AK-74 extensively and found this to be an excellent weapon;much more accurate than the AK-47 and the 5.45x39 round against people (not through obstacles) was better than the 7.62x39 *AK-74 Reliability A+/ Accuracy B (AK-47-D)Maintanance A/ Ergonomics C-/ Stopping power B+/Obstacle penetration D (AK-47 B-) *The M-16 ;While it has come a long way the M-16 still has major issues .While it is somewhat adaquite in a perfect environment as conditions worsen so does reliability.In the Desert after a sandstorm the M-16 becomes useless .The weapon must be detail stripped and cleaned.In Arctic conditions sub freezing temperatures render the Stoner type gas system almost useless .If a Marine or Soldier is in extended combat and cant clean his rifle problems will begin to happen.*M16 ;Reliability D/Maintanance D /Accuracy of the average M-16 B+ /ergonomics B/ Stopping power B /Obstacle penetration C- *H&K G3 A very reliable weapon that must have the roller assembly set up correctly for it to function properly.They are very reliable and accurate when as such.In Norway these weapons would work even in the most bitter cold arctic conditions. * H&K G3: Accuracy A/Reliability B+/Maintainance B /Ergonomics C /I prefer the H&k93 in .223 to the G-3 (91) as it is a little less bulky and mostly because the H&K type stock can beat you up if you are a large person when shooting a 7.62 as the butt stock is a little short

Reid73
June 4, 2009, 01:23 PM
10 pounds is pretty good.

H2O MAN
June 4, 2009, 01:33 PM
The secret is a standard profile 18.0" barrel and a Magpul CTR butt stock.

Patriot2112
June 4, 2009, 04:59 PM
Very subjective indeed... I own an AK, Mini 14, and an AR. My father has a Garand that I shoot all the time. If I could only keep one it would be the AR. Absolutely love the accuracy, dependability and flexibility of the platform.

Smoothone566
April 28, 2010, 11:27 AM
If you can find them on e-bay, the 10/22 came in a factory 22" barrel, like the one I have on my 10/22. I aslo, think the factory barrels are lightweight enough. I am sure you can find a bull barrel that is lighter in weight than the factory in 20" if you want a little shorter barrel.

rustysragsinc
April 28, 2010, 11:31 AM
M1A!!!!

GunsBeerFreedom
April 28, 2010, 12:25 PM
FS2000.

/thread.

FSJeeper
April 28, 2010, 07:37 PM
Buy Boston's Gun Bible. You'll see the most comprehensive comparison between the makes ever done. Tons of Stats.

Bottom line is the M14 is the best. Did you know that the M14 has fewer parts than all of the others including the AK47?

Voland
April 29, 2010, 10:48 AM
"Did you know that the M14 has fewer parts than all of the others including the AK47?"


Ok, at first I did not think that this was an accurate statement but I was wrong... Im sure some one else will think the same thing so here are a few links to prove FSJeeper is right...

m14 (http://www.chestnutridge.com/14pic.asp)
AK (http://www.rap4.com/operation/AK47_Body_Diagram_1000.jpg)
AR (http://207.234.249.73/gunfax/rimfires/ap74types.jpg)

V.

DIM
April 29, 2010, 10:58 AM
did anyone mentioned Dragunov's SVD its semiautomatic alright, range is good, durability is good, precision also good, what else do you need?

ImARugerFan
April 29, 2010, 11:02 AM
10/22!

Birddog1911
April 29, 2010, 01:04 PM
did anyone mentioned Dragunov's SVD its semiautomatic alright, range is good, durability is good, precision also good, what else do you need?
A rifle that doesn't cost $5-8,000, and that you can readily get parts for?

If you enjoyed reading about "best semi auto rifle ever built?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!