How heavy is too heavy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

natedog

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,634
Location
Bakersfield, California
For a military rifle, what do you think a decent weight limit is? 10, 9, 8 pounds? I believe the FAL in original form weighed about 11 pounds loaded, and the M1 weighed 10 pounds loaded with sling and bayonet.
 
It depends. Is it for shooting or for duty? If I have to carry it, the less weight the better. If I want to shoot offhand, I like a rifle between 8-9lbs. If it is from a bench, the weight doesn't really matter, 12lbs is better than 7lbs just because recoil will be less.

The AR-15 is a light and handy rifle that shoots a nice cartridge. If I had to carry a gun in the service, the AR-15 would be about as good as anything. It is accurate and reliable and recoil is modest. The SKS or the Ruger mini-14 would be decent choices for me also because I can shoot them better under stress than a funky AR-15.
 
It depends on the mission -- an M1, for example, with enough ammo to accomplish most missions weighs less than an M16 with enough ammo to accomplish the same mission. If you doubt it, compare basic loads for the two weapons.

The problem with modern units is not the weight of the rifle, it's the multiplication of line items. The modern infantryman carrles close to 95 lbs (or is supposed to), and some duty positions call for as much as 200 lbs.

The WWI infantryman carried about 65 lbs -- because he had fewer items to carry, and there were more men in the company to carry company equipment.
 
I think the FAL is too heavy, the Garand is acceptable, and an A2 or A1 govt. barreled AR15 is just right. The SKS isn't bad either except for the 59/66 Yugo.

IMO, the MBRs are just to unwieldy for anything but prone or sitting positions and I sure as heack wouldn't want to carry all that rifle and ammo weight around all day.
 
After carrying 33.5 lbs of cannon around my neck on marches, plus ruck, I reckon anything BAR weight and lighter is okay.

Really, an M4 is great, until you start adding CCO (Aimpoint red dot), infrared laser, white light...at some point, you lose the handiness.

I wouldn't complain about a FN FAL.

John
 
Based on what I see when I go to the range, just about anything would be too heavy. Seriously, of the last 50 shooters I have seen at my club, I doubt any of them have done a situp, pushup, or jogged in the last 15 years. Huge guts. As a group, gunowners can be a pretty motley crew.

It is not politically correct. But, it is true. Kind of funny when we debate AR vs. AK vs. FAL ect.. The choice of gun will mean little if you are winded running across the parking lot.

- Just some ideas to consider.
 
Dave- I'm not in fantastic shape myself. MOre of being a skinny computer nerd however than anything else.

That said, I think 6lbs is a good start, and 4lbs withought optics would be nice for an AR. Accessories should not be ignored, but beyond an EOTech, and an Insight M6 (we're talking 6-8oz for all) I don't think much else is nessicary.



My Remington 7400 is 7lbs w/o scope.

Scoped, with bipod, loaded mag, and sling, it's 10lbs. That is the absolute upper limit for me off-hand with any kind of accuracy.

It's also the upper limit of anything I want slung to my back for any duration where I have to MOVE!



Then again, my Armalite AR-30 is 12lbs by itself, 14+ scoped, and ammo for it is quite heavy. (300grain projectiles!) But it serves it's purpose. (which is to reach out so far and hard, that I don't have to move :D
 
I remember how heavy the PSS used to be.

I hefted it again, after Basic. Suddenly, it wasn't so heavy and cumbersome. :D
 
The only rifle I've carried around for several hours without setting it down is an M16A2. That sucker gets heavy after ten hours. And since nobody in the Army carries their rifle in the field at shoulder arms unless they're moving equipment around, it's either hanging around the back of the neck via the sling or fully supported by the arms. The only time your rifle should touch the ground is if you're sitting down or in the prone.

I have a simple kit of my own that makes carrying the rifle in the ready position more convenient, but most guys just tie the sling to the front sight and put the sling behind the neck. The standard sling is just barely long enough to support this setup. However, to prevent fatigue and pain to the back of the neck, at least some of the weight of the rifle must always be supported by the arms. Plus, since the rear sling swivel is still on the bottom of the buttstock, the dominant hand is required to keep the rifle upright. Left alone like that it would lie sideways.

