Greatest Battle Rifle Ever
- Thread starter taprackbang
- Start date
- Status
Chuck Spears
member
HB said:
Not being sarcastic. I'm just disagreeing. I don't recognize sheer volume as being historically significant. What real impact does that make on global civilization? Vietnam and Afghanistan may have had a strong individual affect on some people, but it did nothing to change the course of humanity. And if the AK gave a tactical advantage to the NVA then the numbers really don't support it. American casualties in that war made up a couple percentage points in the overall number of lives lost in battle. So if you are going to use Vietnam stats then the M16 blew the AK out of the water there.
How do we mean "BEST"? The one with the longest, most notable history? I'd think the m98 Mauser, the Lee-Enfield, the O3A3, or Moisin-Nagant would be in contention. If "best" means the one that inflicted the most casualties on the battlefields, then perhaps the Garand. If "best" means, "What do I want in a fight", then the answer is my M1-A or an STG-58.
....
If we can't agree on what the definition of a thing is, we can't have a productive discussion about said thing. Contrary to what the illiterate legions of the internet opine on other boards (and thankfully not often here on THR) semantics are actually important.
Nolo
Member
Either the AK or Mosin has that distinction.
By comparison, the Garand is a lightweight.
HB wrote:
turned Vietnam into an on-the-job training experience for the NVA.
No, what beat us in Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara and their micro-management of a war that our military could have won in 3 months. The AK had nothing to do with it. Our government's mis-management
turned Vietnam into an on-the-job training experience for the NVA.
Nolo
Member
I like how people will argue that, and then turn around and say the Garand won WWII.
We could have won WWII with Springfields, and people know it.
Either rifles win wars, or they do not.
Either you use the rifle to represent the man, or you don't.
Barring extremes, it will always be like this.
So arguing about whether a rifle "won" a war or not is stupid.
Chuck Spears
member
HB said:
Impacting daily life in six continents? Do tell me how the existence of the AK affects the daily lives of people outside of Africa. I must be missing something here. It's not the rifle of the 20th century. The 20th century was shaped and ruled by Western Europe and North America. Neither of them used AK's. Again, I'm not bashing the rifle. I'm just saying that its fans like to blow its importance way out of proportion. The USSR lost the Cold War. Its stock piles of AK's were sold off to mostly unscrupulous characters. That's it. It has never been carried victoriously in any war/battle of any real historical significance. It has never given its users a tactical advantage. It's just a solid design that's cheap to produce. Great rifle. But I'm not exactly ready to deify it yet bc Nicholas Cage performed a witty movie sequence about it.
Chuck Spears
member
Noxx said:
If it's a serious topic then it might matter. But if it is a bunch of people giving subjective opinions on an internet gun forum then it's silly. Do you honestly believe the OP intended AK's and M4's to be excluded from the topic? If not, then it's not important. It's just a technicality that was lost in semantics. If that is what the OP did intend, then I change my vote from the SCAR to the SCAR-H long barrel in order to conform to the technical parameters.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
This one:
I prefer Sam Jacksons....
We're so far off of the intent of this thread it's not even funny.....
Last edited:
Nolo
Member
Jackie Brown.
I knew I recognized that quote.
Wait, am I supposed to have not seen that movie?
(Jackie Brown, the movie that came out in the late '90s, but makes you feel like you're livin' in the early '80s...)
KBintheSLC
Member
I disagree... though the M1 is not a current standard, it did help our boys win some of the greatest battles ever... therefore, if you consider it in the time frame it was used in, it is the best.
Granted, there are modern guns that beat it to death, but that is not an accurate way to gauge this question.
Of current issue weapons, I would take a good AK over just about anything else.
tinygnat219
Member
Chuck Spears,
Man, are you all over the place. It's hard to keep up with you on this thread.
To answer the latest of your quotes (I don't have time to on the others, but they are interesting questions).
Man, are you all over the place. It's hard to keep up with you on this thread.
To answer the latest of your quotes (I don't have time to on the others, but they are interesting questions).
Well, there is the Chinese Military that uses them to keep its people in check in Asia. There's Venezuala cutting deals to get 100,000 more of them, this covers South America. There's Russia threatening neighboring countries with them that covers Europe. The Mexicans perceive access to them in this country is a problem that's impacting their LE efforts, that covers North America. Africa's a hellhole with everyone seemingly armed with them. Australia and Antarctica are just too bloody far to get to, although the Chinese strength in that area is a cause for alarm.
Partly I would agree. Don't forget about Communism that still rules a good part of Asia. It was shaped, but ruled by Western Europe? Nah...
Vietnam War, Iran-Iraq War, Soviet Union Invasion of Afghanistan. What scale of a war are you looking for? Were these too small?
