Quantcast

Best Warfighter Rifle

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Life During Wartime, May 26, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NoirFan

    NoirFan Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    671
    I would want the FAMAS, or the FS2000, or some other European rifle. That would mean that I am in one of those Western European armies which sensibly doesn't do much fighting these days. Twenty years of comfortable non-deployed employment, and then retirement with semi-socialist benefits. That's my kind of service.
     
  2. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    19,692
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Go to Singapore (their weapon is a locally-produced M16.)

    1. They have never fought a war, and ain't planning to.

    2. Their retirement is good and they pay you "separation pay" equal to one month's pay for every month you have served, at your highest rank.

    3. You also have your Special Provident Fund, which is like a 401k. You put in 40% of your pay each month -- but in the Army, the government puts it in for you, in addition to your regular pay. You can start drawing on it at 55.
     
  3. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Sharps carbine. Light weight (relatively), effective at longer ranges (relatively), high rate of fire (relatively), no pipsqueak caliber (relatively), proven track record.

    Certainly gives a .30 Carbine a run for the money.
     
  4. JPG19

    JPG19 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    292
    Location:
    Northwest Arkansas
    A Sharps?! You must know much that I don't!
     
  5. Archaic Weapon

    Archaic Weapon member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Messages:
    259
    Location:
    Near the River, Northern Louisiana
    If we aren't just talking autos, I'd be close behind on seconding a Sharps. With a dump pouch full of ammo, a trained shooter can make those things run. I've seen twenty aimed shots run through one at 70ish yards. .45-70 makes one heck of headache for anything being hit by it.
     
  6. sanman513

    sanman513 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2013
    Messages:
    27
    For the 0-300m range, I'd go with a well made AK. Further out I'd probably go with an M1A. :beer::)

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
     
  7. JShirley

    JShirley Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    21,623
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Really? There is no emotion inherent in pointing out a statement is true or false. The M1 Carbine is in no way a powerful rifle. True statement. Done.

    Or, did you mean the part I edited out within minutes that, while obviously true, I decided didn't need to be said? The part that is only in the thread because Balrog likes being snide? Because sniping at staff is more important than being nice all around, even though he supposedly was defending the young and inexperienced OP?

    John
     
  8. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Probably. But you probably know some things I don't know, too. Might as well call it even.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2013
  9. CraigC
    • Contributing Member

    CraigC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    18,244
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    I like my AR but would rather have a real rifle. Skip the rock `n roll switch and pass me an M1 Garand or M1A. Any war I was a participant in would probably be short on politically correct room clearing. If necessary, I'm pretty handy with a 1911. ;)
     
  10. Billy Shears

    Billy Shears Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,004
    Some of the responses here on this thread make me think -- forgive me -- that some people here have been watching too many war movies, and are short on military experience. Folks, there is a reason that no army in the world is issuing full power battle rifles, let along single shot breech loaders. I agree that a skilled rifleman can do some pretty amazing things with a Sharps. But think about the missions you would likely have to carry out in wartime. Do you want to be walking point down a road, in front of a platoon of fellow soldiers carrying a single shot rifle when you find you've just walked into an ambush? Do you want to have to try to lay down cover fire with one for your squad mates doing 3 to 5 second rushes up a hill to take an enemy position? More importantly, do you want them trying to lay down cover with such weapons for you when it's your turn to get up and rush forward? Do you want to have a company of enemy soldiers charging your foxhole with only a single shot to fire back at them?

    It's called fire superiority folks, and soldiers want it. And fire superiority consists of accuracy and lethality, but it also, in modern warfare, consists of volume. Let's not forget that the vast majority of killing in warfare is done with artillery and support weapons. Literally tens of thousands of rounds are fired just to keep the enemies' heads down for every one that kills and enemy soldier. It's not enough to have the most accurate or hardest hitting rifle. You also need to have the one that lets you carry enough ammo to achieve fire superiority.

    Now one might say "why worry about the rifle at all, if so little actual killing is done with it?" The answer to that is that because the rifle is a soldier's personal weapon, it matters a great deal to each soldier. If you're clearing a building, and you step round the corner and find yourself face to face with an enemy soldier, you want a weapon that will put him down before he can do it to you. If you are in Afghanistan, and Taliban fighters open up on you from six or seven hundred yards away, you want a rifle with the range to return fire effectively (which the 5.56mm won't). If you are in foxhole and the enemy is threatening to overrun your position, you want a rifle that will allow you to lay down enough fire to make them break off the attack.