If I wasn't just a weekend warrior I'd definitely invest in a proper tac-sling. As a member of the militia, I'm never issued the same weapon every time so the rig I do use has to be quick to install and remove.
 
I believe Cooper's opinion on the matter was that if you can hold the rilfe vertically at arm's length for a period of 30 seconds, then that rifle isn't too heavy.

Not being a big Cooper fan, I may be misremembering.

Of course, there are other options to consider. Dave3006 touched on this. The rifle does you no good if it causes you get get fatigued easily. Put another way, one gentleman (on rec.org.sca, I believe) decided that in order to best prepare for the next SCA event, he'd modify his daily running to include wearing his armor. The first day he did so, he completed his run successfully. As he got back to his home at the top of a hill, a largeish dog came into view. It occurred to him that he was so winded and sore, that if that dog had been an opponent he would have been completely unable to perform. I think he spent a lot of money on lighter armor afterwards.

jacketch,

Tell me about your AR-180. You dont hear a lot about those. Armalite has them going for like $650 now. Seems to be a good price. What little others have posted here seems to be positive.
 
I'd say something like my dad's old SP-1 (AR-15 sporter) would be just about right, around 6 pounds. To have an optic I'd be willing to schlep 7 pounds. The M-1 Garand is a bit excessive, as is the M1A/M14 type, at least IMO.

Now for a target rifle, weight only matters if you can't hold it on target for 20 minutes. My Armalite AR-15 weighs north of 14 pounds. A joy to shoot, a bear to carry!
 
beg to differ on a point raised above..

If you doubt it, compare basic loads for the two weapons.
Click to expand...

Different times, differnt tactical doctrines for how a soldier's primary weaon is to be employed, (Plus a whole load of other considerations, )......

the the weight of an infantryman's Basic combat load for an M-1 compared to the same spec for an M-16 doies NOT translate in to how effectively each performs the same job. mainly b/c the specifics of that job, and how the military chooses to have the average P.B.I. (Poor Bloody Infantryman) carry out that job have changed (not i did NOT say "evolved") over the intervening years.

a a closer test would have been a comparison of how the weight of rifle and combat ammo load of the M-14 compares to that of the M-1 garand, THEN comparing the M14 to the load for the M16.

unfortunately the "let's make our infantry rifle into a 'ubertactitechnicalsupershooter' and it'l be better than a legit, working, ironsighted combat rifle" virus has added to the combat load of the average footslogger to the point where we may as well have just redesinged the M-14 to take .223. and yes for the record i am one of the poeple that thinks that MOST of the changes made in then A2 were mistakes that did noting to impriove the guns utility as a combat arm and mostly just jacked up it's unloaded weight. the REAL reason the M-4 is being put forth as a better option for general troop use than the M16 right now is that, somewhere along the line we've gotten it in our heads that all the extra gear that straps to the gun is "nessesary" and the M-4 gives the opportunity to get all that gear on the rifle, at a lesser weight. (don't EVEN get me started on that line of thought)


My Oppinion (as a fat out of shape slob that is currently going on Atkins and a decent exercise program b/c he's tired of being that way) is that the M-16 even in A2 config is at a "good" weight for a military select fire "assulat rifle" (in military hands and select fire that's the right term) but what's out there in the field right now needs to do just like me and go on a friggin diet and loose all that extra cr@p hanging off like overweight remoras. but to be clear i'd much rather have an A1 or maybe a Canadian C7 do to less things to get screwed-up int eh sight system and with teh A1 at least (don't know about the c7) there is a decrease in the all-up weight of the rifle that can and does make a difference in how long it can be carried.
i would NOT be adverse to lugging an M-1, the M-14 is iffy though since it's weight is NOT compensated for by a rise in Utility, in otherwards it weighs that dang much and is STILL uncontrolable in Full-Auto, may as well have a 7.62 garand that weighs a little less....
 
I'm not entitled to an opinion on this, since no one ever paid me to hump one of those things (aircrew got Smith revolvers), but I have an opinion, nontheless. My Bushamster 16" HB with Aimpoint pushed 10 pounds; I thought that was silly and sold it.

