I'm in that list with the M1 Garand as the best. Second place would be the 98Mauser rifles. Third would haxe to go to the Mosin/Nagant rifle and its cartridge. Even though the rifle is no longer a front line service, the 7.62X54R is still in service over 100yrs later.
Greatest Battle Rifle Ever
- Thread starter taprackbang
- Start date
- Status
NotSoFast
Member
M1 Garand without a doubt.
ftierson
Member.
Old means that you don't take sucker bets...
Forrest
Nolo
Member
I say greatest in respect to its time, sir.
If I were to arm our soldiers RIGHT now, it'd be with the ACR.
If I were to arm our soldiers in four years, it'd be with a caseless rifle.
The ACR is the best rifle in general that I can think of for modern combat, especially when in 6.5 Grendel.
And it does qualify as an MBR (because assault rifle is a subset of MBR), so, yeah.
Heck, if you want to go with bang for the buck, than the AK-47 is your man.
The AK is THE ONLY rifle for many people.
The AR... just doesn't have that distinction.
In many foreign countrys, when they say "rifle" they mean "AK". They have become synonymous.
60 years ago, the Enfield held that spot.
Stevie-Ray
Member
Hold it guys, I voted FAL and I am retired and belong to AARP.
Chuck Spears
member
SomeKid said:
You're disqualified due to lack of sound body and mind. Seriously, you guys are crazy if you think the greatest EVER is the Garand. Key word being "EVER." Is everybody forgetting that? How can something be the greatest EVER when nobody even uses it right now? Obviously it's not the greatest EVER since no modern military would even think twice about marching into battle with it. You guys belong in a thread titled "Hey guys, what was the greatest battle rifle for its era?" Then you can get proud and nostalgic about your outdated design. It was the greatest ever a half century ago maybe. But if you seriously think that it is the greatest EVER in the year 2008 then you need medication and professional supervision since your mental facilities are not running full speed.
Chuck Spears
member
ftierson said:
You win this round, pops.
Chuck Spears
member
Stevie-Ray said:
Some people age more gracefully than others. You have good genes.
Chuck Spears
member
Just relax and let the FN SCAR prove itself in the coming years.
Chuck Spears
member
If I really wanted to ruffle some feathers I'd start in on the Garand's .30-06 chambering. But despite my young age I have learned some life lessons already from prior gun discussions with folks. Lesson number one: no matter what, leave the .30-06 alone. It's followers can be like a pack of rabid wombats.
HB
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,382
Best comment yet....
The "Brown Bess" was the best gun around for general military use for a hundred years, and the Garand was the best gun for the WWII era, but if I wanted to take a stroll in say, Afghanistan, I don't think I'd be grabbing one.
Although I hate the M-16 (in .223, at least) as a military arm, it has been around for about 40 years, and seems to work pretty well. I think the M-14 is a little overrated for general issue (heavy, most people can't shoot past 300 yards in combat anyway). The AK-47 would be fine for 90% of combat in most areas IMHO.The days of battle rifles are over for the most part.
I've always liked the SMLE myself though
HB
ftierson
Member.
Keep in mind that there may be some terminology problems related to this discussion...
Generally, battle rifles are rifles that fire full power rifle rounds and were designed to be fired semi-automatically (but often with select fire capabilities)...
Assault rifles, on the other hand, are rifles that fire intermediate power rifle rounds and are designed for full and semi fire...
For what it's worth...
Forrest
Generally, battle rifles are rifles that fire full power rifle rounds and were designed to be fired semi-automatically (but often with select fire capabilities)...
Assault rifles, on the other hand, are rifles that fire intermediate power rifle rounds and are designed for full and semi fire...
For what it's worth...
Forrest
HorseSoldier
Member
I like the Garand, but any chest thumping about how many nations used it after WW2 may be ignoring the fact that the US essentially gave them away for free to anyone who could mumble something about not liking communism in the 1940s and 1950s.
The whole topic is kind of all over the place, really, since we're already deep into anachronistic apples and oranges. By "best" do we mean the most ergonomic and easiest to fight with in some absolute sense? If so, then the Garand ain't it. Do we mean "most historically significant"? If so, the Garand is way up there. Do we mean "best of its era" in terms of effectivesness? If so the Garand is pretty much eclipsed by the StG-44 before WW2 is over, though I'd give it the nod circa 1941-42.
The whole topic is kind of all over the place, really, since we're already deep into anachronistic apples and oranges. By "best" do we mean the most ergonomic and easiest to fight with in some absolute sense? If so, then the Garand ain't it. Do we mean "most historically significant"? If so, the Garand is way up there. Do we mean "best of its era" in terms of effectivesness? If so the Garand is pretty much eclipsed by the StG-44 before WW2 is over, though I'd give it the nod circa 1941-42.
Nolo
Member
Nope, a battle rifle is just a rifle used as standard issue by an army.
The Enfield is a battle rifle.
The FAL is a battle rifle.
