Top 10 Combat Rifles of All TIme

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, lencac, the Springfield 1903 is amazing. We never needed to go to the Garand, it only bred spray and pray tactics. We would have won World War II a year earlier if we had stuck with the old turnbolt.
 
But the Mauser LOST two world wars!!! The SMLE WON two world wars. Besides, the SMLE holds more ammo and is quicker to operate. K-98 isn't anywhere near my top 10 rifle picks.
 
Deer Hunter perhaps you should change your name to Elmer fudd .... cause you are looney tunes ............. General George S. Patton called the M1 Garand "the greatest battle implement ever devised." But being as your "the Deer Hunter" I'm sure you know a whole lot more about combat than General George S. Patton ..... isn't that right Deer Hunter (aka Elmer Fudd)? :neener:
 
General George S. Patton also carried a very nice SAA, if I'm not mistaken. It was always shined up and pretty. Guess he never used it that much. A man with a clean BBQ gun probably doesn't know squat about real combat arms. He only thought the Garand was so great because it made that neat "ping" sound when you were out of ammo, and he enjoyed that. Simple mind, perhaps?

And I would change my name, but someone already has that name. Besides, we all know that no honest soldier needs more than 5 shots in his gun.
 
Lencac and Deer Hunter, do you guys actually have a clue? I mean, I hope to God that
No, lencac, the Springfield 1903 is amazing. We never needed to go to the Garand, it only bred spray and pray tactics. We would have won World War II a year earlier if we had stuck with the old turnbolt.
is sarcasm. Do you honestly think that the Springfield, a target rifle, is better than the Garand, a rifle that out-paced, out-shot and out-did every other rifle in service at the time (with the arguable exception of the Enfield)? Do you think room-clearing in Germany would have been any easier with a Springfield? What about jungle combat? People arguing that we've gone to "spray and pray" tactics have no clue. If we had gone to spray and pray, we would be using .22 LR as our primary infantry cartridge as it is far more controllable on full-auto and much cheaper. I've heard countless stories about how soldiers from Vietnam to Iraq were not allowed on penalty of discharge to use the full-auto capability on their M16s. The BAR showed the U.S. that full-auto fire is a very useful thing in modern warfare on the basic level, and it has not changed. The more holes you put in someone, the faster they bleed into shock, the better chance you have of surviving a conflict. A headshot stops them dead, sure, but how often will you get one? Not very often. You aren't sitting in a tree stand waiting for a non-aggressive, non-threatening, slow moving, grazing deer to come along and basically get himself shot. You are fighting people who may or may not be in uniform, who move fast, you are moving fast, headshots really aren't a practical thing to rely on. If you stop moving to take one, you'll be dead. In the case of a headshot you don't need much more than a .22 caliber bullet anyway, so the point is still moot.
 
This is very tough....my list:

1. AR-15/M16
2. Kalashnikov
3. M1 Garand
4. FAL
5. Stg.44
6. M1903 Springfield
7. Lee-Enfield
8. Mauser 98
9. M14
10. HK G3
 
Yeah, what Nolo said :neener: Being as according to "Deer Hunter"(aka Elmer Fudd) General George S. Patton knows little or next to nothing about combat compared to himself I elect we make Elmer in charge and send him over to Iraq. I'm sure we could win that conflict in a matter of minutes. ("be verwee, verwee quiet ....... I'm hunting terrorists, hehehehehehehe)
Saying that using the 1903 instead of the M1 Garand would have shortened the war by a year is like saying dropping the A-bombs on Japan made the war a year longer :D Totally and completely obserd.
Perhaps you could post your military accomplishments so we all can appreciate how much more they are than Patton's :scrutiny:
 
God doesn't make AKs ........... communists stamp those pieces of junk out.
 
I think "service life" played too big of a part in that list. Length of service isn't always indicative of a quality (M16 stands out most in my mind)
 
God doesn't make AKs ........... communists stamp those pieces of junk out.

99% of the AKs being produced in the world these days are being built by eager capitalists looking to make a living pretty much just like most folks here in the US. 100% of the non-Class III ones legally offered for sale here in the US fit that description.
 
Well, Lencac, I was once a member of a three-man team of a counter-terrorism special forces unit working under contract for one of the world's largest indoor promotors of capitalism. That is, until I took leave to study American firearm and military history. In the time I have spent in my tin-foil sealed basement, I have learned much of the history of American firearms. So much, that I feel that I am experienced enough to reveal such truths to you via the wonderful creation that is, the Internet.
 
I honestly don't care what you served in or what you studied, the statement that you put forth is just plain wrong.
It's like me telling you "I have 8 degrees in mathematics and have taught college math for 23 years" and then going on to assert that 2+2=67.
It's just not true.
The Garand gave you ALL (actually, many times better due to its .30-06 cartridge) of the range and accuracy of the contemporary bolties with a faster rate of fire and was shown time and time again to outgun Japanese and German troops armed with turnbolts of the very same family that you are telling us is better than the Garand (the Mauser family, that is). Banzai charges were used with some actual success against the Chinese troops in Manchuria because the incredible insanity of the Japanese would just shock the Chinese into forgetting themselves and not working the action. This tactic failed miserably against the Americans armed with Garands, as they didn't need to work the action and, even when shocked, would still pull the trigger and be able to fire. Bolt guns are some of the worst weapons to use in close-quarters, and that was painstakingly learned by many militaries in World War Two (and to a lesser extent One). Why do you think that widespread issue of submachine guns became common in armies across the world? Because having a follow-up shot or seven is really, really good.
You can try to stick to your old turnbolt doctrine all you want, but the facts will not support you.
 
No, lencac, the Springfield 1903 is amazing. We never needed to go to the Garand, it only bred spray and pray tactics. We would have won World War II a year earlier if we had stuck with the old turnbolt.

That fiasco actually began many years earlier when we abandoned the trapdoor Springfield. The Springfield created a smokescreen behind which troops could move unseen and had we stuck with it no army would have dared stand in our way.
 
Yeah, What Nolo said .... again :neener: Hey Deer errrrr uhhh I mean Elmer ... all that and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee. You need to be spanked for blasphemeing the name of the great General George S. Patton. Heck, just typing his name makes me want to stand up salute and sing the Star Spangled Banner ........ shoot, I think I will!
Oh beautiful for spacious skys blah blah blah blah blah ....... As the Gunny would say get up right now off your sorry maggot butts and sing with me !!! ...... blah blah blah.......... and the home of the Braves. Now don't all you sorry butt sludge heeps feel better ;)
I declare this thread now offically toast .........
 
***PEDANT ALERT***

This tactic failed miserably against the Americans armed with Garands

The Marines on Guadalcanal were armed with Springfields. Interlocking fields of fire from machineguns is real important in defensive positions.

(Sorry Nolo, your point is perfectly valid. I couldn't help myself :rolleyes:)
 
I honestly don't care what you served in or what you studied, the statement that you put forth is just plain wrong.
Uhh... it's definitely sarcasm. No honest soldier needs more than five rounds - the oft-repeated Ruger mention. The spray and pray - classic slam at semi shooters by revolver-ers. And boltgunners who dislike semis.

And the three-man tactical team - don't y'all remember the Mall Ninja - Gecko45?

Personally, I thought it was hillarious.
 
How often was the Sturmgewehr carried in WW2 by the Wehrmacht? How about Stalingrad?
It is often given credit here as the inspiration for the AK-47, and many people believe it elsewhere.

I'm just a middle-aged beginner, making the exciting transition from a single-shot bolt-action .22 to the M-1 Carbine:), so pardon my naive questions here.

Two large empty Tropicana orange juice jugs were successfully perforated from a 40 feet distance and oranges/apples at about 15 feet. Much more fun than a paper target, in my amateur opinion. Paper-no way.
Before hoping to go with a guide one day for wild feral pigs in central TN or AR, one must begin somewhere.
 
Last edited:
How often was the Sturmgewehr carried in WW2 by the Wehrmacht? How about Stalingrad?
It is often given credit here as the inspiration for the AK-47, and many people believe it elsewhere.

Prickly subject; the usual retort is that the AK-47's takedown and rotating bolt show it to be of a different lineage than the STG-44, and I'm generally inclined to believe it.

Now, the FAL, which shares with the STG-44 a swiveling pin upper/lower break open takedown and a tilting bolt lockup, that I can credibly see as a direct descendant of the STG-44. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Czechoslovakian VZ-58 takes more than a little from the STG-44 as well.
 
The use of the Sturmgewehr wasn't as limited as a lot of people think. There were about half a million of them made and the vast majority were probably sent directly to the front. They didn't show up until 1942 though and really weren't produced in significant quantities until 1944.

Personally I think the AK was inspired by the Sturmgewehr, but the design is entirely different.
 
Uhh... it's definitely sarcasm. No honest soldier needs more than five rounds - the oft-repeated Ruger mention. The spray and pray - classic slam at semi shooters by revolver-ers. And boltgunners who dislike semis.

And the three-man tactical team - don't y'all remember the Mall Ninja - Gecko45?

Personally, I thought it was hillarious.
I posted this on another page on THR, I am absolutely terrible at reading people in real life with body language, and it is just compounded on the internet.
You guys have had your fun bouncing the little 17-year-old around, so now I appreciate a bit more consideration: next time, be sure to use this symbol (;)) when you are being sarcastic. Lencac was on the right track when he used :)neener:) in his posts, but I didn't quite pick up on it.
By the way, this was a very tongue-in-cheek post, but the ;) symbol is still appreciated.
 
We got your behind covered Nolo :eek: After all we are just one big happy family :barf: So no matter whatever your shrink tells you we still love ya mang :rolleyes: And don't be afraid of sharing your inner most thoughts :confused: Your not in this alone you know :banghead: And if anyone tries to take advantage of you in your delicate situation :eek: So keep your chin up :D Put a smile on your face :) And we don't care what Deer Hunter said about you :what: Cause when your 17 life is just one big partee' :cool: So you don't hvae to get all worked up like the old foggies :fire: Just keep your powder dry :p Keep your head down and out of the line of fire :uhoh: And everything will be alright :D And we will be sure to put the correct avatar on screen for your viewing pleasure :scrutiny: Cause we don't pay any attention to what anybody says anyway :p Now don't you feel just warm and fuzzy allover :neener: Cause I know I sure do :cuss:
 
American is a virtue, it is not a nationality.
While that concept has an attractive universalist value, please allow a foreigner to quietly disagree with you.

In practice, people are not the same from one country to another. They don't even particularly long for these "universal" ideals of democracy, freedom and happiness.
I believe that people are the product of the environment in which they live in.
You're very rarely born somewhere out of chance.

By thinking that being an American is a virtue and not a nationality, you are thinking the way people in France and England did when they decided to create colonial empires. IMHO (I'm not trying to be aggressive), you are also being somewhat unrespectful of the sacrifices that so many people had to make in order to build the US of A.

Regarding the French colonial empire, it has to be said that while the primary interest was financial, there really was a desire to export our values which we thought were to be naturally adopted by everyone.
To amend the original claim in response to your objections, la mission civilisatrice is an altruistic endeavor, not a national self-service. Likewise the whiteness in The White Man's Burden, with respect to race.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top