The Greatest Battle Rifle Ever Devised

Vern Humphrey Actually, the AK 47 (and the M16) are assault rifles -- they are selective fire and chambered for an intermediate cartridge.



The M14 corrected all the minor flaws the Garand had.

Click to expand...

Well said Vern

And here all along I thought the M14 was selective fire also, thus placing it into the same category as the AK-47.

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

First of all, the M14 was selective fire only with the selector switch installed. Selector switches were issued separately. Wise company commanders locked them in the company safe and forgot the combination.

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

I respect your opinion, and in that vein, respectfully disagree. M249 SAW for the win!!!!!

When the M249 was in the final phases of adoption, I was at Benning, talking to a few enthusiasts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naturally, bad guys are like deer, rabbits, and pheasants, if you shoot them all there won't be any left for seed

Without a doubt, the M14.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here all along I thought the M14 was selective fire also, thus placing it into the same category as the AK-47.

Click to expand...

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

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

The M14 corrected all the minor flaws the Garand had.

Click to expand...

...except the weight...

Quote:
The M14 corrected all the minor flaws the Garand had.
...except the weight...
__________________

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

well, i don't presently have the resources to lay my hand on one, but i'll throw in a vote for the M14/M1A.

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

greatest battle rifles

Ok guys my opinions on this.

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

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

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

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

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

I have not used your M1 or M14.

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

uk interlock

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

Click to expand...

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



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

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

Click to expand...

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

Some people act like the M14 bullied them around when they were in high school or touched them in bad places when babysitting them, I don't really get it.

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

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

MAUSER,probably the only time in history that something was done right the first time.

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Best-.308 Draganov, Cetme or G-3, or the M-1A/M-14. Not necessarily in that order. Worst- .223 AR platform

The best way to do a test would be like this:

A big list of rifles displays in front of you.

You check down the ones you're familiar with.

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

From there, the points are tallied up.

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

Best-.308 Draganov, Cetme or G-3, or the M-1A/M-14. Not necessarily in that order. Worst- .223 AR platform

Click to expand...

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