Worst currently-fielded military rifle in the world?

[Correia]

I've got some Galil experience, and there is no way in the world that it could be considered the worst. It is a solid gun. Not my favorite by any means, but all around, reliable, accurate, decently ergonomic, good weapon.

 

[madmike]

The Galil is Israeli. I can't imagine it has serious flaws. Pretty much all their stuff is bulletproof, even if there are better things here and there.

For my use as a civilian, it isn't worth what it costs to get one now. But that's a political thing.

I can't BELIEVE no one pinged on my comment about "G11" and "Ronald Reagan." Everyone asleep out there?

Hakim: Ljungman built in Egypt, scaled up to 8mm Mauser, has a tendency to rip the extractor right through the cartridge rim, clog, jam and fail to feed. Not your first choice for a battle. Of course, the Egyptians didn't make a great showing militarily in that era anyway.

 

[KriegHund]

The G-11 could have been grand....

 

[Kurush]

I can't BELIEVE no one pinged on my comment about "G11" and "Ronald Reagan." Everyone asleep out there?

Maybe they can only handle one trolling at a time

 

[mustanger98]

Tony Williams:

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

That's what I was meaning about "all other factors being equal". Either "very open country, no cover" or equal cover which, with full-power rifle cartridges, becomes concealment.

shootinstudent:

I think one major disadvantage of the Garand is that it's not issued by anyone except possibly the ragtag Haitian forces.

Denmark and Greece, to name two. To my knowledge both countries, while they also issue other rifles, still issue plenty of Garands and have piles of them still on hand.

 

[madmike]

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot7.htm

So-called "full power" cartridges don't fare as well against hard cover as people would like to believe.

That was yet another reason virtually everyone went to smaller cartridges.

Though the .45-70 seems to do VERY well, and there IS an AR variant available that can shoot it.

 

[Kurush]

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot7.htm

So-called "full power" cartridges don't fare as well against hard cover as people would like to believe.

That was yet another reason virtually everyone went to smaller cartridges.

Say what? First off, when people say barrier penetration they mean wood, drywall, car doors, etc, not sandbags. Full power cartridges are much better at penetrating those barriers than intermediate cartridges are.

Second off, sand is like water in that it resists more at higher velocities, as is shown in that test. The 5.56 and 7.62x51 perform almost identically because they have very similar velocities. If sandbag penetration was a consideration it wouldn't lean either way because their performance was the same.

Though the .45-70 seems to do VERY well

Because it has a lower velocity than the other rifle cartridges.

 

[madmike]

Say what? First off, when people say barrier penetration they mean wood, drywall, car doors, etc, not sandbags. Full power cartridges are much better at penetrating those barriers than intermediate cartridges are.

Second off, sand is like water in that it resists more at higher velocities, as is shown in that test. The 5.56 and 7.62x51 perform almost identically because they have very similar velocities. If sandbag penetration was a consideration it wouldn't lean either way because their performance was the same.

Because it has a lower velocity than the other rifle cartridges.

Also .45-70 and 12 gauge and 9mm and .45? Sorry. You're incorrect.

And drywall and car doors are NEVER "cover." Not even for .22s

That's not what people mean by hard cover, assuming said people have ANY military experience. Hard cover is dirt, timber, concrete, etc. And sandbags and dirt are the usual things used.

So called "full power" cartridges usually have GREATER cross-sectional density for their velocity. If you're shooting at someone behind sandbags, either you wait for them to stand up and it doesn't matter what you shoot, or you use a .50 cal.

By the way, there's a drywall test on that site, too. Though you may not like what you see.

 

[madmike]

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1.htm

In fact, here. 12 pine boards will not stop a 5.56mm.

Nor will auto glass, car doors, firewalls, drywall, sheet metal doors or any other of the mythical bullet-stoppers out there.

I wouldn't try using any of them as cover even against a .38.

Short answer: at ranges under 300 yards, which is where more than 90% of firefights take place, so-called "full power" cartridges are unnecessary, and mean the shooter is compensating for something, whether that be poor marksmanship, lack of training, self-doubt or something deeper.

At 500 yards, a 5.56mm has more power than a .45 has at the muzzle. That's plenty for any reasonable engagement I expect to be in.

Now, back to the Hakim, anyone?

 

[NMshooter]

I feel it necessary to try to answer Tony Williams' question about the M-16 and sand.

While I have never fired an M-16 jammed with sand I have fired an AR-15 that was lubed wet with CLP and filled with sand.

I had to use the forward assist to get the bolt to close, then I was able to fire a round. The direct gas impingment that so many seem to hate blew the sand out and returned the rifle to normal working order.

