Greatest Battle Rifle Ever

[Ash]

Winning the war included the whole package and it is completely true that in the big picture, the Jeep and P47 had tremendous impacts. However, a platoon of soldiers armed with M1's was considerably better armed than a german squad with k98k's and better armed that the British allies with Enfields. Yes, they were.

I find it odd that you would consider a semi-auto rifle (which everyone went to after WWII in the West) not any better in combat than a bolt-action rifle. The Garand rifleman could keep his sights on target far better than the K98k rifleman could, and had three extra shots before reloading. He also had better sights than any other rifle in the war and a faster reload than anyone, including the BAR gunners.

The German philosophy, where the infantry supported the machine gun, was different than ours, where the machine gun supported the infantry. Yet the German soldiers prized every SVT-40 or M1 they could get their hands on as they were better in combat than the K98k. You did not hear stories of US troops dropping their M1's in favor of Enfields or Mausers.

Greatest has everything to do with context. Greatest has everything to do with what you are competing with at the time as it demonstrates the impact made. The M1 did that. Could we have won had our guys been armed with Krags? Sure, it was the whole package. But the battle ultimately turns on the actions of the dirty infantry along a muddied road.

Could we have held at the Battle of the Bulge without the Garand? What about Bloody Ridge at Guadalcanal? Could we have made it off the beach at Omaha? (and if not, then have had the weakened assault from Gold, Juno, and Utah which might have given the Germans enough time to bring tanks up?) Was it that much more firepower that gave us the decisive advantage? I think so, but even if it did not, we would have likely lost considerably more soldiers in bloodier battles with the Springfield 1903. If only for that, the lives saved, it gets the vote.

And that is why the Garand was the greatest.

Ash

 

[Blakenzy]

There are lots of rifles out there that have great appeal because they are accurate, ergonomic, beautiful, have historical military significance, magnificent engineering, etc.

But, what is the main purpose of the battle rifle? I would say that it's to slay people. Period. Taking that into account:

Which rifle has the most kills to it's name?

I would have to vote for the AK 47. Probably "changed" more people's lives than the venerable M1, the tacticool AR, or any flavor of 7.62NATO semiauto out there. There, that should settle it

 

[Ash]

The AK was used against troops equally, if not better, armed and in those instances, generally did not perform well. It has had a tremendous impact on the world. It was the most prolific small arm produced. But the AK-47's greatest impact is not on the standard battlefield where vast numbers of AK-armed conscripts died, but in the skirmish in the quasi-declared state of war caused by insurrection. In that condition, it is used to kill and intimidate civilians more than trained government troops.

Rarely has the AK marched onto the field of battle (and by that, I do not refer to some Napoleonic field). And when it did, the result was extremely high atrition rates for troops carrying it. It won in Vietnam, along with the SKS and Mosin (and others) not because of its greatness, but because the leaders were willing to expend vast numbers of soldiers armed with AK's. They won a war in which they lost every major battle and most skirmishes. Hardly an endorsement of the AK.

In Somalia, "peasants" armed with AK's attacked army rangers. They won, but at a dismal cost.

Nowhere in the world did the AK win on its own merits. Rather, it was a cheap weapon handed to a soldier who was equally cheap.

If the record were to be followed, then an AK is a death sentance in that a soldier armed with an AK is far more likely to be killed than one armed with an AR or other weapon.

The AK's success, and it has succeeded, has come not from facing equals in battle but in murder and ambush. After all, it has been carried by all sorts, including those who thought the rear sight was a power scale and so shooting it at level 10 was the most powerful setting.

Ash

 

[Blakenzy]

Well, the high casualty rate of troops wielding the AK you mention is most likely due to very poor training and zero support, not because the rifle itself is a bad weapon. Furthermore, I would dare say that the "extremely high attrition rates for troops carrying it" weren't brought about by their enemy's superior rifles, but by their air/artillery/armor.

And yes, you are right that a lot of the AK's kills are probably not in straight forward, "honorable" uniformed combat, but that doesn't make it any less of a weapon. It gets the killing done on a scale far greater than any other rifle out there.

