Greatest Battle Rifle Ever

[ftierson]

You mean that we're not all working with the same definition/understanding of 'battle rifle' here...

Who would of thunk it...



Forrest

 

[aka108]

For all around performance in the worst of conditions, from a cost to mfg standpoint the AK is probably the best. Son did a couple of tours in Irag and they always kept some picked up AK's in arms reach in the amtacks.

 

[Dees]

Realistically? The AK.

But the M1 has class in spades.

This.

 

[Dookie]

lets put it simply
You are going to be sent to a battle zone in the present, your choices or firearms are.
1. Garand
2. M-4/M-16
3. British 303
4. AK47
5. Mosin
6. M98

If you choose anything but the high capacity, semiauto, lightweight, reliable, weather friendly. You need to stop watching Patton, who had serious flaws as a general, and get into reality. No matter how great the rifles were of yesteryear they are nothing compared to modern rifles.

They sure don't make cars like they used to, thank goodness

 

[35 Whelen]

I'd love to vote for the Garand (I own one), but I cannot for one reason: If I run out of 8-round en bloc clips, I have a single shot. I firmly believe the M1A/M-14 is the best (I DON'T own one). The M14 is essentially a select-fire Garand with a detachable magazine. It came along in the 50's and is still in service. I can't do the M-16 because of the little pipsqueak cartridge. Can't do the AK-47 because of its minute of paper plate accuracy, and I don't know enough about all the others to say.
I once mentioned to my father, who was in the Army in the 50's, how heavy the Garand is. He replied: "Of course it's heavy! They taught us in basic training that if you run out of ammunition, you grab it by the barrel and use it for a club. THAT is why they designed it to be so heavy."

35W

 

[Kind of Blued]

There is no correct answer to this question because the question is too vague.

There is however, a single greatest battle rifle ever for 1940, 1947, 1954, and 1961 individually, although, I refuse to inform you of the facts.

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

Nothing beats the 30-06 for speaking with authority. Two soldiers would hold the M1 Garand at the level and have their buddies step and jump over ledges and walls and there is no way you can do that with the FN Fal or any of the semi auto "battle rifles" concerning now or then.
Even with the weight as a factor that battle implement can be shot pretty damn easy standing up freehanded because it balances so well. Last month I seen a fellow shoot 3 clay pidgeons in a row at 105 yards off of a bank, he shattered them.
They are fairly cheap to buy through the CMP and can warm a veteran's heart unlike anything else. They carry nostalgia and shoot like the devil.

 

[stubbicatt]

Not this again.

"Clearly" the best battle rifle ever is the one you have and shoot well.

 

[Hutch]

I'll ask the question correctly

Which battle rifle was the most clearly superior in its day, that day being the defining conflict of the 20th Century? See how easy the answer is when the question is refined?

M1 Garand, no question. Would I prefer to carry it today into <shudder> combat? Nosiree.

 

[D-Day]

Ever? As in all-time? That would be impossible to say. We won't live long enough to know.

Best of our lifetime? Well, depends on how old you are.

Best because of the wars it fought (such as Nazis) for sentimental reasons?

Best because it was adopted by the most countries?

Best because of reliability?

Best because of design and simplicity?

Best because of mag capacity and size of caliber?

It's tough to say. Regardless, I will have to say the M1 Garand is the granddaddy of modern battle rifles and deserves its reputation and respect.

I'd go with an M14, but we can't say about the wars it fought because it only saw a small window of opportunity in Vietnam and limited applications since.

The FAL seems the most widely adopted, and they are tough and reliable. However, just because they're adopted doesn't mean they have been used.

I'm not sure what's to say is best. Whatever works for those countries that facilitated these rifles (or continue to do so) works best for them.

Whatever works best for you is the best.

 

[taprackbang]

M1 garand? Please...

Have to agree. Garand is awesome, but the operating system seems a little much compared to the simple, roller delayed blowback op sys of a G3. Guarantee you a PTR is much more rugged than a Garand, never breaks, weighs less, is just as accurate (read HK 91 review in Boston's Gun Bible) AND my PTR holds 20 rounds of .308 excitement versus 8 rounds in an M1. I would opt for an M1A over the M1. BTW, I shot an M1A and it was more cumbersome than my trusty PTR 91. I would really like to shoot a FAL though.

 

[oneshooter]

As for taking a walk in the sandbox with a Garand? Many of the Marines I have let use my Garands, both NM and as issued, would have gladly taken them back. Seems thay liked the fact that one could put rounds on target at 200-500yds and the target would stay down!!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

 

[RecoilRob]

No one has mentioned the Martini-Henry......bloody heathens.

 

[HM2PAC]

As with any of the rifles, innovation will eventually make todays best choice obsolete tomorrow.

The newer designs have more going for them, however they owe their existence to a previous design of some sort.

Let's take a step back and look at the 8mm Lebel. The creation of smokeless powder and its use by the French had the entire world at unease.

No one is going to choose the Lebel to go to Afghanistan today, but no one in their right mind is going to say that it didn't rule the roost in its day.

It's all perspective.

