Your preference for a combat rifle

[Taurus 66]

If you could have any rifle of your choosing (and ammunition) for your time during a combat, what would it be?

Mine would be chambered 243 "magnum"

243 caliber "magnum" - heavier grain weight and harder hitting than 223; significant carrying capacity over 308:

General Armalite AR-10 design
Semiautomatic (full auto is just a waste)
18" barrel length
30 round detachable magazines
Customized lightweight polymer composite stock
Quick acting drop and telescoping unipod
Iron sights only!

This is something like what our soldiers should have for the "absolute minimum" in urban combat.

 

[Firethorn]

GAU-8.

 

[Taurus 66]

The GAU 8 is a gun too heavy for you in urban combat. I think it more suited for a phalsys or A-10. Let's get real.

 

[Arkady]

I'm not sure why you emphasize iron sights only--iron sights are a must, but using them as a backup system to modern optics would make more sense to me. Modern optics allow for faster aiming, and significantly less loss of peripheral vision for most people.

But for me? I'm happy with a FAL and a good red dot optic. Maybe a lightweight lower reciever. That should cover most of my needs.

 

[Kamicosmos]

This will be a fun thread.

since I was never in the military, let alone a combat situation, I will not say anything....

 

[mhpoole]

Fal

 

[mnrivrat]

DSA-580SW

 

[Preacherman]

Well, my eyes are now middle-aged (as is the rest of me), and with a bad back (repeat surgery scheduled), I'm at last coming to appreciate the lower-recoil rounds more. Previously, I'd have been all for .308, but right now, I think something like the XM-8 chambered in 6.8mm. would be a very useful toy to have for this kind of thing. Not too much recoil, accurate and usable out to 400-odd yards, about 25 rounds in a magazine... yep, I think that'll do me nicely.

If 6.8mm. isn't available, I'll settle for .223, but in a barrel twist that allows use of the 75gr. JHP bullets just coming out. These seem to have a rather better range, and since they're hollow-point, they're not relying on bullet tumbling or fragmentation to do the job. I still don't like the round, but with these bullets, it's rather better than it was in earlier incarnations. I'll stick with the XM-8 platform for it.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

depends on the combat.


I'd not feel unarmed with an M4 with an ACOG TAO1NSN and a foregrip on it.


I'd also not feel unarmed with an m-14 with a leupold 1.5X5 variable on it.


a stock garand would be just fine. one with a downbore leupold scout scope would be better.

A mini-14 would work just fine.

I'd rather not have an XM8. too bulky and unsubstantial.

 

[KaceCoyote]

Modern AK 100 series, any caliber(they all work) with a Kobra red dot.

 

[Firethorn]

Seriously?
Urban combat? I think I'd take an FN90. I'll let the rest of you guys take the longer range stuff.
Field? M-16 in 6.5 or 6.8 I guess.

And I was kinda serious about the GAU-8. I'll take it with the A-10 option, please. I've seen it from close up.

 

[RevDisk]

G36 or XM8. 6.8 is prefered over 5.56mm, but I'd take either. Light, accurate, solid as a brick.

If that's too expensive, any type of AK.


(Edit: Andrew Wyatt, what didn't you like about firing the XM8/G36? I always thought it was rather comfortable to shoot, and rather accurate.)

 

[71Commander]

FAL. Last time out with it, I put 3 into 3/4". This gun goes everywhere I go. I sleep with between me and my wife.

 

[cxm]

.243 Mag??????????????

A 243 Mag???????

They already make one... it's called a 7.62x51.

Nothing more needed.

/r

Chuck

 

[bogie]

I want something that I can carry a LOT of ammo for.

That can fire really fast should I so desire.

That I can control while firing really fast.

That is accurate out to 3-400 yards, if necessary.

That is compact enough to be moved quickly in tight quarters.

I like my 16" AR.

And yeah, you guys know me. I've got other rifles too... Bigger, longer, louder, and more accurate.

 

[VietVet 67-68]

Been there Done that!! Give me a M-14/ M1A !!

Keith

 

[ALS]

I'm with VietVet 67-68 on this one. Nothing and I mean Nothing beats a good .308 M1A when the SHTF.

 

[Old NFO]

My preference is...

M14/M1 with an EOTech. Works good, dead nuts accurate within 200 yards, 1 round stopping power. Alternative would be an AK-47, not as accurate, but works good too...

 

[jem375]

another vote for the M14

 

[g56]

My choice would be the good old M16, a very effective rifle in its standard 5.56mm, if I wanted an alternate it would be the 6.8 Remington, it's a very good alternative to the 5.56mm. I would feel very comfortable with either one in an M16, the current M4 has a barrel that's too short, and they aren't as effective as the old M16.

6.8 Remington

 

[Taurus 66]

They already make one... it's called a 7.62x51.

Wrong! The 7.62 x 51 and 6 mm are different in size, powder and ballistic grain weights, and so a soldier could infact carry more .243 into combat.

 

[gripper]

ny thoughts on the whole family of cartridges based on the .3087.62 NATO case;.260 Remmington,7mm-08?I leave out the .243 only because it might not have enough mass for "other than standard ball/AP loadings(tracer/incendieary etc). I was thinking a VEPRII type Kalashniklone;or a metric FAL.A pity no ones military ever picked up on these loadings.

 

[Ivy Mike]

I'll take a nice high quality Kalashnikov action rifle (Bulgarian perhaps) in a modernized 7.62x39 round.
Failing the modern round, 5.45x39 might do.

 

[Snowdog]

Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't the .243 use a necked down .308 case?

How would a .243 "magnum" allow a soldier to have a significantly higher carrying capacity. This round would prove to be just as bulky, which is a serious factor for the everyday grunt. I just don't see the weight difference between a .243 and a .308 being substantial enough for serious consideration, unless you lighten the .243 round to the point it lacks decent ballistic coefficiency. But hey, that's just me.

Also, if this is intended for the everyday soldier, remember we have a habit of abiding by the Hague Accord and these soldiers would likely be issued a .243 "magnum" in FMJ format. Unless the bullet is designed butt-heavy to begin with thus having been designed to tumble on impact, it'll be less effective than our combat proven 7.62x51.
Certainly don't forget the ballistics of the West German 7.62x51 fodder, which tumbled, split in half and did a funny little dance after impact. The 7.62x51 can be made quite lethal as well, justifying the extra ounces the soldier would have to carry over a .243 "magnum".

An interesting concept, but I don't see it offering much difference in the real world over the 7.62 NATO.

But enough of that, I'll choose a 7.62x51 FAL for any SHTF scenario I can imagine, as I already have.

Springfield Armory SAR-4800 Match with KDF muzzle brake

 

[Taurus 66]

You got me there snowdog. I may have been too busy considering overall weight to overlook the cartridge dimensions. That rifle you show is bad ass! I like it!