Are you kidding? It's great tactical advantage was in its simplicity of design where an illiterate peasant could immediately be trained to use the AK-47 in less than a day having never been around a firearm before. Having stockpiles of this weapon with a large, simple population is a HUGE advantage as it allows a very fast mobilization of troops with a minimum of training and expense. If that's not a tactical advantage, I don't know what is. We may have the best trained troops in the world, but it takes time, money and effort to get them to that training level.
wcwhitey
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,814
It's not my thread but for sake of argument lets consider this. Regardless of production numbers or distribution, longevity or anything else lets make it simple. What rifle would you choose to go into battle with. Some will argue availability as in the AK or AR. Effectiveness as in the M1, M14 or numerous others, which one would you trust your life too! My personal choice is the M14 for the following reasons.
1. Utter reliability
2. Accuracy
3. Great sights making it capable of accurate shots at distances that leave lesser rifles wanting.
4. IMHO one of the most balanced and ergonomic weapons of all time.
5. 7.62 nuff said!
It is just my opinion that if a situation was reduced to just men and their rifles and it was the only deciding factor the M14 would far outshine most if not all others. Bill
1. Utter reliability
2. Accuracy
3. Great sights making it capable of accurate shots at distances that leave lesser rifles wanting.
4. IMHO one of the most balanced and ergonomic weapons of all time.
5. 7.62 nuff said!
It is just my opinion that if a situation was reduced to just men and their rifles and it was the only deciding factor the M14 would far outshine most if not all others. Bill
In return, if the OP did indeed mean "military rifle" rather than strictly battle rifle, I would certainly have to side with the AK-47. "greatest" does not necessarily mean "best". In the current context I would say having the most impact suffices.
The Ak-47 is everywhere, ammo for it is everywhere, it can be operated and maintained, by idiots, with about 15 minutes of training. It will survive, and operate in, just about any environment imaginable. It is IMO, the definitive weapon of the 20th century.
HB
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,382
Gnat got that right on.
By Americans..... Historical significance is in the eye of the beholder. Most people in Asia could care less who wins the American President is come November, but for you, it could/should be very important. Once again, the Afghans carried them when USSR got kick out of Afghanistan, which had lasting effects. Any good drug runner in South America has got himself an AK. Most of the Mid-east is equipped with AKs. China has AKs. What gun killed thousands in Bosnia.
Today most conflicts have a ripple effect across all nations.
PS, Africa isn't "broken". Most of Africa is a descent place to live compared to some places. Sub Saharran is the worst place due to a number of factors, but Americans Notions of Africa are warped slightly becuase of Media coverage and Disney.
HB
taprackbang
member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 411
+1 for taprackbang
Deer Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,097
For the love of everything sacred!
End it! Please!
Let that poor pony rest in peace!
End it! Please!
Let that poor pony rest in peace!
Diamondback6
Member
Think he'd have changed his mind if he coulda handled an M14...Gator said:
Geronimo45
Member
How about an Italian bolt-action? In, say, 6.5mm. Ordered by mail, fired three times from an upper story window in Dallas.
Possibly the most influential battle rifle of the 20th century.
Possibly the most influential battle rifle of the 20th century.
Diamondback6
Member
Geronimo, raise you with one, caliber and model escape me, that was on the streets of Sarajevo in oh, say 1914...
Geronimo45
Member
Even I'm not willing to stretch the definition of 'battle rifle' to a .32 or .380 pistol.
Started a mighty bloody chain of events though, without a doubt... trouble far out of proportion to its caliber...
I really find it funny how people think that the Garand made that much of a difference. Here are a few things invented and used around WWII that were much more important than your M1 jam-o-matic thumb-breaking garand:
-radar/sonar
-long range rockets
-aircraft carriers
-more and more machine guns
-reliable tanks
-all sorts of fighter aircraft
-modern artillery
-long-range and high-altitude bombers
-rocket launchers
-U-boats/submarines
-the A-bomb
if you really think that the Garand and the US soldier won WWII while England and Russia sat on their asses with their Enfields and Mosins, then I can see how the Garand - a flawed and expensive rifle that was used for about 13 years before being replaced by a rifle that got replaced again ten years later - could possibly be the best gun in history. Just mu opinion, though. I'd sure love to have a garand or M14, but just not for when the Chinese make their move
-radar/sonar
-long range rockets
-aircraft carriers
-more and more machine guns
-reliable tanks
-all sorts of fighter aircraft
-modern artillery
-long-range and high-altitude bombers
-rocket launchers
-U-boats/submarines
-the A-bomb
if you really think that the Garand and the US soldier won WWII while England and Russia sat on their asses with their Enfields and Mosins, then I can see how the Garand - a flawed and expensive rifle that was used for about 13 years before being replaced by a rifle that got replaced again ten years later - could possibly be the best gun in history. Just mu opinion, though. I'd sure love to have a garand or M14, but just not for when the Chinese make their move
- Status