Worst currently-fielded military rifle in the world?

[madmike]

Hmm. And how much extended desert warfare do they engage in?

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Are you suggesting that if it doesn't function well in a relatively clean urban environment it will somehow function better in a dusty desert? I'm confused, because that seems to be the language, but not the tone.

 

[Tony Williams]

Are you suggesting that if it doesn't function well in a relatively clean urban environment it will somehow function better in a dusty desert?

Obviously not. What I'm suggesting is that the M4/M16 have experienced more problems in coping with a dusty environment than some other weapons and require a more intensive cleaning regime, whereas the HK seems to keep going regardless.

The environment in which weapons are used has major implications for weapon choice. Even the L85A1 performed adequately when used in European conditions; it wasn't until Gulf War 1 that its shortcomings became obvious. The FBI presumably use their weapons very little and very infrequently compared with soldiers at war, and in much cleaner conditions. So they may well be satisfied with the M4's reliability in those circumstances.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Tony Williams]

This assumes said shooter is INCAPABLE of switching sides, rather than being considered "not important."

That's not the way I read it - it seems pretty clear to me that right-handed shooters are expected to shoot right-handed, regardless of the circumstances. That seems only sensible, since in the stress of combat most soldiers seem to have problems hitting targets with their strong side, let alone their weak one.

But let's do a fair test. Everyone right handed, shoot left handed next time you go to the range. Reverse your hands for loading, shooting, aiming, clearing, everything. Shouldn't be too hard. Just a matter of training, right?

Don't be silly - that's not a fair test. A fair test would be to take a bunch of right-handed shooters and put them through six months military training shooting nothing but left handed, and then see how they perform at the range. They will do very well, I can assure you. That's what the British Army does with its left-handers, only in reverse.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[madmike]

Obviously not. What I'm suggesting is that the M4/M16 have experienced more problems in coping with a dusty environment than some other weapons and require a more intensive cleaning regime, whereas the HK seems to keep going regardless.

snip

The FBI presumably use their weapons very little and very infrequently compared with soldiers at war, and in much cleaner conditions. So they may well be satisfied with the M4's reliability in those circumstances.

Yes, you are. You're saying it's reported unreliable in urban engagements, but somehow will "keep going" in the desert. If you agree it's poor in the former, it will certainly be poor in the latter. And I doubt it's got looser tolerances than the M16.

I've been buried in sand with an M16 on OPFOR. It functioned fine. Arabian sand is very fine (basically dry clay) and clears with a good squirt of oil or CLP in my experience. For long term exposure, I can't imagine anything more modern than an AK is loose enough to handle much of that dust. But most seem to manage adequately. The Israelis are on the edge of that terrain and prefer the M16 to the Galil.

The receiver complaints I heard about the L85 preceded the Gulf War. Any banging around caused it to jam the rails, it seems. Desert sand wasn't the problem. Flimsy design was the problem. I'm not sure what H&K's fix was, but it was something to do with reinforcement to keep the rails straight.

 

[madmike]

That's not the way I read it - it seems pretty clear to me that right-handed shooters are expected to shoot right-handed, regardless of the circumstances. That seems only sensible, since in the stress of combat most soldiers seem to have problems hitting targets with their strong side, let alone their weak one.

And the Brits expect the lefties to use their weak side...that's a good thing why?

Don't be silly - that's not a fair test. A fair test would be to take a bunch of right-handed shooters and put them through six months military training shooting nothing but left handed, and then see how they perform at the range. They will do very well, I can assure you. That's what the British Army does with its left-handers, only in reverse.

I'll concede that point if you tell me they spend more than a week on basic marksmanship in that time, and practice every month or so to maintain proficiency. Why do I get the feeling they practice less than US forces?

 

[Tony Williams]

Yes, you are. You're saying it's reported unreliable in urban engagements, but somehow will "keep going" in the desert.

I said nothing of the sort. I merely asked, with reference to the FBI, "And how much extended desert warfare do they engage in?" I made no reference to unreliability in urban engagements.

The Israelis are on the edge of that terrain and prefer the M16 to the Galil.

For two reasons: the Galil is quite a lot heavier, and the M16s came free. Note that they are now replacing the M16s with the Tavor, which is a bullpup!

The receiver complaints I heard about the L85 preceded the Gulf War. Any banging around caused it to jam the rails, it seems. Desert sand wasn't the problem. Flimsy design was the problem. I'm not sure what H&K's fix was, but it was something to do with reinforcement to keep the rails straight.

There were certainly lots of problems with the L85 from the start, but the most serious issues were to do with desert warfare. See http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm for details

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[pete f]

The Israeli's main reason to like the m-16 platform was cost, or lack of it.
The US government needed to assist Colt in market retention and decided that instead of giving cash to the Isreali's it would give the cash to colt and then give the rifles to Isreal. Imi, then did not need to produce the galil, so instead sold the design and much of the manufacturing tools to South Africa,

Although some people denigrate the galil based on weight. It is heavier than what some would like, but the gun is considered to be the best of the ak designs.

 

[jefnvk]

- trying to get rounds into the clip is a pain

Quite a moot point, when ammo is issued on clips.

When you loaded the rifle, did you use the edge of your hand to hold the charging handle back?

DING-DING-DING!

It is common enough it has a name, and it DOESN'T happen with any other rifle.

FWIW, I know a guy that messed up a finger pretty bad on an A5. Stick any finger around any moving parts, and bad things can happen.

And I'd imagine that if we had AG42's and the Swedes had the M1, we'd be talking about the AG thumb. Give enough guys enough rifles, and a large number will probably screw up.

 

[madmike]

Quite a moot point, when ammo is issued on clips.

Really? The store I buy my ammo at doesn't "issue" it in clips. You've just dismissed a critical flaw. You get 5 boxes of ammo, but gee! All your clips have ejected across the landscape in the previous shooting! You now have a single shot rifle.

And I'd imagine that if we had AG42's and the Swedes had the M1, we'd be talking about the AG thumb. Give enough guys enough rifles, and a large number will probably screw up.

That would explain all the cases of M16 and FNC thumb out there. Oh, wait...

Tony: you misconstrue. I like bullpups. I just don't like THAT bullpup.

Pete: The cost issue is true, but it's also true that the IDF fought over M16s. They were highly in demand, and one of the status symbols was having an M!6 and not a "REMF" Galil. They also came up with several suppressed and short urban sniper rifles based on it, and other variations that were not factory.

But trying to avoid Frankenthread, back to the worst, the INSAS sounds like it. If the Hakim is still in service, it's certainly a strong contender. I'd forgotten all about it. Or tried to. Thanks. Jerk.;-)

And I still blame Reagan for killing the G11.

 

[.45Guy]

Again an explanation is in order, the Hakim/AG-42 are contenders.....why?

 

[jefnvk]

Really? The store I buy my ammo at doesn't "issue" it in clips. You've just dismissed a critical flaw. You get 5 boxes of ammo, but gee! All your clips have ejected across the landscape in the previous shooting! You now have a single shot rifle.

As a civilian rifle, yes. However, when fighting wars, the military doesn't stop at the corner store to buy ammo. All the ammo is on enblocs. As in, if you have ammo, you have enblocs. If you have no ammo, you have no need for enblocs.

Either way, an M16 or AK without a magazine is no more so a repeater than an M1 minus enbloc.

 

[Father Knows Best]

As a civilian rifle, yes. However, when fighting wars, the military doesn't stop at the corner store to buy ammo. All the ammo is on enblocs. As in, if you have ammo, you have enblocs. If you have no ammo, you have no need for enblocs.

Either way, an M16 or AK without a magazine is no more so a repeater than an M1 minus enbloc.

+1. Regardless of terminology (clip vs. magazine), the basic operation of the Garand and the M16 is the same. Both require the ammo to be fed from a feeding device. Both require that the ammo be loaded into the feeding device prior to inserting the feeding device into the rifle. The M16 and most other rifles hold more ammo in each feeding device (typically 20-30 rounds) than the M1 Garand does (8 rounds). The M1's ammo is typically issued already in those devices, however, so the soldier doesn't ever need to waste time loading them up, as he does with a traditional detachable box magazine. The Garand also has a reloading speed advantage in that it conveniently ejects the empty mag/clip for you -- no fumbling for a release lever or button. Also, since all your ammo is already in clips, you don't have to retain the empty clip. Who cares where it lands, since you don't need it? Just reach in your pocket or bandoleer, grab a new clip, and slam it in. You don't even need to hit a bolt release or anything like that. It's BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! PING! SLAM! and repeat....

By contrast, with a box mag, you need to release the empty mag, stow it somewhere (so you can recharge it later, because your ammo is issued boxed or loose but not in mags so you need to retain your empty mags), retrieve and insert a fresh mag, and either draw back and release the bolt (G3, AK, etc.) or hit the bolt release (M16/AR, FAL, etc.).


With just a little practice, you can repeatedly and quickly reload the Garand on the fly without removing it from your shoulder or taking your eyes off your target - something that is quite difficult to do with any rifle fed by a dechable box magazine.

 

[_N4Z_]

*

garand can be reloaded fast, but it must also be fired empty also before that can be accomplished. a mag can be replaced/reloaded at the users descretion. this can be an important issue in certain situations.

 

[jefnvk]

but it must also be fired empty also before that can be accomplished.

Not true. There is a button on the left side of the reciever. Pull the charging handel back, and push that button in, and the enbloc pops out.

The advantage of the box magazine in this instance, is that the half empty mag can be reinserted later much easier than the half-empty enbloc can be.

 

[madmike]

And the magazine isn't flung across the landscape. I can drop it if I'm in a hurry, or stow it for later use. You are far more likely to run out of clips than magazines.

I'll be happy to do speed drills against anyone who thinks they can reload a Garand faster than I can an AR (or most detachable box fed rifles). Let's go with 3, 3, and 4 rounds for a total of 10 with two reloads, ten seconds on the clock, 100 yards offhand.

I'm also aware of an engagement where the troops got Garands and ammo but no clips. I'm sure there are others. So one doesn't "always" have clips.

I can reuse one detachable mag if I must. Catching a Garand clip as it makes for the sky is amusing to watch.

 

[madmike]

With just a little practice, you can repeatedly and quickly reload the Garand on the fly without removing it from your shoulder or taking your eyes off your target - something that is quite difficult to do with any rifle fed by a dechable box magazine.

Er...maybe for you.

Weapon on shoulder, press magazine release with round in chamber, insert fresh magazine, keep shooting. Not only do eyes stay on target, trigger hand stays on grip.

Of course, the best approach is to WATCH what you're doing with the weapon still in approximate plane of the target and trigger hand still on the grip. I'm sure it can be done with a Garand. I'd love to see someone do it.

 

[jefnvk]

I'm also aware of an engagement where the troops got Garands and ammo but no clips. I'm sure there are others. So one doesn't "always" have clips.

The only instances I can think of that happening, is if the only ammo was linked .30 for the MG, or on stripper clips for the 03. In other words, not issued for the M1.

I'll be happy to do speed drills against anyone who thinks they can reload a Garand faster than I can an AR (or most detachable box fed rifles). Let's go with 3, 3, and 4 rounds for a total of 10 with two reloads, ten seconds on the clock, 100 yards offhand.

Any reason why you'd ever only load 3 rounds, except to win some speed drill you thought up?

Why not 80 rounds? 9 reloads on the M1, 3 on the M16. You shoud be able to win that, no?

Wouldn't an even better test be to clock the time between the last round being fired, and the gun being able to fire again? That is what I care more about, how quick my gun can be ready again, not how fast I can half load it.

And, since you mentioned the enblocs being lost, and the mags being saved, I think that time should include you putting the empty mag away, too.

 

[madmike]

The only instances I can think of that happening, is if the only ammo was linked .30 for the MG, or on stripper clips for the 03. In other words, not issued for the M1.

That would make me feel much better while sliding them in one at a time.

Any reason why you'd ever only load 3 rounds, except to win some speed drill you thought up?

Why not 80 rounds? 9 reloads on the M1, 3 on the M16. You shoud be able to win that, no?

Easily. I was using an example from a match I competed in. But if the Garand really is faster to reload, it shouldn't matter what conditions we use, should it?

Wouldn't an even better test be to clock the time between the last round being fired, and the gun being able to fire again? That is what I care more about, how quick my gun can be ready again, not how fast I can half load it.

From a locked bolt, dropping the magazine, less than .75 seconds to back in battery. With round still in chamber, about .5 seconds.

And, since you mentioned the enblocs being lost, and the mags being saved, I think that time should include you putting the empty mag away, too.

I can put it away at my leisure with it in hand. Let's both fire the last round, reload, and save our empty. Any bets on who'll win that one?

I observe:

If the Garand was so all-fired hot, why was there a 15 year project to upgrade it to the M14, which lacked compared to the comparable BM-59 project, and which replacement (the M14) was replaced within a decade by a weapon that's now been in service for FORTY-THREE YEARS?

If the Garand is so fast and so efficient, why did we bother fighting the AW ban, since it only affected those "inferior" detachable box fed weapons?

In any case, the actual current debate seems to be whether the INSAS or Hakim is worse. Garand fans will never concede it's a 70 year old platform now surpassed and a venerable historical piece. Shooters like myself prefer weapons from sometime in the last half century, and we aren't going to agree.

But I certainly hope I can be fortunate enough to meet an enemy armed with Garands when I've got a force with modern weapons. That would be like the K98 equipped Germans meeting a force armed with Garands. Fine weapons both, but no longer the choice for frontline service.

I'm with the Mod, and won't respond to any more Garand posts. I apologize for bringing it up in the first place.

I've shot a Hakim and have some knowledge, but is there anyone with better info who wants to run down the list of flaws? If not, I'll attempt it.

 

[shootinstudent]

On the INSAS rifle, it looks like this might weigh in against it:

http://www.defenceindia.com/18-jul-2k5/news5.html


Indian special forces are switching to Israeli rifles...seems like a wise idea, given the controversey on the INSAS. I'm not finding any good reviews of that rifle.

I saw some comments about the Galil rifles...can anyone tell me more about their reputation for reliability? I was in Mexico earlier this year and I saw a ton of Rurales carrying them, but I didn't get a chance to ask how they liked the rifles. I never suspected that one would come up in a talk about the worst rifle issued.

 

[mustanger98]

If the Garand is so fast and so efficient, why did we bother fighting the AW ban, since it only affected those "inferior" detachable box fed weapons?

Because the AWB made it harder to legally load your rifle down with so much junk it looks like a cross between a Swiss Army knife and some movie projectors among other things, and so heavy you must have an assault wheelbarrow to carry it.

Garand fans will never concede it's a 70 year old platform now surpassed and a venerable historical piece.

I don't think us Garand fans ever said it wasn't 70 years or so old. We just don't tend to agree that it's totally obsolete.

But I certainly hope I can be fortunate enough to meet an enemy armed with Garands when I've got a force with modern weapons. That would be like the K98 equipped Germans meeting a force armed with Garands. Fine weapons both, but no longer the choice for frontline service.

You're describing an actual combat scenario there... Okay... How about you and your guys are all carrying AR's and AK's, and us "obsolete" fans all have M1, M14, '03/'03A3, .303 Enfields (various models), and K98k. Us "obsolete" fans can engage your guys from outside your effective range, which you yourself limited in your choice of weapons, and, all other factors being equal, your guys would be cut to dollrags. How do you like them green apples?

won't respond to any more Garand posts. I apologize for bringing it up in the first place.

I reckon you best not.

As for the original question, the worst military rifle being issued... who really knows? Everybody has an opinion.