    No one weapon will be ideal for every mission a soldier has to undertake. The assault rifle is now standard worldwide because it comes the closest to meeting the requirements for the widest possible number of scenarios. Want more range and hitting power, the tradeoff is that you can't carry as much ammo, and controllable full auto may go out the window. Want to carry several hundred rounds, the tradeoff is having to go to a smaller caliber like the 5.56mm, which may lack the range and/or penetration for some jobs, and which is heavily dependent on bullets yawing and fragmenting for its lethality.

    The best assault rifle, IMHO, would be in a caliber like the 6.5mm Grendel, or a ballistically similar caliber, because it's reasonably small and light, meaning you can carry an adequate number of rounds, and recoil is not such as to preclude selective fire, and it's got the range to do about everything the 7.62mm NATO can. A weapon like the AR, with it's excellent ergonomics, would be a great platform for such a cartridge as well. Pity we don't have something like that, or any realistic possibility of getting it in the near future.

    But as for going into battle today with Garands or Sharps rifles... Folks, if those were still the best weapons for the job, soldiers would still be using them.
     
  11. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Oh...Billy. :D
     
  12. OilyPablo

    OilyPablo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,105
    Location:
    WA State (NOT in Seattle)
    Thank you.
     
  13. ErieLurker

    ErieLurker Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    76
    If the OP is envisioning a weapon for an ordinary rifleman (usually late teens/early twenties, and prone to breaking solid metal objects whilst losing bright/shiny/fluorescent/can't miss it items in the middle of a parade square:banghead:) in a rifle squad/section, with general purpose use from 0-600 m, then I'd lean strongly towards an M14 or a FAL.

    A semi-auto version of the SCAR-H may be "better" in some sense, but it's originally designed for special folks with unique requirements, and that 16" barrel was at least partly intended for making social calls at unsocial hours with decidely anti-social intent.:what: Not for ordinary grunt-work.

    Edited to Add:

    If the Grendel turned out to be reliable in a battlefield setting - and it was adopted - then perfect. Or the original .280 Brit was resurrected.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2013
  14. pilotlight

    pilotlight Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2011
    Messages:
    63
    Sorry guys, but I agree with the moderator here. (ha ha)

    FN SCAR H, M110A1, 16" - 18" 308 Semi from Larue or POF-USA.
    DPMS SR25 common magazines, hard-hitting and COMMON round that
    can CQB or snipe out to 650 yards.
    DONE!!! ;-)
     
  15. Archaic Weapon

    Archaic Weapon member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Messages:
    259
    Location:
    Near the River, Northern Louisiana
    The problem with a "medium" cartridge, and a reason why they are are not standard issue, is the same argument for why 5.56 is good up close, and 7.62 is good at long range. The soldier who needs/wants all of those rounds in 5.56 is not going to give up the numbers advantage. The man who wants stopping power and range will still be unwilling to give those things up for range. Otherwise, they wouldn't be standing on their side of the fence to begin with.

    That said, nobody in their right mind is going to use 5.56 tactics for 7.62 warfare. The current military hit ratio is something like 200,000+ rounds per casualty. I will not have that kind of logistical backup, and that number is ridiculous. When you start training "Suppressive Firers" instead of Riflemen, you have already sold yourself down the river. Even the vets on this thread have mentioned how they had, used, and would still take a "battle rifle" instead of an "assault rifle". It says something to me.
     
  16. CraigC
    • Contributing Member

    CraigC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    18,244
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    Yes because we know the government always chooses the best tool for the job. Funny how we don't trust the government to run our healthcare, or anything else for that matter but we're all about their choice in weapons??? :rolleyes:

    The military must issue rifles to men who have never fired a single shot in their lives. Just as police departments issue weapons to people who never fired a shot before the academy. What works for 18yr old boys from inner cities may be lacking for a 38yr old who grew up in the country and has been shooting his entire life. I'm a rifleman, I want a rifle. Period.
     
  17. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    46,683
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    The best deal would for the idiots to have their damned war, and the smart folks just didn't show up.

    I never did the combat thing. But I've seen what used to be reinforced concrete, after some war, in two different countries.

    Known bunches of folks who were shooters; known bunches of folks who were interned civilians. Bum deal for all concerned.

    "It don't get better with age."
     