The AK-47 is a battle rifle. (and also an assault rifle)
The use of the word "battle rifle" to describe semi-auto full-power rifles comes from when that's what armies used as battle rifles.
msgttbar
Member
Carbines are NOT rifles. The Thread is about rifles, so that leaves out the AK, M16, M4, etc. Probably the greatest difference maker was the Garand which introduced the auto loading capability to the battle rifle. Since the M-14 is basically a modified M1 to add a box mag, I think of it as a variation of the M1. Todays soldier really doesn't carry a rifle, he carries a carbine. The big thing I remember about the M1...They are Heavy.
Nolo
Member
Yeah, they are.
There's no "Carbine Country" forum here.
A carbine is a shortened version of a rifle (with the exception of the M1 Carbine, which is a true anomaly).
The full-size AK is 16" and thus is not a carbine. Go smaller than that, and you hit carbine territory.
Also, if an army arms its soldiers with carbines, then they become battle rifles.
We've started using the word MBR to distinguish semi-auto full-size rifles from assault rifles.
If the OP was talking only about semi-auto full-power MBRs, then my apologies.
That title would probably go to the FAL.
HB
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,382
Is the M16 a carbine, there is no parent "rifle" that is bigger, but it has a little brother, the M4. There are shortened AK's, so the AK is a rifle as far as I can tell.
.223 ain't no pistol cartridge either, but it's a little weak as a rifle cartridge. While I like the Garand, it did have a relatively short service life.
The Garand was more or less a transition design between the big bolt guns and sub guns and the later assault rifles.
Once again, it all depends on era.
Sorry, Nolo got there first
HB
.223 ain't no pistol cartridge either, but it's a little weak as a rifle cartridge. While I like the Garand, it did have a relatively short service life.
The Garand was more or less a transition design between the big bolt guns and sub guns and the later assault rifles.
Once again, it all depends on era.
Sorry, Nolo got there first
HB
Claude Clay
Member
m-1 garand
swiss k31
mosin nagant 91/31
m-16
sks/ak47
swiss k31
mosin nagant 91/31
m-16
sks/ak47
HorseSoldier
Member
Well, carbines were originally shorter versions of service rifles (or shorter alternatives to it) intended for use by cavalry (who had trouble handling a long infantry musket/rifle from horseback) and units that needed personnel/local defense weapons, like artillerymen or engineers.
The assault rifle is a weapon partially optimized for the modern equivalents of mounted use, and an attempt to condense the service rifle and PDW/local defense weapon into one package.
So . . . you could, possibly, argue that assault rifles are more descendants of the historical carbine than the long infantry service rifle. But it requires a certain amount of ignoring inconvenient historical developments, like the fact that the long infantry rifle and the shorter cavalry/everybody else carbine were mostly already condensed into a single weapon before WW1 (SMLE, for instance) or at the latest just after that war, long before the assault rifle really came into its own.
The fact that the M16 has almost the same barrel length as the M14 or FAL (and longer than the G3) would also seem to muddle the issue, unles one goes with the notion that "battle rifle = full power rifle cartridge" idea, which was useful for a time to distinguish the FAL/M14/G3 from more successful designs (i.e. assault rifles), but it's rooted in the false idea that the assault rifle is a specialized tool whereas the full power cartridge firing battle rifle is a generalist tool. Both are generalist tools, but the assault rifle is so much more successful it's essentially chased the battle rifle off the battlefield almost entirely.
For whatever that's worth.
The assault rifle is a weapon partially optimized for the modern equivalents of mounted use, and an attempt to condense the service rifle and PDW/local defense weapon into one package.
So . . . you could, possibly, argue that assault rifles are more descendants of the historical carbine than the long infantry service rifle. But it requires a certain amount of ignoring inconvenient historical developments, like the fact that the long infantry rifle and the shorter cavalry/everybody else carbine were mostly already condensed into a single weapon before WW1 (SMLE, for instance) or at the latest just after that war, long before the assault rifle really came into its own.
The fact that the M16 has almost the same barrel length as the M14 or FAL (and longer than the G3) would also seem to muddle the issue, unles one goes with the notion that "battle rifle = full power rifle cartridge" idea, which was useful for a time to distinguish the FAL/M14/G3 from more successful designs (i.e. assault rifles), but it's rooted in the false idea that the assault rifle is a specialized tool whereas the full power cartridge firing battle rifle is a generalist tool. Both are generalist tools, but the assault rifle is so much more successful it's essentially chased the battle rifle off the battlefield almost entirely.
For whatever that's worth.
dmazur
Member
Not the Garand?
I read through everything and I'm deeply saddened. I thought the Garand's status as the greatest battle rifle ever was secure.
It was definitely innovative, and the design was as much how to mass-produce it as how to make it function reliably.
However, I'll grant the FAL may hold the title as "greatest ever", based on adoption by many, many countries, reliability, etc.
On this topic, I've never noticed a cult following of the .30-06.
I read through everything and I'm deeply saddened. I thought the Garand's status as the greatest battle rifle ever was secure.
It was definitely innovative, and the design was as much how to mass-produce it as how to make it function reliably.
However, I'll grant the FAL may hold the title as "greatest ever", based on adoption by many, many countries, reliability, etc.
On this topic, I've never noticed a cult following of the .30-06.
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
I read this, and then your sig line. I chuckled.
- Status