We have sand storms during the windy season here in New Mexico every year, so I get plenty of chances to shoot in nasty conditions. For that matter normal shooting here could be considered shooting in desert conditions. It is a desert after all.

And trust me when I say that they ALL jam, regardless of action, rifles, shotguns, pistols and revolvers, when they get sand in them. Even the FAL with sand cuts in the receiver and bolt carrier, the AK, the SKS, all of them.

Still trust the AR more than the rest.

 

[madmike]

Haven't had it blow clean, but a shot of Break Free generally clears it right up.

Ironically, I had some problems two weeks ago. Ironic, because I was using the steel Sterling STANAG magazines everyone raves about.

Failures to feed and the bolt would NOT lock back.

Examination showed the followers to be shorter than the magazine length. They were jamming forward and not engaging the bolt catch.

Replaced those.

Further examination showed the spring to be too weak to raise the bolt catch.

Replaced those.

And whatever form they were folded on wasn't quite even. They fit, but are lopsided.

These were recommended to me by an AR hater as a great improvement on the operation of the M16.

These expensive, vaunted, brand new steel mags with new followers and springs now function as well as my 30 year old, used until the anodizing wore off, third hand, contract built aluminum military mags do.

'nuff said.

 

[shootinstudent]

Correia,

Thanks for telling us about the Galil. What do semi-auto versions go for? Are there even any here in the US? I've never seen one in a shop....but they sure look like they'd be a lot of fun.

Short answer: at ranges under 300 yards, which is where more than 90% of firefights take place, so-called "full power" cartridges are unnecessary, and mean the shooter is compensating for something, whether that be poor marksmanship, lack of training, self-doubt or something deeper.

I see. So part of the criteria for the best versus the worst rifle includes not projecting the image of an inadequacy complex.

IMO, you could do a whole lot worse than a full power rifle like a G3...so back to the worst rifle issued: Looks like there's pretty general consensus that it's the indian INSAS.

I shudder to think about how poorly armed those poor Indians would be if they had full power INSAS's instead of the 5.56 version...

 

[Kurush]

And drywall and car doors are NEVER "cover." Not even for .22s

Actually, yes they are. 5.56 will penetrate glass, drywall, car doors, and wood, but the terminal effects on the target are greatly reduced. I suggest you read about the "Good Guys" incident before you make any more comments about glass penetration. I also suggest you take a look at some actual scientific barrier penetration tests rather than relying on the conclusions of internet hobbyist web pages.

 

[madmike]

Actually, yes they are. 5.56 will penetrate glass, drywall, car doors, and wood, but the terminal effects on the target are greatly reduced. I suggest you read about the "Good Guys" incident before you make any more comments about glass penetration. I also suggest you take a look at some actual scientific barrier penetration tests rather than relying on the conclusions of internet hobbyist web pages.

The so-called "full power" cartridges failed to penetrate less than 1/4 of what I would build as cover for a fighting position. I'm not sure what "science" I need to look at to know that failing to penetrate is failing to penetrate.

I've seen entire dissertations on wounds, and I've seen penetration tests on all kinds of media. In short: getting shot with anything ruins your day, and you can only be killed once.

 

[madmike]

Correia,

Thanks for telling us about the Galil. What do semi-auto versions go for? Are there even any here in the US? I've never seen one in a shop....but they sure look like they'd be a lot of fun.



I see. So part of the criteria for the best versus the worst rifle includes not projecting the image of an inadequacy complex.

IMO, you could do a whole lot worse than a full power rifle like a G3...so back to the worst rifle issued: Looks like there's pretty general consensus that it's the indian INSAS.

I shudder to think about how poorly armed those poor Indians would be if they had full power INSAS's instead of the 5.56 version...

Galils in the US retail for about $1500.

Considering the reports on Indian 7.62 mm, an INSAS so loaded would likely explode.

No, it's nothing to do with image. It has everything to do with wasting power you don't need to accomplish the job. Why use a Kenworth when a Chevy Tahoe will suffice?

The basic load for a 5.56mm is twice that of a 7.62 mm. That's twice as many chances to hit the bad guy. There is demonstrably enough power to kill the target in the round, and assuming adequate marksmanship, that's twice as many mission kills for the same weight of ammo.

 

[KriegHund]

55 grain FMJ .223 WWB will go straight through a 1 foot thick pine tree trunk.

Thats good enough for me.

*Ps- 8mm blows huge chunks out of the same tree afterwards*

 

[outofbattery]

Actually for those of you gloating about how the British SAS began to use American Stoner rifles instead of the homemade L85 - 'yer wrong.


The SAS actually use Diamaco M16's (or whatever they call them).

They do now,but they carried Armalites when the rest of the UK forces carried the FAL.

 

[Father Knows Best]

No, it's nothing to do with image. It has everything to do with wasting power you don't need to accomplish the job. Why use a Kenworth when a Chevy Tahoe will suffice?

Why drive a Corvette when a Chevette would suffice? Why ride a Harley when a moped would suffice?

 

[madmike]

Why drive a Corvette when a Chevette would suffice? Why ride a Harley when a moped would suffice?

And when I look at some of the people driving Harleys and Corvettes, or worse, Camaros and Mustangs, my point is made...

I also recall shooting through a 1/4" spinner target earlier this year. At 100 meters. Luckily, we hadn't put any eggs behind it. It would have been embarassing to have my 5.56 bounce off after losing all that energy penetrating the steel.

 

[Tony Williams]

I feel it necessary to try to answer Tony Williams' question about the M-16 and sand.
[snip]
And trust me when I say that they ALL jam, regardless of action, rifles, shotguns, pistols and revolvers, when they get sand in them. Even the FAL with sand cuts in the receiver and bolt carrier, the AK, the SKS, all of them.

Still trust the AR more than the rest.

Reports from various sources indicate that the AR needs more TLC in the particular conditions of Iraq than other weapons there. One comment from a USMC Sergeant who wrote a full report on the performance of his equipment.

"The M-16 is prone to jams. I can personally attest that I kept my weapon properly cleaned and lubed, yet within ten minutes, I had two jams that required remedial action in Al Fallujah."

A British soldier I know, who has taken a great interest in weapon performance, reported back on his own experience in Iraq with a comment that the L85A2 was now much more reliable than the AR in those conditions.

I understand that although the extensive tests of the XM8 revealed problems (mainly to do with overheating) the mechanism functioned well, without cleaning, regardless of what they did to it, over tens of thousands of rounds.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Tony Williams]

The basic load for a 5.56mm is twice that of a 7.62 mm. That's twice as many chances to hit the bad guy. There is demonstrably enough power to kill the target in the round, and assuming adequate marksmanship, that's twice as many mission kills for the same weight of ammo.

There is certainly more than enough power to inflict a fatal wound, but the issue seems to be how long it takes such a wound to put the BG out of the fight. From various reports, it all too often takes several hits to put them down. So if you end up having to carry more ammo because you have to shoot the BGs more often, that rather cancels out the weight advantage.

For shooting over normal combat ranges (up to 300m) the 6.8mm Rem SPC seems to offer much greater terminal effectiveness without a big weight penalty. Recoil developed by the round is much the same as the 7.62AK (i.e. about half that of the 7.62N), so it's reasonably controllable in full-auto. Of course, the 6.5mm Grendel is much the same size and weight as the 6.8 and matches the ballistics of the 7.62N. You don't need that kind of long-range performance in a rifle, but if it allows you to replace the 7.62N equipment as well as the 5.56, that's something worth thinking about.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Jeff White]

Tony Williams said;

Reports from various sources indicate that the AR needs more TLC in the particular conditions of Iraq than other weapons there. One comment from a USMC Sergeant who wrote a full report on the performance of his equipment.

"The M-16 is prone to jams. I can personally attest that I kept my weapon properly cleaned and lubed, yet within ten minutes, I had two jams that required remedial action in Al Fallujah."

A British soldier I know, who has taken a great interest in weapon performance, reported back on his own experience in Iraq with a comment that the L85A2 was now much more reliable than the AR in those conditions.

There you go again using anecdotal evidence to try to prove your point. I suppose the studies done by PEO Soldier and the Infantry School's Directorate of Combat Developments, where they inteviewed hundreds of soldier right after combat are somehow flawed?

madmike said;

I can't BELIEVE no one pinged on my comment about "G11" and "Ronald Reagan." Everyone asleep out there?

Mike, HK didn't stop development of the G11 until after the ACR trials, which occurred in the Bush I administration. Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with it.

As for the worst currently fielded rifle, I'm going to have to go with the INSAS AK copy. Although the Australian version of the AUG would probably be a pretty close second. It was so bad the Aussie army refused to carry it into combat, buying M4s for the units they deployed to East Timor and the Middle East.

These threads are a perfect example of my theory that American men believe they come out of the womb knowing all there is to know about fighting, small unit tactics, firearms and making love. We usually manage to burst the first three bubbles in Infantry OSUT or Marine bootcamp. It never ceases to amaze me how many experts on those first three subjects there are who never wore Infantry blue......I sometimes wonder if people post their expert opinions on medical forums and discuss which laser and fiber optic system is best for micro surgery .