Jaywalker
 
As a kid, I thought the M-14 was heavy. Having hefted a Garand, the M-14 is so slender and light. I suppose it's all comparative.

Keep the basic infantry rifle under 10 lbs. Since the days of the Roman Legionnaire, the basic load has always been over 50 lbs anyway.
 
Detrious said;
unfortunately the "let's make our infantry rifle into a 'ubertactitechnicalsupershooter' and it'l be better than a legit, working, ironsighted combat rifle" virus has added to the combat load of the average footslogger to the point where we may as well have just redesinged the M-14 to take .223. and yes for the record i am one of the poeple that thinks that MOST of the changes made in then A2 were mistakes that did noting to impriove the guns utility as a combat arm and mostly just jacked up it's unloaded weight. the REAL reason the M-4 is being put forth as a better option for general troop use than the M16 right now is that, somewhere along the line we've gotten it in our heads that all the extra gear that straps to the gun is "nessesary" and the M-4 gives the opportunity to get all that gear on the rifle, at a lesser weight. (don't EVEN get me started on that line of thought)
Click to expand...

I will agree with you that a lot of what we did to the M16 when we designed the A2 has more to do with making the rifle more suitable for use at Camp Perry then it did to make it a better Infantryman's rifle. IMHO the Canadian C7 is a much better PIP M16 then the M16A2. The C7 is even issued with different length buttstocks.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree that we've wasted time, money and effort developing the AIMSS equipment that you see mounted on our M4s and M16A4s. The M68 CCO, AN/PEQ-2 and AN/PAQ-4 combined with the AN/PVS-14 mounted on the helmet are what allow us to own the night. We're the only Army in the world to field low light sighting systems that allows the rifleman to engage the enemy almost out to the max range of his weapon in the dark almost as well as in the daylight. The M68 with the quick release mount adds just 9.7 ounces to the weight of the weapon. AN/PAQ-4B (which is what you see on most weapons in the line units, weighs 5.78 ounces with 2 AA batteries. For the increase in weight of a little over a pound on the rifle, we've given our riflemen the ability to effectively engage the enemy in the dark. At nearly the same range he can shoot in the daylight. Take that away and go back to iron sighted combat rifles and you'll watch our effectiveness in the dark drop off to what it was in the 1960s.

The M4 is not in the system to get the weight down to an acceptable level with AIMSS equipment on the weapon. The M4 is there to give the lightfighter a weapon that is significantly lighter as part of his overall load. An M16A4 with M68 CCO and AN/PAQ-4B still weighs less then an M14 with iron sights. You can effectively engage the enemy out to 300 meters with an M16A4 or M4 with a AN/PVS-14 and AN/PAQ-4B on a no illumination night. The iron sighted rifle is effective out to maybe 50 meters on that same night.

Jeff
 
Jeff,

Maybe my feelings on this are a bit colored by a sinking feeling that the higher ups are going to KEEP adding doodads to the thing till it IS as heavy as an M-14 then go "see our weapon is outdated, congress needs to give us funding for a WHOLE NEW system!!" (wait that's what XM-8 is :rolleyes: ). instead of focusing on FURTHER minitureization and adn lightening of the load and weening out what "sounds cool but is NOT needed by every man on the line"

i DO feel that things like night vision equipment are needed, but there needs to be a limit on not only the size of such things, but the number of items strapped to the end of a guys rifle, for numerous reasons, (weight balance, less stuff=less possible confusion in teh heat of battle).

maybe it's that my veiw is that "a rifle is a rifle, it's for launching fast movving bits of metal at your enemy in an accurate and possibly rapid fire manner. nothing more, nothing less" Night vision simply makes the weapon useful over a wider swath of operational time/enviroment. adding devices that add to the work/training load of the average foot soldier, instead of simply increasing/broadening his ability to apply the basic skills for which he exists is NOT a good thing. (for the record the M203/M16 combo is a grenade launcher with a rifle attatched not the other way round. makes a HECK of alot more sense than an M79 and a pistol ):D
 
I'll throw my $0.02 in...

