What Do You Want in a Combat Rifle

[Strykervet]

You don't know much about GI's do you?

They can break a brand new ball bearing.
And then lose the steel balls playing marbles with them.

There is nothing at all wrong with the DI M-16/M4 if you take case of it like you should be taking care of any weapon.

rc

That's funny! It reminds me of the kid using the .50BMG, probably a Raufoss, as a hammer to drive out a cotter pin. I've seen M4's with barrels melted cartoon style and brand new carriers snap in half because POG units cleaned them with hot water and no oil.

For any vet it will almost always be what they carried. So look back in history and see what was commonly issued and whoever carried that will likely pick it. For me, it is the SOPMOD M4 kit.

That line in "Jarhead" really summed it up for me. He said he could close his eyes and feel that rifle. When you get that way, you just don't change because something new came out. That marine "This is My Rifle" poem, it kind of sums it up too.

Notice you won't find many AK responses on here. It is reliable, it qualifies, but it isn't a rifle that many vets depended on. Neither is the FAL, but ask a Falklands vet and that is what you'll get.

BTW, I asked this exact question to some Brit scouts with whom we nearly ruined Vancouver BC on leave (but got put in for the Soldiers Medals for saving this lady --another story) and they hated that L86 --I was actually surprised to hear them say that. They mentioned something about HK and a contract to improve them though, but this was ten years ago.

 

[Strykervet]

I would like it to come equipped with a radio link to an A10 Warthog.

Then you want the Stryker Command Vehicle with a remote M2 and a crap load of comms gear. Calling those things in and watching is a rush, it was one of the coolest things I saw regarding weapons. I called in some Intruders once, but I didn't get to see the splash. You don't actually talk to the pilot though, you relay the info through your AF or Navy liason and they do that. They follow you around in a two seater Hummvee where the whole truck basically IS the radio.

 

[mortablunt]

^ Damnit! It's like you're trying to recruit me for the army.

Notice you won't find many AK responses on here. It is reliable, it qualifies, but it isn't a rifle that many vets depended on. Neither is the FAL, but ask a Falklands vet and that is what you'll get.

In my experience, the guns I've owned which I would absolutely trust my life two were Kalashnikov and my FAL. And they were the best motivation I ever got to exercise.

BTW, I asked this exact question to some Brit scouts with whom we nearly ruined Vancouver BC on leave (but got put in for the Soldiers Medals for saving this lady --another story) and they hated that L86 --I was actually surprised to hear them say that. They mentioned something about HK and a contract to improve them though, but this was ten years ago.

The original L86 was an calamity of stupidity and politics. It has been improved, but it's still temperamental and definitely not a weapon designed with battle in mind.

 

[nccavediver]

Either of my 2 rifles - I know them and trust them.

If my mates had 5.45 ammo I would take my DR-200

If my mates had 7.62 ammo I would take my FAL - I think this would be preferred because I think it would really knock 'em down. It is a heavy beast, though - gotta keep hitting the gym

 

[Telekinesis]

I'm not a combat vet, but I'd personally like a FAL para with a folding stock and something like a 14" barrel with a short suppressor to help a bit with the sound level (and I know it won't completely suppress it, just something to knock the edge off). Then I'd put a light and a red dot on it and call it a day. I would also like the select fire ability, though I would expect it to spend 99% of its life on semi.

It would be able to punch through barriers, have a better chance of knocking down a target, would be easy to find ammo for if there are any NATO militaries around, and I am familiar with the gun.

If we were talking something that I'd actually grab today if I needed it, I'd still go for my AK. My FAL is a full sized gun right now and is a little long for my tastes.

 

[ACP]

1. reliability
2. lightweight
3. high capacity
4. a cartridge that is lethal within the range of identifying a hostile target and hitting it with iron sights

in short, an AR-15 carbine

 

[Carter]

From what I've seen I really like the new beretta ar 160 (I think). Easily switched bolt handle and ejection, doesnt need a lot of lube. Its something that actually brings something somewhat new.

But the ar 15 is still pretty nice.

 

[CmdrSlander]

About time I answered my own question:
I'll take an Mk 14 EBR "ChopMod" Built on a full auto capable receiver with Schneider 16.5 inch stainless barrel and AAC 7.62x51mm Suppressor ready flash hider. Magpul AFG for offhand shooting and Mil-Std bipod for supported shooting, 4x32 ACOG for ranged work, and a VLTOR EMOD stock with an ample, soft recoil pad. 5 Handpicked USGI 20 Round mags with Magpuls on each, and one Beta C-Mag (M14 Edition) in the vehicle with tracers loaded every third round (my Black Hawk Down-esque scenario contingency plan).

 

[d2wing]

Nice. What does it weigh?

 

[CmdrSlander]

@d2wing about 9.5 pounds

 

[Bobson]

I won't bother listing specific characteristics, partly because I don't know enough about firearms to design an ideal "combat rifle" - or I would, and never work again.

I do know what works for me though. I would be equally satisfied with either an Arsenal SGL-21 (AK47), a standard M16A2, or an M4A3. Any one of these three rifles would make me a happy camper if I found myself in a combat scenario (provided I had ammo, OFC ). Truthfully, I definitely prefer the AK47 over the M16 or M4, but either of the latter two rifles are plenty sufficient.

 

[TexasPatriot.308]

nowadays in some combat situations, the puny 5.56 (.223) just aint enough gun, thats why the .308 is becoming more and more needed. (again). I have a few 5.56 carbines, but my AR10s and M1As got plenty behind them.

 

[CmdrSlander]

@TexasPatriot.308

Agreed. See post 58.

 

[matty-vb]

A Red Ryder BB gun with a compass in the stock, and this thing which tells time

 

[amprecon]

The following is my criteria for what I'd want in a combat rifle:

The number one thing I want in a combat rifle is reliability, if it isn't reliable, nothing else about it matters.

Number two is accuracy, if it isn't accurate, not much else about it matters either.

Number three is its caliber, the caliber has to be effective, to contain enough energy to defeat cover yet be small enough to be able to carry significant magazine capacity.

Number four is the design to include the size, weight and carry-ability of the rifle, it must be user-friendly, and simple, yet rugged.

 

[d2wing]

I see the Army is testing carbines again. Contending are the SCAR, ACR and
M4 all in revised updated and lighter forms. Past tests have shown no advantage in replacing current weapons but a new round of testing is in process. I am not sure if any push rod version AR's made the cut. Some were submited.

 

[d2wing]

9.5 is a tad heavy for me. The ideal weight is around 6-7 lb, not sure what the spec is on the new carbine but that is an issue. The SCAR and ACR had to go on a diet to make weight.

 

[Sport45]

I would want one of those big 'uns that lob shells at targets way over the horizon.

 

[jon86]

I'll take an Mk 14 EBR "ChopMod" Built on a full auto capable receiver with Schneider 16.5 inch stainless barrel and AAC 7.62x51mm Suppressor ready flash hider. Magpul AFG for offhand shooting and Mil-Std bipod for supported shooting, 4x32 ACOG for ranged work, and a VLTOR EMOD stock with an ample, soft recoil pad. 5 Handpicked USGI 20 Round mags with Magpuls on each, and one Beta C-Mag (M14 Edition) in the vehicle with tracers loaded every third round (my Black Hawk Down-esque scenario contingency plan).

That thing looks pretty heavy and slow to shoulder.

1. reliability
2. lightweight
3. high capacity
4. a cartridge that is lethal within the range of identifying a hostile target and hitting it with iron sights

in short, an AR-15 carbine

I will add to this list:
5. A very light cartridge that allows me to carry a lot of ammo for the weight... 5.56 fits the bill.

 

[Risky buisness]

Military experience, yes
issue rifle, M16A1, liked it, no.
Were talking about Combat rifles here, when I did my service, (USMC early 70s) we didn't have the "choice" of what we were issued, as I'm sure most servicemen and women do not have a choice either, I would opt for:
1, larger bullet diameter, 6.5- 6.8 @ 2300-2500 FPS
2, an operating system that doesn't run an exhaust pipe into the reciever
3, a barrel that when slung up properly does not flex unduly
4, a platform that can be issued with several mission specific 'uppers or bbls
Even though I didn't like my service rifle, I will concede that the current generation of M16, M4s and the like are really near the pinicale of evolution, lacking only more lethality at distance and an upgraded operating system.
If, God forbid, my country needed my old a-- to bear arms again, I would be very happy and trust something like a SIG 516 or Rock River 18' in 6.5 Grendel, If I had to bring my own, it would be my M1A squad 18' 7.62-51

 

[mortablunt]

I see the Army is testing carbines again. Contending are the SCAR, ACR and
M4 all in revised updated and lighter forms. Past tests have shown no advantage in replacing current weapons but a new round of testing is in process. I am not sure if any push rod version AR's made the cut. Some were submited.

This will be like the dust test all over again. The Army will see just how sub par the M4 is and suddenly claim that it's perfect and that they need no other weapon.

 

[ACP]

CmdrSlander, no offense, but 9.5 lbs??

with the bipod and ACOG and 20 rounds of 7.62??

Fulton Armory lists the bare rifle at 9.85 lbs. A 4x32 ACOG weighs about 10 ozs., not including mount. The bipod is about 11 ounces. A loaded M14 mag is about 1.6 lbs.

I think, as pictured, you are closer to 12.5-13 lbs. not including a sling, which you will definitely need.

 

[ol' scratch]

What do I want in a combat rifle?

Never to have to use it in combat.

 

[MechanicKid]

Quote:
reliability to the point of cycling over 2000 rounds without cleaning (firefights are a B!tC#)

Colt can blow up a M4 in way less ammo, and has on video. I don't really see too many people humping 65+ mags in the field.

Yes, haven't seen a rig yet that packs 65 magazines lol. I was referring the possibility of having to "run and gun" for a couple of days (yes, for some people, this is a stark reality) without the perceived time to completely clean and service the weapon, not 2000 rounds straight, but this is also possible. I do agree with the alteration of the ar platform to a piston driven system. There are so many other battle proven systems built entirely off of a piston drive type system that shoot .223 with decent accuracy, like the Steyr Aug (been around for a while) the Galil (pretty old too) and the Daewoo DR-200 (the closest to the ar platform). The DI system has quite a few advantages that are negated by going to a piston system, hence the initial reason for the design.

Never to have to use it in combat.

Amen brother.

 

[Mauser lover]

I want a Galil, in .308 Win (7.62x51 NATO), and 99999 cartridges and all loaded into spare mags, shoved into the truck. Will figure out how to carry all of that ammo later.

I like:
1. Goes bang every time, under somewhat reasonable circumstances.
2. Accurate, at least more accurate than I can shoot with iron sights.
3. A big enough hunk of flying metal to be able to take down an elk sized target.
4. Readily available spare parts/mags, because I don't think Israel has a problem making guns
5. Not really necessary, but would be nice; a stock in line with the barrel.
6. Being able to mount a grenade launcher is definitely a plus, but not a deal breaker.

I could also go for a G3, M14 / M1A, or an FAL, but Galil would still be my top pick.