 

[jefnvk]

If the Garand is so fast and so efficient, why did we bother fighting the AW ban, since it only affected those "inferior" detachable box fed weapons?

I never claimed that box mags are inferior. My argument was all along the enblos are not inferior, that they are just different. That enblos are simply not trash, while mags are much superior. One of the advantages of enblocs is that they are designed to be throw away, that new ammo would come packed on enblocs (if it were for the M1 at least).

If you really do get into a situtation where the only ammo you have left is linked or loose, beause it was for another gun, it is not that much harder to save enblocs. Sure, you have to pick it up off the ground, but the gun doesn't throw them halfway aross the battlefield. The vast majority of mine end up within a foot of my feet.

Sure they are a bit harder to handload than mags. And even though mags are a bit easier to handload, they still aren't all that quick or easy.

Where does the mag shine? If you empty half of it, it is much easier to stick in a pocket and pull it out and use it later. Plus, it gives you many more options in dealing with quantity of ammo needed at once, especially when you get over 10 rounds.

And might I add, it is my understanding that it was the Army that wanted the internal mag, not Garand. Kinda like that mag disconnector on the 03's, it was a specification they wanted.

 

[Tony Williams]

You're describing an actual combat scenario there... Okay... How about you and your guys are all carrying AR's and AK's, and us "obsolete" fans all have M1, M14, '03/'03A3, .303 Enfields (various models), and K98k. Us "obsolete" fans can engage your guys from outside your effective range, which you yourself limited in your choice of weapons, and, all other factors being equal, your guys would be cut to dollrags. How do you like them green apples?

That could apply in certain specific circumstances (very open country, no cover) but those don't usually apply. Consider this, from Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition - details on my website

"Hitchman's report was forthright in presenting its findings, much to the discomfiture of many staff in the Ordnance Department. Examination of World War 2 combat records, and of new data emerging from Korea (over 600 soldiers were interviewed), showed that the average distance for aimed bullet hits was in the region of 75-100 yards (70-90 metres) with 80% of effective rifle and LMG fire being reported at ranges of less than 200 yards and 90% at less than 300 yards (275 metres). Hits at ranges longer than this were very infrequent, as even good marksmen found that terrain and visibility severely hindered their effectiveness; it was estimated that at 300 m there was only a ten percent chance of seeing a man-sized target under most terrain conditions."

There was a reason for the effective range of assault rifles being designed to be around 300m...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Father Knows Best]

If the Garand was so all-fired hot, why was there a 15 year project to upgrade it to the M14, which lacked compared to the comparable BM-59 project, and which replacement (the M14) was replaced within a decade by a weapon that's now been in service for FORTY-THREE YEARS?

Simple answer -- full auto capability. The 8 round en bloc clip works quite well for semi-auto fire, but you burn ammo much faster, and thus need larger capacity without reloading, when you equip a Garand with "da switch." A 20 round en bloc clip would be too unwieldy, so a detachable box mag becomes the only real option. Since every other battle rifle under discussion was designed to accomodate full auto fire, it was designed to feed from a large capacity (20 rounds or greater) box mag.

Assuming we are talking about semi-autos, though, I still believe that the auto-ejecting en bloc clip has significant advantages over the detachable box magazine.

 

[ChiefPilot]

Assuming we are talking about semi-autos, though, I still believe that the auto-ejecting en bloc clip has significant advantages over the detachable box magazine.

An M14 has the best of both worlds. Wanna change the box magazine? Go right ahead! Rather reload from a stripper clip? You can do that too!

Another disadvantage of the enbloc is that it makes scope mounting a bit more problematic. I don't care for the offset mounts at all and that alone is enough to make me choose the box mag.

 

[shootinstudent]

I think one major disadvantage of the Garand is that it's not issued by anyone except possibly the ragtag Haitian forces. Worst, best, ugliest, prettiest, or re-creation of the true Staff of Moses, that seems to be a debate that is in the past and consequently not about a currently issued rifle.


I'd still like to hear about the Galil as a contender for worst rifle if anyone knows about it. Is it issued somewhere other than to Mexican police?