I think that some of the improvements made to the M-16, like the new handgaurds, buttstock, and click adjustble sights are good. However, the heavy barrel purpose eludes me. It is only heavy foreward of the handguards, increasing the weight of the rifle, but not really decreasing barrel warm-up since most of the heat comes from around the chamber and umder the handguard. Also, I think the 3 round burst mechanism was a poor idea- it gives the rifle a varying trigger pull, and it has "burst memory". If you want three round burst, well, ok, but at least make it like the HK burst mechanism. I think full auto is better for an assault rifle. When you need to switch of semi-auto, that means you definatly need a lot of lead in not a lot of time.
 
natedog,
You must be a match shooter. One could make a good argument that the improvements you like make it a less combat capable weapon. In fact the additional 5/8 length on the buttstock makes the length of pull way too long for most shooters in any but the prone position. Add IBA with SAPI plates to the mix and many soldiers and Marines have to use odd holds and cheek welds to utilize their sights. Look at some of the pictures out of Iraq and Afghanistan of our troops armed with A2s and A4s and you'll see what I mean.

The click adjustable sights are over complicated, easy to get bumped off of zero with normal field handling and mostly unsused. The Army doesn't even teach their use. But they are great on the golf course ranges at Camp Perry. :scrutiny: The new handguard are good, more robust and they simplify logistics. The Government profile barrel isn't a true heavy barrel, it's just heavy at the front. Under the handguards it's the same diameter of an A1 barrel.

I agree with you about the burst feature. It was a poor idea to start with, technical solutions for training problems rarely work out.

Detrious,
They are working to make the technology smaller and lighter. They are even getting thermal sights down to a usable size. I remember the first man portable thermal sights I saw came with a large rucksack to carry them in. Just as the AN/PVS-4 was a great improvement in size and weight over the old AN/PVS-2, the AN/PVS-17 is a quantum leap forward size, weight and capability wise from the PVS-4.

The increase in capability that the new sighting devices give us is a good trade off for the additional bulk and the added logistics load for batteries. We do in fact Own the Night. I for one don't want to give that up.

Jeff
 
Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------
I think full auto is better for an assault rifle. When you need to switch of semi-auto, that means you definatly need a lot of lead in not a lot of time.
-----------------------------------------------------

As a company commander in Viet Nam, I used to train my men in the proper use of the rifle -- with semiauto only. I fined men $50 for firing full auto.

If someone can explain WHY you would need full auto from a hand-held (not bipod or tripod-mounted weapon) in clear TACTICAL terms, I wold greatly appreciate it.
 
I thought that the only way to adjust the windage and elevation on A1 style sights was with a pen or other pointy object. Sounds like a disadvantage to me- didn't the M-1 and M-14 have click adjustable peep sights? I never hear anything about those being a disadvantage...
 
Vern: Yes, I understand that there is little utility in shooting full-auto with an assault rifle...but is three round burst any better? At least with full-auto, it has the same, consistent trigger pull.
 
I thought that the only way to adjust the windage and elevation on A1 style sights was with a pen or other pointy object. Sounds like a disadvantage to me- didn't the M-1 and M-14 have click adjustable peep sights? I never hear anything about those being a disadvantage...
Click to expand...


Well, here's the thing. You don't mess around with your sights alot. Most military rifles simply get set to battle zero and are left there.

Now, a very well trained rifleman will learn his rifle, be able to guesstimate range, and adjust his sights accordingly. However, that kind of range estimation and shooting skill takes more training than the Army is willing to provide for an individual soldier. The Army only trains (typically) out to 300 meters with the M16, and you don't really NEED to adjust your sights with 5.56mm at that range, due to its velocity.

I think that for a regular grunt's rifle, FN had the right idea with the FAL's rear sight. It has settings marked at 200m (battle zero), 400m, 500m, 600m. You just guess, make a rough adjustment, and go from there. Really, it's about all the average grunt is going to have time to do in combat anyways.

Now, if you have a range-finding optic, your iron sights need only have a rough battle zero (ala the para FAL sight), because they're only a backup to the scope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top