  18. Archaic Weapon

    Archaic Weapon member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Messages:
    259
    Location:
    Near the River, Northern Louisiana
    If only war just happened for fun, it would be a much easier thing to manage.



    To answer an earlier question, if I had a firearm that both I and any comrades where comfortable with, yes, I would scout, assault, or defend a fox hole with it. Do not forget, that while the rifle is the primary weapon of the soldier, it is but a major part of a given military's issue arm. The Germans in WWII did a pretty bang up job with 5 shot bolts, in conjunction with a faster firing weapon for specialists. But, for the current purpose of this thread, equipping an army is neither here, nor there, as the saying goes.
     
  19. Billy Shears

    Billy Shears Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,004
    So you'd rather let armchair commandos with no military experience do the job?

    Look, I'm the first person to admit the military doesn't always get it right. If they did, we'd have adopted something like the British .280 back in the '50s, instead of the 7.62mm NATO. The weapons testing and selection process is often controlled by overly conservative, living-in-the-past officers. As Robert A. Heinlein once observed: "Old sailors want wooden ships. Old soldiers want horse cavalry."

    But the military also often get it right, and adopt the most advanced weapons available, to the great benefit of the troops, like we did with the Garand in the '30s. And at least the soldiers overseeing the selection of the next generation of weapons have some actual experience, and therefore some understanding of what the realistic requirements are.

    Great. Now remember that you will have to be fighting alongside those recruits who never fired a shot before, and taking orders from people put in charge over you, and getting sent out on the missions they assign you, and resupplying with equipment provided by a supply system designed to accommodate the entire army, not just you. And by the time you are high enough in rank that this no longer applies to you, you won't be carrying a rifle anymore anyway.
     
  20. Archaic Weapon

    Archaic Weapon member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Messages:
    259
    Location:
    Near the River, Northern Louisiana
    I say again, depends upon the army, doesn't it?
     
  21. CraigC
    • Contributing Member

    CraigC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    18,244
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    You mean like, politicians???

    I thought we were choosing our own rifles.

    Don't take it so damned seriously, it IS, afterall, a hypothetical question. We're not really choosing rifles to take to war. :rolleyes:
     
  22. JShirley

    JShirley Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    21,623
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Archaic Weapon,

    That's an interesting shots fired to hits ratio. Please cite your source.

    I am absolutely certain no team of US service members is firing 1000 rounds per hit while clearing buildings. The "Myth of the American Rifleman", which proposes that US wars have been won with accurate long-range fire, has consistently been proven false. However, due to the house to house nature of much of our fighting in the last 12 years, combined with probably the most reluctance ever to inflicting peripheral casualties, I believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have probably seen the highest hits to shots fired by individual troops ever. But I'll be waiting for your source(s).

    John
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 27, 2013
  23. Billy Shears

    Billy Shears Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,004
    You make it sound like the Vietnam era soldiers who got their M14s replaced with M16s had some kind of choice in the matter.

    In war, you will carry what you are ordered to carry.

    What sort of war do you imagine you will be fighting?

    It says they are reacting to current conditions. Right now, in Afghanistan, where our most recent experience is, ranges are often quite long -- longer than they have been in any of the conflicts we have fought since WWII. That isn't always the case. In Vietnam, where a lot of fighting took place in the jungles, and ranges were a lot shorter, a lot of soldiers were very very happy with the lighter weight of the M16, and the ability to carry twice as many rounds of ammo.

    Again, bearing in mind that no rifle/cartridge is going to be perfect for every scenario, what makes the most sense from a logistical and tactical point of view is the most versatile rifle/cartridge combo that is possible. This is, not to sound like a broken record, where a caliber of 6.5-7mm would be a good choice. You can have the range of a 7.62mm NATO weapon, and you can have most of the lighter weight and greater ammo capacity of the 5.56mm. Will it be perfect? No, but nothing ever is. What it will mean is that at short ranges, the soldier will be as well off as he is with the 5.56mm -- what he loses in number of rounds carried may be made up for by having a cartridge with better terminal performance. And at long ranges, like we are seeing now in Afghanistan, it will mean that the entire squad/platoon/company can effectively return fire, not just those with the 7.62mm weapons.
     
  24. Sam Cade

    Sam Cade Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Location:
    Rural Kentucky, surrounded by Amish
    Really really old soldiers who sailed to battle want Wooden Horses.
     
  25. fireside44

    fireside44 member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,145
    FAL. Only logical choice. War's over.....
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice