Worst currently-fielded military rifle in the world?

[NMshooter]

I suspect that extra hot ammo might have something to do with the INSAS not functioning well...

From what I have read on Tactical Forums and Lightfighter the G-36 is not the rifle to carry when your personal butt is on the line.

As a matter of fact the M-16/M-4 seems to be as good as it gets for a standard issue rifle currently, but I am still holding out for an Electro Thermal Chemical liquid propellant rifle in 7mm.

 

[jefnvk]

Very accurate, better than the bolts it was competing with (apples/oranges) but arguably the most inferior semiauto ever.

Start arguing, then.

 

[mustanger98]

Start arguing, then.

Yeah. As a grandson of two WW2 vets and as a fan of the M1, I have to agree with those who don't understand or flat disagree.

 

[madmike]

Explain, please.

What you're "personally impressed" with may be interesting, but doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to this discussion. What is it about the FAL and G3 that fail to impress you?


I have. My brother has one courtesy of his SWAT team responsibilities. It's interesting and fun to shoot, but it never has to see a battlefield. I have no idea how it would hold up under continuous use in a harsh environment.

The G36 is in use by the SAS who are certainly seeing the battlefield. I'm not sure what kind of baseline we have on it yet, though. And field exercises, done right, are just as tough on a weapon as the battlefield.

FAL and G3...well, I don't like the balance of the G3 and the trigger sucks. It's reliable enough, but if you do have problems there's no forward assist or fixed bolt handle. I handled a "match" FAL that had what felt like a 20 lb trigger. I thought the safety was still on. And it's not a light weapon, which reduces your load or other gear. I can't call it bad, but I have no interest in buying one.

The best are generally the widest used (given enough time and lots of acceptance tests with different criteria by different govt's). That would be AK, AR, G3 (even if I don't care for it) and the FNC. I expect the G36 will prove very popular--it's basically an improved AR18.

Sadly, after the great concept of the EM2, I don't expect the L85 (which for some reason was NOT based on the EM2) will catch on.

Oh, yeah, one other thing on the L85--it's right handed only. No provision for lefties. Duh. I think we have our loser.

 

[madmike]

Start arguing, then.

I wouldn't think it would be necessary.

Lessee...it loads (assuming a good clip) with 8 rounds, or 7. Less than that and you have to load singly. More than that is impossible. You can't top off a magazine without a clip. The clips are disposable, and do so themselves in use, requiring ammunition to be issued with clips at all times. Unloading is inconvenient.

It has a tendency to smash thumbs. You can argue all you want that proper training "prevents" that. That it can happen is poor design.

Optics have to be offset because of the top ejection.

It's heavy.

It was certainly better than the bolts it competed against. It wasn't better than the StG. There was nothing that was really a followup to the Garand. It was recognized as a concept, and when the design flaws were fixed, the successors bore little resemblance. This is not meant to denigrate Garand's genius in pushing the semi concept when he did. But it was not a finished concept. He sparked a trend.

Do I want one for my collection? Oh, my, yes. Would I ever carry the #$%@# thing in combat? Not on a bet. It was bad enough on Honor Guard, and I have the blood-soaked glove to prove it.

 

[beerslurpy]

You guys who slam the FAL/G3/Cetme and the AK are smoking some strong crack.

If I wanted to arm a bunch of people for combat, AK or FAL variants would rocket to the top of nearly every list I can think of. A squad of men with 7.62x39 AKs and 1-2 FALs would be pretty effective compared to a lot of other equipment combos I can think of.

For the money, the AK is a great weapon. It gives many guns a run for their money in reach (3-400 yards isnt too shabby, certainly more than every SMG out there) while boasting great stopping power and world-beating reliability. Barrier penetration is nearly up to 308 levels.

The FAL variants beat nearly every military rifle in stopping power and reach. The garand and SVD are arguably a bit stronger per round, but the FAL variants have more magazine capacity. I am surprised they dont use something like this for designated marksman in the US military (maybe a 308 upper AR?).

 

[madmike]

The AK is a very reliable, basic weapon, but 7.62X39 doesn't penetrate nearly as well as 7.62X51 NATO.

The CETME and G3 aren't too expensive and aren't bad, but the AK is lighter and cheaper. It's also more user friendly (the original point and click interface).

We do have a 7.62 upper AR--it's in another thread. Both US Army snipers and the SEALs are using AR10 variants. Better than FALs.

 

[beerslurpy]

Name something that 308 defeats that 7.62x39 doesnt.

I used to think the extra power from the 308 was a big deal until I realized that pretty much everything designed to defeat a rifle round is designed to defeat the 308 or 3006.

Past 400 yards, I would give a huge advantage to the 308 due to the higher velocity and higher BC of the heavier projectiles. The only problem is that the AK cant hit anything at those ranges anyway- the lighter round sacrifices BC to get higher muzzle velocity and less recoil. I'm assuming this was a conscious decision on the part of the designers.

 

[Cosmoline]

I wouldn't think it would be necessary.

Lessee...it loads (assuming a good clip) with 8 rounds, or 7. Less than that and you have to load singly. More than that is impossible. You can't top off a magazine without a clip. The clips are disposable, and do so themselves in use, requiring ammunition to be issued with clips at all times. Unloading is inconvenient.

It has a tendency to smash thumbs. You can argue all you want that proper training "prevents" that. That it can happen is poor design.

Optics have to be offset because of the top ejection.

It's heavy.

It was certainly better than the bolts it competed against. It wasn't better than the StG. There was nothing that was really a followup to the Garand. It was recognized as a concept, and when the design flaws were fixed, the successors bore little resemblance. This is not meant to denigrate Garand's genius in pushing the semi concept when he did. But it was not a finished concept. He sparked a trend.

I'm no great fan of the Garand, but you overlook many aspects of its design and function. The clip system has drawbacks, but its major advantage is its speed. The Garand can be recharged faster than any other semiautomatic or automatic firearm I know of. Not even modern detachable magazine rifles can be reloaded as quickly. The empty must be removed, discarded and the new one put in. Stripper clips don't come close to the speed of a Garand's clip, and are notorious for snagging. With the Garand, the soldier can be reaching for the new clip as soon as the old one is pinging out, and plunge it into place without missing a beat. There are no levers to flip or stripper clip channels to line up with.

The weight is in keeping with its cartridge, and its total weight of a little over nine pounds is only a few pounds more than a full size M-16 and on par with a tricked out AR.

Unloading in the field is automatic, not inconvient. The inconvenience of unloading at the range isn't really a valid concern.

I would agree that subsequent designs such as the FN-49 were superior to the Garand, but the Garand was still a fantastic battle rifle.

 

[swingset]

Gosh, I'm shocked we're all arguing and can't agree. Didn't see this one coming?

 

[madmike]

Name something that 308 defeats that 7.62x39 doesnt.

I used to think the extra power from the 308 was a big deal until I realized that pretty much everything designed to defeat a rifle round is designed to defeat the 308 or 3006.

Past 400 yards, I would give a huge advantage to the 308 due to the higher velocity and higher BC of the heavier projectiles. The only problem is that the AK cant hit anything at those ranges anyway- the lighter round sacrifices BC to get higher muzzle velocity and less recoil. I'm assuming this was a conscious decision on the part of the designers.

1400 ft lbs vs 2800 ft lbs with similar cross-sectional density.

And you answered your own question and contradicted yourself.

7.62 NATO has significantly more range, hence its use for sniping and in machine guns.

If you don't need the extra power, it doesn't make sense to carry it, but 7.62 Russki isn't even CLOSE on energy. It's half. Any kind of hard cover will stop 5.56 and 7.62X39. This is why support weapons were created.

 

[Commissar Gribb]

Lessee...it loads (assuming a good clip) with 8 rounds, or 7. Less than that and you have to load singly. More than that is impossible. You can't top off a magazine without a clip. The clips are disposable, and do so themselves in use, requiring ammunition to be issued with clips at all times. Unloading is inconvenient.

I dont quite understand some of the things you're saying. "you can't top off the magazine without a clip"? I dont know if I understand what you mean. The M1's magazine wont operate correctly without an enbloc clip inserted.

also ALL the GI M1 clips I've seen are 8 rounders. and I dont think (short of gross incompetanance) that it's possible to screw up fitting the full 8 into the clip.

It has a tendency to smash thumbs. You can argue all you want that proper training "prevents" that. That it can happen is poor design.

there are a few other rifles from the period with the same style loading mechanism. Even an SKS uses a "thumb biter" feed system.

As for the weight- all the better to beat the enemy with when you run out of ammo

 

[madmike]

I'm no great fan of the Garand, but you overlook many aspects of its design and function. The clip system has drawbacks, but its major advantage is its speed. The Garand can be recharged faster than any other semiautomatic or automatic firearm I know of. Not even modern detachable magazine rifles can be reloaded as quickly. The empty must be removed, discarded and the new one put in. Stripper clips don't come close to the speed of a Garand's clip, and are notorious for snagging. With the Garand, the soldier can be reaching for the new clip as soon as the old one is pinging out, and plunge it into place without missing a beat. There are no levers to flip or stripper clip channels to line up with.

Can you do that with your firing hand still on the grip and your eye still near the sights and get another 30 rounds in in less than a second and be ready to fire?

No?

Didn't think so.

Yes, the Garand was state of the art. In 1934. It was outclassed by 1945 and a relic by 1947.

But I'm not going to argue the point. I know people who prefer clubs. I have a love of old doubles and hammered singles. Whatever works for you.

My lifelong dream is one of every US issue hanging on the wall, from 1776 to the present, occasionally taken to the range with friends for a good workout. But if I go to a fight I'm taking my AR.

And we're not arguing over the L85 much

 

[Commissar Gribb]

Can you do that with your firing hand still on the grip and your eye still near the sights and get another 30 rounds in in less than a second and be ready to fire?

can you do that with an M60? and since when was the M1 "currently-fielded" other than in parades and at funerals?

Yes, the Garand was state of the art. In 1934. It was outclassed by 1945 and a relic by 1947.

right- but because it's old doesnt mean it's a bad weapon. There are hundreds of older weapons out there that dont even touch the M1. Are they junk too?

My lifelong dream is one of every US issue hanging on the wall, from 1776 to the present, occasionally taken to the range with friends for a good workout. But if I go to a fight I'm taking my AR.

I'd probably take my Tantal in 5.45 soviet erm... that is if I wasnt under orders - otherwise it would be the ol' M16A2

[/QUOTE]

 

[madmike]

can you do that with an M60? and since when was the M1 "currently-fielded" other than in parades and at funerals?

That's why I prefaced with "if." I'd thought the M14 was buried, but they dragged a few of them out for a few months.

I confess to an ulterior motive. I figured some AR hater would start extolling 70 year old hardware as somehow superior.

right- but because it's old doesnt mean it's a bad weapon. There are hundreds of older weapons out there that dont even touch the M1. Are they junk too?

It will shoot accurately and kill. That makes it a weapon. If I want that much power, there are plenty of modern .308 platforms out there. Other than that it's outclassed in every category except the critical roll-a-jeep-over-it-for-traction role. Sorry to sound sarcastic.

I'd probably take my Tantal in 5.45 soviet erm... that is if I wasnt under orders - otherwise it would be the ol' M16A2

I'll take one of my (ahem) "customized" AR uppers and a couple of tweaks for the lower when next I go. I don't plan to ask. Remember Rule 2.

Also, debates like this are largely speculative. Military people take what they are issued. Any civilian arming up should arm with either home nation weaponry or best guess invaders' weaponry...which here means an AR or an AK. Having something other than those greatly hinders supply and repair issues.

I still have .45s and love them. But I have 9mm because it's NATO standard. I don't have to like it, but that's what we shoot.

 

[Tony Williams]

I have it on good authority that the INSAS does indeed have major problems.

I have also heard from British troops who have used the L85A2 in Iraq. HK's improvements have completely transformed the gun and it is now very reliable (more so than the M4/M16) and much liked by its users. See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm

The SAS didn't use the L85 partly because they had the M16 family for many years before the L85A1 emerged, partly because the M16 is lighter (an important issue for the SAS) and partly because until very recently you couldn't get the L85 with an underbarrel grenade launcher (much liked by the SAS). The gun is still probably too heavy for their requirements.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[White Horseradish]

there are a few other rifles from the period with the same style loading mechanism. Even an SKS uses a "thumb biter" feed system.

Errr... No. If your SKS does that, it's defective. All of mine leave the bolt back after loading and you have to pull it.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

Hot diggity! According to the FAQ about the SA-80 upgrade ( http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm ), the SLR [Brit-issue FAL] was modified 54 times!

Does that mean 54 different _fielded_ variants? That doesn't sound right at all. I can't begin to imagine the headache that would cause around the modern armory:

"Sergeant! Did we get that batch of spare firing pins for the M16A53?"
--"No sir, they sent us M16A48 firing pins instead! We can fix the four M16A48's we have, and maybe canibalize some parts from the M16A35s"

Anyone have any info on the alleged 54 modifications to the FAL? Or did they do 27 mods on the A2 and 27 mods on the A3?

-MV

 

[Cosmoline]

Other than that it's outclassed in every category except the critical roll-a-jeep-over-it-for-traction role. Sorry to sound sarcastic.

So you say, but we just knocked down every point you made against it.

--It's not much heavier than a modern "light weight" assault rifles or even many subguns
--Its clip system is snag-free and extremely fast
--It packs plenty of downrange punch
--It's durable and reasonably easy to service in the field.

Maybe you just don't like battle rifles, but judged on its own merits and against the competition of the '40's or the present the Garand holds its own. It isn't perfect, but it works well and does its job. You seem to be laboring under the very serious misapprehension that the second the first assault rifle appeared everything else was obsolete. But the wars since 1945 have shown over and over again that the assault rifle simply isn't the army-destroyer people thought it would be. The high capacity has led primarily to a lot of attacks on blue sky and bricks, at the trade off of power.

It's a serious mistake to view the development of small arms as a parabolic curve of advances leading to the M-16. The real picture is more like a yin & yang than a parabolic curve. Everything is a tradeoff when it comes to small arms. You can't get one thing without sacrificing something else. The Garand strikes a pretty fair balance all around.

but they dragged a few of them out for a few months.

You mean the many M-14's that keep appearing on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan these days, annoying advocates of high-tech gopher guns?

 

[Medusa]

I haven't handled a G36, but it's supposed to be excellent.

From what I have read on Tactical Forums and Lightfighter the G-36 is not the rifle to carry when your personal butt is on the line.

It is excellent and the personal butt is well covered with it, at least it's more reliable than M16 due minimal fouling (G36 stays clean inside as none of the gas is released to the inside, gas is used to push the rod and vented straight to the handguard, that's it).

The G36 was ment to be shot thousands of times without cleaning and can stand more than ten thousand rounds without cleaning. And the gun rarely, if ever, jams. M16 is a great rifle but it has to try hard to get to such level. HK says they have a G36K with more than 25 000 rounds without cleaning and failures.

 

[StrikeEagle]

The Israeli Galil ARM and ARMS rifles are still issued, at least to a certain extent. There were certain design flaws that caused them to be re-called and placed into storage.

Well, I'm shocked... SHOCKED, I tell you!

I honestly think the Galil ARM is the best AR made today. Kalashnikov reliability, but manufactured with care and precision. Machined reciever, which warms my heart. Superb accuracy! Controllable in full auto fire!!! Integral bipod! GREAT sights!

Only 'problem' as far as I can see is that it's kinda heavy.

Can you tell us exactly what 'design flaws' caused it to be mothballed?

StrikeEagle

 

[jefnvk]

Lessee...it loads (assuming a good clip) with 8 rounds, or 7. Less than that and you have to load singly. More than that is impossible. You can't top off a magazine without a clip. The clips are disposable, and do so themselves in use, requiring ammunition to be issued with clips at all times. Unloading is inconvenient.

As mentioned, these also are advantages. Ammo is issued on enblocs. No blocs lying around? No problem, cause you are also out of ammo. No having to keep track of mags to reload. No having to eject mags to load a new one.

In the year that I have had my M1, I've never had the thumb bite.

I don't think it is all that easy to readily top off anything other than a bolt gun.

Unloading is certainly different, although no more ackward than a Mosin's safety.

 

[madmike]

Fully loaded with 8-round en bloc clip, cleaning kit in butt stock, sling and with stock of dense GI issue wood the M1 weighed in at 11-1/4 lbs.

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/m1rifle.html

That's somewhat heavier than "not much heavier."

Criticisms of the M1 are its weight, limited ammunition supply, the fact that single rounds could not be pushed in (8 round clip, or nothing), although this is actually possible with some difficulty. Also, the spent clip was automatically ejected after the last round was fired, making a distinctive sound, which could be fatal in close quarter or sniper operations. Partially loaded or fully loaded clips could be ejected by pulling the operating rod handle all the way back and then pushing the clip latch on the left side of the receiver. In the heat of close action it was possible to do this accidentally, as by pressing the latch with the left hand while firing from the hip.

I don't believe you "shot down" my complaints. You simply said they don't matter to you. Seeing as doctrine and planning started working on a replacement ca. 1940, I'd say the people who plan battles disagree with you, too. There are many great features to the Krag, too. But it's no longer a relevant military weapon.

Note above: I'll argue the "distinctive sound" bit is crap. The ejection isn't much louder than an ejecting round, and if you can hear a clip eject in the midst of a firefight and make use of the info, you've got better ears and attention than I do.

As to the M14s, they were hurriedly pulled from mothballs for DMR use, and are just as hurriedly being replaced with SR25s.

Is there another source on the L85 upgrades? I've heard a couple of negatives, now a positive, got another positive review to balance out?

But it still is right-handed only. A critical failure by itself.

 

[rudolf]

Let get back to topic, remember ist not M16 vs, AR.

Looks like the Insas is our prime candidate:

"Nepal Army is blaming Indian manufactured guns as the cause for their defeat against the Maoists in a recent battle.
...

"Soldiers complained that the INSAS rifles did not function properly during the fighting which lasted for a long time," Gurung told a news conference when asked why the army death toll was high.

"May be the weapons we were using were not designed for a long fight. They malfunctioned," he said.
...

"There were stoppages during the firing, the rifles got hot and soldiers had to wait for them to cool," another officer said."



http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/4114.asp

 

[madmike]

Well, Indian .308 has a reputation for bursting cases, unseating primers, occasionally cracking barrels and jamming up the works. I just saw a page about their .50 S/T ammo, and considering English is an official language, they certainly didn't bother with spill czech.

Based on that, I can't imagine their rifle is much better.

Heck, not even Pakistan was able to screw up an AK.