 

[woodybrighton]

grenades shells and machine guns kill people on the battlefield aimed rifle fire is fairly low down on what kills.
The m1 was an interesting first step but far from ideal.
The enfield was the ultimate bolt gun there isn't a finer battle bolt action rifle. There are more accurate but not as tough or as fast firing or as reliable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_William_Sayer

This cpl with a bolt action rifle stalled the German advance for 2hours so allowing his battalion to withdraw regroup and eventually force the German advance to stop.

 

[Ash]

It does have a tremendous impact on its status as the greatest. That is has been used everywhere does not make it the best in this case because where and how it was used is important. Otherwise, we could all agree as to the greatness of the machete given its brutal use against unarmed people in Ruwanda.

A squad of soldiers armed with the AK is generally less well-armed than troops armed with better weapons. And that is the point, there are better contemporaries. It's success does not come in fighting equals, as when that happens, it loses. That it is fielded by nearly untrained troops only magnifies its purpose, which is to provide a weapon for those incapable of maintaining and using something better. It works, and that is better than one that does not work as in the case of early M16's. But that alone does not make it the greatest because history shows that when employed against a force of equal size but different shoulder weapons, troops with AK's do poorly.

The same can be said for a company of Marines. Give one company AK's and the other currently produced AR's, and the AR-armed Marines will win, all things being equal.

Ash

 

[Rio Laxas]

I agree with the enfield being the best bolt action battle rifle. The British army always had an excellent reputation for marksmanship and skill in the use of their arms as well. It began in the Napoleonic Wars when the British soldiers were one of the few armies to practice loading and firing with real ammunition (as it was expensive).

Not to get on a soapbox, but it is a shame that they have stricken firearms from their popular culture, because they really were good with them.

 

[Blakenzy]

The same can be said for a company of Marines. Give one company AK's and the other currently produced AR's, and the AR-armed Marines will win, all things being equal.

Now that would be a very interesting experiment...

 

[woodybrighton]

still are as terry and his mates are finding out to there cost

 

[GarandOwner]

M1 jam-o-matic thumb-breaking garand

Clearly you know nothing of the Garand, as they are far from being jam-o-matics

 

[RP88]

The AK was used against troops equally, if not better, armed and in those instances, generally did not perform well.

it killed whatever it was properly aimed at, but that was the problem: most of the AK-wielders we fought against couldnt do anything properly at all.

Rarely has the AK marched onto the field of battle (and by that, I do not refer to some Napoleonic field). And when it did, the result was extremely high atrition rates for troops carrying it. It won in Vietnam, along with the SKS and Mosin (and others) not because of its greatness, but because the leaders were willing to expend vast numbers of soldiers armed with AK's. They won a war in which they lost every major battle and most skirmishes. Hardly an endorsement of the AK.

In Somalia, "peasants" armed with AK's attacked army rangers. They won, but at a dismal cost.

so, the AK is responsible for poor training of troops? I wonder what the highly-trained nations with AK variants would say to that. Instead of untrained, idiotic peasants, or NVA that learned how to fight as they went along, let's put some Israelis, Russians, etc. in those jungles and see how that turns out. Not saying that we'll lose, but you may notice that it will change the whole scheme of things.

Nowhere in the world did the AK win on its own merits. Rather, it was a cheap weapon handed to a soldier who was equally cheap.

If the record were to be followed, then an AK is a death sentance in that a soldier armed with an AK is far more likely to be killed than one armed with an AR or other weapon.

nowhere in the world did a G3, Garand, or M16 win on its own merits either. Training is everything. And once again, baseless claims about how an AK equals poor training is all I got out of that statement.

The AK's success, and it has succeeded, has come not from facing equals in battle but in murder and ambush. After all, it has been carried by all sorts, including those who thought the rear sight was a power scale and so shooting it at level 10 was the most powerful setting.

idiots, murderers, and guerillas use the AK. Big deal. If the AK was not invented, then the next step up (most likely the G3 nowadays) would have taken its place.

It does have a tremendous impact on its status as the greatest. That is has been used everywhere does not make it the best in this case because where and how it was used is important. Otherwise, we could all agree as to the greatness of the machete given its brutal use against unarmed people in Ruwanda.

once again, just because it is the prime weapon of choice for third-world monsters does not mean that it was made or designed for that purpose. Many other countries use the AK (or variants of) and they are well-respected, uniformed nations with well-trained and powerful militaries.

A squad of soldiers armed with the AK is generally less well-armed than troops armed with better weapons.

...and less-trained. And less-armored... And can't fight against bombers, choppers, and the like because the radio is the most expensive part of their army.

And that is the point, there are better contemporaries.

yes indeed. The M-xx platform is superior in accuracy, not to mention its ergonomics and other things. But the point here is that the AK is a great weapon. It is accurate enough, powerful, feels somewhat natural to hold to most people, and resistant to all sorts of problems that can happen to an M16 or M4 at any given time, even if said things happen rarely when the gun is maintained. But, let's also remember how we have many other things that give a marine the edge in combat. Namely, expensive body armor and training, along with a helicopter three miles away to assist him.

It's success does not come in fighting equals, as when that happens, it loses.

untrained, unarmored, unsupported troops and well-trained, well-armored, mobilized marines are not equal forces.

history shows that when employed against a force of equal size but different shoulder weapons, troops with AK's do poorly.

still don't see the equality in any example you could possibly cite...

The same can be said for a company of Marines. Give one company AK's and the other currently produced AR's, and the AR-armed Marines will win, all things being equal.

give them body armor as well. That may make it interesting. It would go with the 'all being equal' control after all. What would happen then? What would win between a gun that can pierce a 30" thick tree when it hits it and a gun that can hit a leaf at 300 yds but fail to penetrate? (exaggeration of both weapons, of course)

 

[woodybrighton]

The same can be said for a company of Marines. Give one company AK's and the other currently produced AR's, and the AR-armed Marines will win, all things being equal.

Give me a well trained platoon of British infantry with lee enfields and as long as i get to pick the terrain I'll happily take on a battalion of marines armed with ARs and win and win easily.
nice African plains ought to do.
marines get there body Armour but no support .
marines start out 3k from my platoon at 1.5k they start taking hits from platoon volley fire they have another 600 meters before they can start returning fire.
Proves nothing except if you go into a fair fight you haven't really been thinking

 

[Chuck Spears]

nevermind

 

[sarduy]

we can spend all week long trying to figure how good or bad the AK really is, but... if you give AR to the people in Somalia and the Russian Army need to go in, i'm sure the Russian army will win. Same with Haiti vs Irael... they don't have the training and support to win a war, it's all about the training/firepower.

lets give a Marines platoon their vest and m16 but no air/ground support fight against Russian Spetsnaz armed with AK and also using vest without air/ground support, now drop them in the snow of Siberia... who's going to win? what about in the streets of somalia? the picture change... just because the place changes... but i still favor the Spetsnaz in both scenario not because of training, the Marines training is very good too... but because the AK have more power and they DO know how to use them.

 

[Nolo]

Rarely has the AK marched onto the field of battle (and by that, I do not refer to some Napoleonic field). And when it did, the result was extremely high atrition rates for troops carrying it. It won in Vietnam, along with the SKS and Mosin (and others) not because of its greatness, but because the leaders were willing to expend vast numbers of soldiers armed with AK's. They won a war in which they lost every major battle and most skirmishes. Hardly an endorsement of the AK.

Actually, it's a huge endorsement for an AK.
Why?
Because the AK is the cheapest, easiest to make, most idiot-proof, easiest to feed, most rugged, long-lasting force multiplier out there.
Period.
Sure, they could have fought Vietnam and won without the AK. They could have won it armed with M16s
But if your strategy is to dish out as many soldiers as possible, sacrifice all the guys you have to, force multipliers still matter.
In fact, the economic benefits for using other rifles, like the Garand, M14 and M16 go down because the cost outweighs the force multiplication benefits.
The AK, in the hands of peasants, thugs, etc. gives you the same capability (roughly) as the M16 and M14, but at MUCH less price.
It is the most popular, most influential, most coveted force multiplication technology in the world.

 

[scrat]

m1 Garand


or

1919A4

 

[Chuck Spears]

Didn't an AK stovepipe in the North Hollywood shootout, leading to its user's immediate demise while he tried in vain to clear it? I thought they were supposed to be idiot proof and never malfunction.

 

[HB]

You already said that..... One instance proves nothing at all.

Remember when that rock cracked when I threw it at that mammoth and it didn't die Rocks are not reliable enough for me

 

[Chuck Spears]

Just pointing out that the things are not inherently perfect as so many of its worshippers seem to imply. They can malfunction just like every other gun. Every time there's discussion about the rifle there's a few dozen folks who have to mention its reliability and how it's idiot proof and doesn't jam. I've seen plenty of them have problems at the shooting range just like I've seen plenty AR platforms have problems at the shooting range. There's no way to know exactly how many malfunctions occur with different weapons and at what rate. There's only personal experience, OR (most commonly seen on the interwebs) people parroting opinions of others and trying to pass it off as legitimate information.

 

[theotherwaldo]

One question that has not been asked is - WHICH BATTLE?

Mountain ridges? Open plains? Bare desert? Cityscapes? Jungles? Beaches? Heavy support? Long range recon? Shock troop assault? Holding fortifications?

I could go on indefinitely. In each case, the ideal battle rifle would probably be different, if a battle rifle were appropriate at all.

Just select the best tool for the job. Don't fall in love with it.

 

[Chuck Spears]

Just select the best tool for the job. Don't fall in love with it.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Didn't an AK stovepipe in the North Hollywood shootout, leading to its user's immediate demise while he tried in vain to clear it? I thought they were supposed to be idiot proof and never malfunction.

You already said that..... One instance proves nothing at all.

If you've never seen an AK have a stoppage, you've never seen AKs run very hard. It's a reliable and robust design, but it's nowhere near 100% reliable and won't keep running if totally neglected. Like a whole lot of other things, the internet echo chamber distorts and overstates this issue to a ridiculous degree.

 

[Zangetsu]

Didn't an AK stovepipe in the North Hollywood shootout, leading to its user's immediate demise while he tried in vain to clear it? I thought they were supposed to be idiot proof and never malfunction.

It did stovepipe, but he didn't try and clear it, he just looked at the rifle, ditched it, and continued on with one of the other weapons he was carrying. By doing that though, he lost a lot of the fire superiority he had, giving law enforcement a better chance to close in. If he racked the bolt it would have cleared the jam and the rifle would still have been good to go...my guess is he was so freaked out already that when it jammed, he looked at it for .2 seconds before chucking it, not really thinking about fixing it.

Anyway...my vote is for the FN FAL

 

[Chuck Spears]

If you've never seen an AK have a stoppage, you've never seen AKs run very hard. It's a reliable and robust design, but it's nowhere near 100% reliable and won't keep running if totally neglected. Like a whole lot of other things, the internet echo chamber distorts and overstates this issue to a ridiculous degree.

I'm relieved to see some validation. I don't have a problem with AK's, they're great rifles. But people make them out to be indestructible on the internet. They read about the problems our soldiers have with M16's and M4's (normal problems that happen with all firearms) and then automatically assume that the AK is indestructible bc they don't read about military forces having problems with them. The problem lies in that the forces who typically use AK's don't necessarily document and publish information to the same degree that we do. I'm sure the Viet Cong had plenty of problems with them malfunctioning in Vietnam. I'm sure African rebels have problems with them. And so on. But just bc they don't get on the internet boards or write books and magazine articles about it, everyone gets the false feeling that they don't malfunction. Then Nicholas Cage comes along and reinforces that. I've seen plenty of AK's have problems just like every other type of rifle and handgun. I've even seen (*gasp*) Glocks and Kimbers malfunction. Guns are mechanical tools. Tools fail from time to time. I don't think it is fair to make claims of superior reliability when there isn't a proper set of data to base the comparison on. There is no magical database that records gun malfunctions. There is just personal experience and people echoing others' personal experiences. Just realized I've been rambling. Sorry. I'll stop now.

 

[Ash]

The point is greatest. The AK, no matter how many have been produced, is not so much greater than anything currently out there that it can be considered greatest. The Garand was vastly better than what was fielded by everyone else. That it was not used for three generations is irrelevant.

Woodybrighton, take your platoon of Brits with their SMLE's against a platoon of GI's with Garands and see who comes out on top, volley fire or no.

Ash