Jeff

 

[madmike]

Mike, HK didn't stop development of the G11 until after the ACR trials, which occurred in the Bush I administration. Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with it.
Jeff

Ah, but Reagan started the military growth the Soviets couldn't keep up with that forced their economy to collapse and the border states to split, which meant all those East Germans fled to the West, putting a huge strain on government resources and causing them to reign in a lot of spending programs and continue with the gear on hand rather than investing in the G11!

So it's Reagan's fault.

I'm sure I can find any number of far lefties to agree with me.

~~~

I recall one troop telling me how EVERY M16 in his battalion had similar gas tube problems. My comment: "You might want to have someone check up on the armorer."

Not sure what happened, but it never occurred to him that multiple identical problems could be indicative of human error rather than a flaw with the weapon. He conceded that could be the case.

In any engagement there are reports of enemy troops not going down. No soldier will EVER admit his shot wasn't perfectly center of mass. Must be the weapon. Someone surviving 5 seconds and firing another shot becomes "several minutes" due to the stress of combat. One RIF charging with a weapon or bomb becomes "dozens." Eyewitness accounts not backed up by other documentation are near worthless by themselves.

Anything can jam in that desert. We had people tasked with driving around al Jaber Air Base changing filters on EVERY intake, every vent, every piece of colling equipt for computers, every engine. These were in addition to the existing filters on equipment. If you're kicking up a lot of dust, you are going to have dust related malfunctions. This is not a failure of design on a mechanical component. And too much oil in the desert makes it worse. There is a specific procedure for desert lubing that must be followed. The emergency action once you've engaged is "more oil," but only ONCE you've started. Ahead of time it equals more gunk.

As to the 6.8mm, if it proves to have a better stopping ratio to weight, I'm all in favor of it. It's under test but has still not been proven. I'm perfectly willing to convert all my SHTF weapons the moment it gets adopted, if it does.

I believe the two killers on the XM8 were that the optics were prone to shifting under normal use and not fixable on the current test, and that as it was developed from the OICW, other contractors screamed through the procurement system that it was against Fed law to convert one contract into two others (XM8 and the related grenade launcher) without a new bid.

Neither of those problems is a stoppage, nor is a heating problem. New designs always have issues. Both can probably be resolved and the rifle resubmitted on the next bid. So it's not a contender for worst.

But it's not going to be within a year.

There is also a study out there with media and cadavers that "full power" cartridges dump maximum energy around 15-20" of penetration. Assault rifle cartridges do so around 6-9" of penetration. This is why assault rifle rounds work well on people and not deer, and .30 cal rounds work well on deer and not people. This is even more true when operating under the constraints of military ball ammo.

You can adjust the characteristics of the projectile somewhat to account for this. But add in the weight savings of smaller rounds and it's the way to go. Which is way virtually EVERY significant military has switched to a 5.56 or 5.45 cartridge.

So, worst would seem to be an INSAS loaded with Indian ammo. Anybody want to field test one? Wear goggles.

 

[Number 6]

Ah, but Reagan started the military growth the Soviets couldn't keep up with that forced their economy to collapse and the border states to split, which meant all those East Germans fled to the West, putting a huge strain on government resources and causing them to reign in a lot of spending programs and continue with the gear on hand rather than investing in the G11!

By that logic I want to blame Otto von Bismarck for all the worlds current problems, since he helped create a world system that helped give rise to Hitler, that insighted the growth of world communism that gave rise to the cold war, and much of the conflict in the world is a result of the end of the cold war. Geez Bismarck really screwed things up for us. Wait, shouldn't I be blaming Bismarck's mother for giving birth to him?

On a side note. I thought this thread was on the worst rifle currently fielded, in which I would vote for the INSAS, or any of the other really bad G3, FAL, or AK clones.

 

[madmike]

By that logic I want to blame Otto von Bismarck for all the worlds current problems, since he helped create a world system that helped give rise to Hitler, that insighted the growth of world communism that gave rise to the cold war, and much of the conflict in the world is a result of the end of the cold war. Geez Bismarck really screwed things up for us. Wait, shouldn't I be blaming Bismarck's mother for giving birth to him?

Exactly! Though communism was already the way of the future. Just ask any communist.

On a side note. I thought this thread was on the worst rifle currently fielded, in which I would vote for the INSAS, or any of the other really bad G3, FAL, or AK clones.

I now want to get my hands on an INSAS just to see how bad it really is.

Without firing it, you understand.