The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Tactical Rifle & Carbine => Topic started by: tombogan03884 on September 21, 2014, 12:29:37 PM
-
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/20/gregs-guns-the-top-five-combat-rifles-of-all-time/
Every gun-enthusiast has an opinion on the best combat rifles. Countless forums are dedicated to never-ending arguments with one stranger trading barbs with another, offering their perspectives on rifles.
To stir the pot of our readers, TPNN has created a list of the top five combat rifles based upon highly-subjective criteria that is sure to inspire lofty debates between gun buddies. This list is short and does not include many honorable mentions. It also only lists standard-issue rifles; submachine guns and other such weapons are not included and are for another list and another day.
Number 5: The Mosin-Nagant
First beginning production in 1891, the Mosin-Nagant has earned a reputation for reliability and affordability with collectors and gun enthusiasts. However, the rifle is as battle-hardened as they come. Made from inexpensive materials, the extra-long bolt-action rifle is super reliable and holds five 7.62x54R rounds. These rounds pack quite a wallop and whether hunting elk or Nazis invading the beloved mother Russia, the Mosin-Nagant is simplicity refined to an art.
Number 4: The M1 Garand
Ah, the trusty Garand. To owners of a Garand, the familiar “ping” of a depleted en bloc clip will forever be linked to the World War II-era rifle. Shooting a hefty 30-06 round, the semi-auto Garand takes an 8-round clip and helped win the Second World War and Korea. While incredibly accurate and trustworthy, the Garand loses a point for the difficult nature of reloading that required a bit of finesse if one wanted to avoid the dreaded “Garand thumb”- the product of the bolt slamming down on the user’s thumb if he didn’t get it out of the way in time.
Z1903
Number 3: The 1903 Springfield
While technology has changed and warfare has demanded more from our soldiers than what a bolt-action can provide, the 1903 still remains the gold standard for American infantry rifles. The incredibly-reliable rifles are favorites amongst drill teams, but the real value of the 1903 is the smooth action and the incredible accuracy. In fact, when World War II broke out, they didn’t create a new, fancy sniper rifle- they just slapped a scope on the trusty 1903.
ZAK
Number 2: The AK-47
You knew this was coming, right? While many might argue that the AK-47 is the number one combat rifle ever made (and there is justifiable reasons for such a belief), the trusty AK earns the number two spot simply because it is not as accurate as many combat rifles in use today. Loved by heroes and villains alike all across the world, the AK-47 is cheap, it’s effective and it’s certainly reliable, but for those looking to reach out and touch somebody, the number one rifle is the superior choice…
ZM16
Number 1: The M16
Okay, many might argue with me. They’ll point out that a dirty M16 (or its civilian counterpart, the AR-15) won’t fire. It’s true. The tolerances of the M16/AR-15 are incredibly tight and cannot permit a massive amount of carbon, dirt, etc, to build up. However, the lesson here is not “don’t use the M16,” but instead, to simply make sure your weapon is clean. High-end sports cars require TLC to make sure they run optimally and so do M16s.
The M16 continues to evolve with features like the forward assist and improved click-sights and the user can select semi-auto, full-auto or three-round burst as their preferred method of operation. The 5.56 round has been hated on by those who favor the heftier rounds, but the smaller round is deceptively lethal, going around 3,000 feet per second and tumbling end-over-end after hitting its target, inflicting more damage than simple penetration. Add in 30-round magazines and the jaw-dropping accuracy of the standard-issue rifle and you have the greatest combat rifle that has yet to be invented.
-
Can't judge!
I've only fired the M1, 1903 and the M16 (in the military and civilian form).
-
As others have commented on this, the 1903 is a knock off of the Mauser, which deserves a place on this list.
<Stand by for blasphamy>
And while the M16/M4 is a versatile platform, certainly many are deployed, remember we're talking about combat, military usage, not civilian. I would push it down to 6 and give the FN FAL a place in the top 5.
-
"Best" is a pretty elusive standard by which to judge. Innovative? Sorry, the Mosin and 1903 don't make that list, not by a long shot, but the FG42 does. "Best" isn't "Most Popular" either, because you'd have to add the FAL to that list. Best as a combination of innovation and popularity?
**thoughtful pause**
Mauser, Garand, Stg44, M16, FN-FAL, and I will hear arguments for the Lee-Enfield and AK-47 as well.
-
modern fighting rifles need optics... the flat top M4/M16 is designed around an optic... the rest were designed before drill instructors had it beat into their heads they could train a young soldier to fire, and obtain significantly better hit quality in considerably less time with an optic..."hell, I learned to shoot the old fashioned way, yea Sarge, it took you years, not days..."
-
I would reverse #1 and #2. The AK-47 is without question the #1 combat rifle of all time. Many U.S. servicemen were killed when their M-16's jammed, while their opponents AK-47's did not. Reasons can be argued, but the outcome can't. In mortal combat, a rifle that works is always better than a more accurate one that doesn't.
-
I would reverse #1 and #2. The AK-47 is without question the #1 combat rifle of all time. Many U.S. servicemen were killed when their M-16's jammed, while their opponents AK-47's did not. Reasons can be argued, but the outcome can't. In mortal combat, a rifle that works is always better than a more accurate one that doesn't.
You are only right.
Reliability and effectiveness are all that matter in a combat rifle and effectiveness doesn't mean a tack driver, it just has to put lethal rounds consistently in a target at, say, out to 300m.
The M16 had reliability problems when it was first introduced and used in combat in Vietnam, but if they have been remedied, the AK-47 might not be more reliable than the M16 now just because it was in the past.
Cost is the other factor, but any weapon that was "issued" would need to be/have been practical to manufacture in volume.
-
The M-16's reliability problems were mostly a myth and have not existed at all since the early 70's. in 40 years of shooting the AR platform the ONLY malfunctions I ever saw came from shooting blanks , however, until it is issued in something larger than a varmint caliber it is not worthy of consideration as a serious military arm no matter how long it's in service. That's why the 6mm Lee Navy of the 1890's was eventually dumped.
The only claim to fame of the Mosin Nagant is that it was "good enough", and the Russians made a shit load of them.
As Alf posted, the 03 Springfield was nothing but an illegal copy of the Mauser, that's why after WWI the US had to pay royalties to Germany, (I think they just deducted them from the war reparations).
The M1 was OK but by the 1930's it wasn't particularly special. Germany had used semi auto rifles in WWI, even Mexico had fielded one in 1904
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_rifle
The AK is another that is nothing but a modification of a previous design that was built in huge numbers.
Need to set some requirements to settle on "best". Best what ? most innovative ? most accurate ?
-
I believe you need to include the theater, in which it will be used. In the jungle I certainly would not want a 556 round to penetrate foliage, bamboo Etc.. but the 762x39 is great. In the euro theatre where you had more open spaces and longer shots, and lots of structure to possibly shoot through, 30/06, 8mm rifles make good sense, of these I like the m1, but had the m14 been available I would have chosen it. THE m14 doubles as a machine gun, not the best, but it does. The fal or fn49 would have been good choices as well.
In the trenches, and buildings, shorter weapons would be preferable to me, the Thompson #1, m4 carbine, m3, the ak will do double duty here .. but while important not battle rifles.
The 03a3 has significant differences to the Mauser, single loading direct to the chamber without damaging the extractor, magazine cut off, and superior sights. Shorter than the standard 98, about the same as a 98k.
Not a big fan of smle's, but, hard hitting, 10 rd mag, carbine length available.
Let's pick a theater, then make choices.
-
Need to set some requirements to settle on "best". Best what ? most innovative ? most accurate ?
If it's a battle rifle, how about most guys it's killed?
-
If it's a battle rifle, how about most guys it's killed?
that's easy, ak only because they produced more and were given out to every one.
-
Below is a link to a site that speaks to the early malfunctions of the M16 and how they were caused by the use of dirtier burning ball power rather than cleaner burning stick powder. The word at that time was that the GAO found the velocity could be achieved by using the cheaper ball powder rather an the stick powder called for in the design specs, so the change was made by the accounts and the designers were not consulted.
It also talks to the instability that was designed into the 5.56 cartridge and the Stoner rifle. They called for a 1 in 14 twist that would produce a pretty unstable bullet. The tip of the bullet would move in a tiny circle around the axis of travel guaranteeing it would tumble upon impact. I saw a picture sequence of that tumble and it went past 180 degrees to somewhere around 220 degrees then started back the other way. It didn't seem realistic it could start back again, but I'm not a ballistics expert. Anyway, this design instability is also covered in the article and the reasons the twist went from a devastating 1 in 14 to a very stable 1 in 7 twist.
http://www.futurefirepower.com/myths-about-the-nato-556-cartridge
-
that's easy, ak only because they produced more and were given out to every one.
True. The one with the most users over the longest time will likely have the most kills...and it could as well be the least effective killer as the most effective.
And where do you get reliable statistics on combat rifle kills?
More Americans were killed in the Civil War than any other war we have entered. Perhaps a Civil War rifle should make the list?
-
I read somewhere that for every Vietnamese casualty over 100,000 rounds of ammo was fired...
Who knows? Poodle shooter or spray and pray...
I've never been in a firefight! I won't speculate on what works or doesn't.. How many here have been in combat?
Hell, even the great and powerful Pincus never made it to active duty!
-
It also talks to the instability that was designed into the 5.56 cartridge and the Stoner rifle. They called for a 1 in 14 twist that would produce a pretty unstable bullet.
Not exactly correct.
The author is comparing apples to God knows what and should have applied more research and common sense into his article.
1 in 14" is OK for stabilizing a 55gr bullet, *until* you get to below freezing temps as noted.
Current Remington .223 varmint rifles have 1 in 12 and do just fine with bullets up to 64gr.
The tip of the bullet would move in a tiny circle around the axis of travel guaranteeing it would tumble upon impact.
{{{cough cough bullshit!! cough }}}
Doesn't guarantee anything since ALL bullets do this...from 22lr to 16" Iowa class guns.
In order for there to be zero yaw, the bullet, barrel, chamber, i.e. everything would have to be made absolutely PERFECT with NO +/- variation at all....and that hasn't happened yet.
Impact velocity has more to do with the tumbling and/or fragmentation of a fmj bullet than rifling twist ever did.
Anyway, this design instability is also covered in the article and the reasons the twist went from a devastating 1 in 14 to a very stable 1 in 7 twist.
They went to a faster twist to get stability for the longer 62gr SS109/855 bullets. (and the longer yet tracer bullets)
Not only are they heavier, they are long for their weight due to not being all lead.
(same reason Barnes bullets are long for their weight - no lead)
-
Not exactly correct.
The author is comparing apples to God knows what and should have applied more research and common sense into his article.
1 in 14" is OK for stabilizing a 55gr bullet, *until* you get to below freezing temps as noted.
Current Remington .223 varmint rifles have 1 in 12 and do just fine with bullets up to 64gr. {{{cough cough bullshit!! cough }}}
Doesn't guarantee anything since ALL bullets do this...from 22lr to 16" Iowa class guns.
In order for there to be zero yaw, the bullet, barrel, chamber, i.e. everything would have to be made absolutely PERFECT with NO +/- variation at all....and that hasn't happened yet.
Impact velocity has more to do with the tumbling and/or fragmentation of a fmj bullet than rifling twist ever did. They went to a faster twist to get stability for the longer 62gr SS109/855 bullets. (and the longer yet tracer bullets)
Not only are they heavier, they are long for their weight due to not being all lead.
(same reason Barnes bullets are long for their weight - no lead)
Can't argue with that, but would a bullet with greater instability be more likely to tumble after impact than one as stable as possible?
Also, it is not a good idea to change the design to work better in zero temps when you are currently fighting in the jungle. That may have been the reason, but it was stupid. Like issuing arctic clothing to wear fight in the jungle.
-
Can't argue with that, but would a bullet with greater instability be more likely to tumble after impact than one as stable as possible?
Also, it is not a good idea to change the design to work better in zero temps when you are currently fighting in the jungle. That may have been the reason, but it was stupid. Like issuing arctic clothing to wear fight in the jungle.
It would be equally stupid to make it so the bullets are only stable in 100 degree heat, especially when there was a chance of fighting the soviets in winter. The bullets have to be stable at any temperature and it takes a 1:7" twist to stabilize the tracers now in use. If it wasn't for those long tracers a 1:9" twist would work.
-
It would be equally stupid to make it so the bullets are only stable in 100 degree heat, especially when there was a chance of fighting the soviets in winter. The bullets have to be stable at any temperature and it takes a 1:7" twist to stabilize the tracers now in use. If it wasn't for those long tracers a 1:9" twist would work.
How difficult would it be to do it right and have two barrels and to bullet weights so none of the troops had to fight with an inferior weapon?
To me, anything less is what is stupid
-
Can't argue with that, but would a bullet with greater instability be more likely to tumble after impact than one as stable as possible?
FMJs will tumble. If the velocity is high enough you also get the desired fragmentation. WITH fragmentation you get a MUCH larger perm. wound channel. They won't do the damage they are supposed to if they don't fragment, only bullet sized permanent wound cavities.
The jacket thickness and placement of the cannelure helps or hinders it's ability to fragment.
The problems occured (IMHO) when bullets were spec'd to penetrate a 10 gauge steel test plate (simulation of a helmet) at a range of at least 570 meters (623 yards). They are *supposed* to be doing at least 3000fps from a 20" barrel. (measured 78ft! from muzzle)
Add heavier bullet (62gr vs 55gr) + shorter M4 barrel (lower velocity) = a bullet that is going too slow to fragment at longer range.
Fine if you're in a house, not so fine if BG is 400+ meters away on Sh!tholistan Mt.
Also, it is not a good idea to change the design to work better in zero temps when you are currently fighting in the jungle. That may have been the reason, but it was stupid. Like issuing arctic clothing to wear fight in the jungle.
All that did was provide better stability through air. The terminal effects didn't change at all. The bullets were still 55gr, the barrels were still 20" long and they were still hauling ass.
With typical govt efficiency, if they had 2 main issue weapons, someone would get M16s in the arctic and pallets of 7.62 to feed them...
-
Gee, I guess my assertion that a .223 doesn't belong on the list of best rifles. ;D
Maybe that's why people who actually used them in combat developed the 6.5, 6.8, and .300 Blackout.
Of course you realize that Stoner's original design was a .308 ?
-
I think a lot of this is the fact the armed forces have gotten away from teaching and stressing marksmanship over the years. Yes, they still teach it, but not with anywhere near the emphasis they used to. It's much the same with police officers today. A well placed .223 / 5.56 MM round will have devastating effects. But the shooter has to be able to place it.
I would fear a well seasoned marksman with a .223, far more than I would a boot camp graduate with a .308, who never held a weapon, let alone shot one until 3 months previous.
-
As usual the military tried to address and fix the problems of the previous war. (thinking VN here)
Which is understandable since they can't see into the future either. Nothing has changed in that dept since the ammo was rocks and wooden spears.
Korea had human wave attacks and with the 30cal weapons, the loadout of ammo was heavy.
The only REAL effective response to those attacks was belt feds (if you had the ammo and spare barrels), a metric crapload of grenades or artillery, when they could get it. The mass of attacking Chicom cannnon fodder exposed that the less ammo the grunt can carry the faster he is out of the fight.
More ammo per grunt meant it had to be lighter...enter the search for a high speed low weight round.
Meanwhile back at the ranch of Top 5 Combat Rifles.....
If the military would have *not* tried to spec the M14 for full auto, it might have had a longer service life. (yes I know it's still being used in limited roles. Is there a Division armed with them? No.) Trying to make the M14 into a SAW was a failed solution searching for a problem.
Comparing M1 vs M14, a 20rd mag is much better than an 8rd clip but you still have a heavy loadout.
-
Gee, I guess my assertion that a .223 doesn't belong on the list of best rifles. ;D
Maybe that's why people who actually used them in combat developed the 6.5, 6.8, and .300 Blackout.
Of course you realize that Stoner's original design was a .308 ?
You're correct. It is NOT a rifle cartridge. It is an under powered intermediate round. If the military wanted such a round why did they go to the bother to create a new one? The 22-250 is a better round.
Using a 55grain soft point in both and Remington ballistics with the muzzle being 'zero', the numbers at 250 yards are as follows;
fps me drop
223 2099 538 -13.99
22-250 2431 722 -10.67
-
How difficult would it be to do it right and have two barrels and to bullet weights so none of the troops had to fight with an inferior weapon?
To me, anything less is what is stupid
Considering the fact that operators and unit armorers can't change barrels it wouldn't be time efficient. You would have maybe 3-4 small arms repairmen that would have to change every barrel in a brigade sized unit. Meanwhile nothing else is getting fixed and believe me there is always a lot of stuff to fix.
-
Considering the fact that operators and unit armorers can't change barrels it wouldn't be time efficient. You would have maybe 3-4 small arms repairmen that would have to change every barrel in a brigade sized unit. Meanwhile nothing else is getting fixed and believe me there is always a lot of stuff to fix.
I don't see that unit armorer would need to change barrels. You unit deploys with the barrel needed equipped for the local in which it will be operating and are resupplied with the correct version.
It would be an inventory management problem and staffing for that is a better option then letting grunts get killed needlessly.
-
"It would be an inventory management problem" ? ?????
To put it mildly. Organizational cluster *uck would be more accurate. And it would Probably result in troops deploying armed with lowers only.
-
"It would be an inventory management problem" ? ?????
To put it mildly. Organizational cluster *uck would be more accurate. And it would Probably result in troops deploying armed with lowers only.
Sounds like an improvement to me.
With only lowers, they would not be sent into combat with ineffective weapons.
-
I'm late to this, but I would make a change to the list. I would replace the 1903 Springfield with the FN-FAL. JMHO