 

[Chuck Spears]

As for taking a walk in the sandbox with a Garand? Many of the Marines I have let use my Garands, both NM and as issued, would have gladly taken them back. Seems thay liked the fact that one could put rounds on target at 200-500yds and the target would stay down!!

As opposed to the currently used M-14? The Garand was quickly replace bc of obvious flaws. The M-14 took its place and is still in use today. If you are truly in love with the ballistics of the Garand then you'd take the M-14 into Iraq and Afghanistan. It's simply a better offensive rifle. The soldiers you had this experience with were obviously just being polite since you are probably a nice guy to be around and earned their respect. But you'd be mistaken to think they'd actually take a Garand into battle.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

full power rifle cartridge

I think this should also be defined.

 

[amprecon]

The PTR-91 or (G3 Series) has the ergonomics of a tree branch. I wouldn't call it great from that "perspective".
There's no doubt the Garand is a great battle rifle and it no doubt gave us an edge in combat, but I believe the rifle that was the ray-gun of it's day and was so advanced it so outgreatly outclassed the other weapons of the time as to relegate them to the category of bow & arrow was the Henry repeating rifle.
I've heard opinions of the Garand being outdated and obsolete for modern times, but let me say that if all I had to use were my Garand, I may want for a smaller more compact rifle, but 8-rounds of .30-06 at my finger tips to be fired as fast as I can pull the trigger is nothing to sneeze at and I don't think any adversaries would consider it obsolete either.

 

[Art Eatman]

I find it somewhat strange to define "best" without considering the tactical doctrines of the armies which used some particular rifle.

If your tactical doctrine is to have aimed fire out at 400 yards and more, you don't have any use for an AK.

If your tactical doctrine is to get up close and personal, the AK is superior.

Seems to me an awful lot of these arguments are comparing screwdrivers and chisels...

 

[RP88]

I'm giving my vote to the AK47. 61 years old, and still going as strong and as good as any other 'superior' assault rifle out there.

 

[Chuck Spears]

I've heard opinions of the Garand being outdated and obsolete for modern times, but let me say that if all I had to use were my Garand, I may want for a smaller more compact rifle, but 8-rounds of .30-06 at my finger tips to be fired as fast as I can pull the trigger is nothing to sneeze at and I don't think any adversaries would consider it obsolete either.

And I don't think any adversaries would want to be shot with a bow and arrow either. I can have 8 arrows at my finger tips to be fired as fast as I can pull the string is nothing to sneeze at either. Does this mean we should be sending Pocohontas into battle? Sure, the Garand will still fire a bullet and it can still kill a man. A rock can kill a man too. But they're still considered obsolete for modern warfare. Marching into battle with a Garand puts you at a huge disadvantage if your adversaries are carrying modern battle rifles. Every armorer in every country on this planet understands this concept yet most people on THR can't seem to grasp it. They'd rather use nostalgia instead of logic.

 

[Crunker1337]

G3. .308 firepower, rugged reliability, relatively lightweight, capacity to mount just about anything you want to put on it. Maybe it doesn't have great ergonomics, but let's bear in mind, that doesn't matter as much as some people think it might--you don't necessarily need it to be REALLY accurate, just... accurate enough.
Of course, if you want to get a little more in your face, the answer is, of course, an AK.

 

[Blofeld]

Springfield Armory XD .45, hands down. Sure, it's shortened barrel firmly places it in carbine terrority, and the fact that it is never issued with a stock ruffles feathers, but with a higher capacity than the Garand, it is the rifle of the future.

Seriously, M-44. Purely because you can still get 10 and multiple cases of superior ammo for less than the price of one AR clone.

 

[Pigspitter]

I guess that the M16A2 has been deemed unworthy of "greatest battle rifle" status. Either way, it still gets my vote.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Which battle rifle was the most clearly superior in its day, that day being the defining conflict of the 20th Century? See how easy the answer is when the question is refined?

M1 Garand, no question. Would I prefer to carry it today into <shudder> combat? Nosiree.

Even for the WW2 era, if we're purely talking about the weapons design themselves, the Garand is a nice and solid performer, but does it really stand head and shoulders above the G-43, the SVT-38/40, or the FG-42? For actual combat use at real combat ranges, the StG-44 is markedly superior.

The Garand's main claim to fame is not its superiority as a design, but the fact that the US issued it as a standard weapon, whereas the G-43, SVT-38/40, and StG-44 only supplemented bolt guns (and so few FG-42s were built that the design is nothing but statistical static at the big picture level). This really doesn't make the rifle the "greatest battle implement ever devised," it makes US industrial capacity in the 1940s the "greatest battle implement ever devised" . . . but we all knew that.

(Note: I say all this as a fan of the Garand, but it's wrapped up in a lot of mythology these days because it's what grandpa carried or it looks good in Saving Private Ryan or because it can still hold its own in rifle competitions that have about zero to do with real combat marksmanship.)

 

[HB]

I'd love to vote for the Garand (I own one), but I cannot for one reason: If I run out of 8-round en bloc clips, I have a single shot.

That holds true for any external magazine or clip fed rifle. What if you drop your mags? or I'm running like hell away from the battle? Get realistic with that expectation. But yeah, the Garand shined then, but now, not so much.

HB