Top Ten Combat Rifles, according to the Military Channel

I would feel that the M1 Garand should be higher on the list as it was an excellent weapon in its time. The M-14 is a very effective weapon and does deserve a spot on the list. I think that the SKS and M-N should be added, yet i am not sure which they would replace.
 
The SKS and French MAS 49/56---should replace any bolt action listed.

And if you are going to include bolt actions---the Remington made US sniper rifle should be it.
 
it wasnt about sniper rifles.

imho the brown bess shoulda been on the list, mauser shoulda been higher, what about the first repeaters like the spencer?
 
My Springfield for a bolt action and the Fal for on automatic will easely outperform the others for quality,reliabity and precision on longer distances and in bad weather.At 500 yards an AK47 is no match for them.And Lee Enfield against a Mauser, that are two different classes,objectivity?
 
Hey Guys...

I'd agree pretty much with that...

I would have figured the FAL would have been a little higher though..
I had two of them, and one was a "G" series Awesome rifles.

I was a C2 gunner in the reserves, and don't miss hauling that thing around though... LOL

ttyle

Eric
O/ST
 
I was with the front line troops at the Soviet border and the Fal with snow,cold ,abuse performs well.A 308 is still a bullet,223 is for me a toy.The English bull pup toy was called,the two shot rifle, that was the maximum number of shots it could fire/In the Falkland war they took the Fals out of reserve because :wind and long distances are a disaster for a 223
 
This was discussed over at TFL also. I think the key to picking a coherent top ten is a set of objective criteria.

Battles won, # of enemy killed, kill/loss ratio, number fielded, length of time in front line service, etc.

The omission of the mosin is somewhat glaring, and the .308 caliber rifles remain another discussion. Someone else might chime in with the story behind that cartridge and its ensuing platforms.
 
Gentlemen, you cannot have it both ways. The concept of the main battle rifle and the assault rifle are mutually exclusive. The main battle rifle requires a full-power cartidge of 7.62x51mm or similar designation. This means that it will have roughly the power of the old .30-06, the British .303 Enfield, or the 7.92x57mm Mauser rounds. It must have that power to realiably reach the sorts of ranges at which main battle rifles are sometimes expected to be used. The assault rifle, on the other hand, was intended to be a relatively short range weapon that was capable of fully automatic fire. It fires either a shorter, less powerful, version of the standard round, as in the 7.62x39mm Russian used in the AK-47 and its variants, or a lighter weight, very high velocity round such as the 5.56x45mm round used in the M-16 and eventually adopted by NATO.

The problem with using a full-power round in what is intended to be an assault rifle was best illustrated in the M-14 and the FAL when they were used on fully-automatic fire. They were nearly uncontrollable due to the recoil and vibration of those full-powered rounds in a light rifle weight weapon. In order the control the weapons, the version of the FAL intended for fully automatic fire was basically converted into a BAR type ot weapon in order to control the recoil and vibration problems. The M-14 was never seriously considered in its full automatic role, as far as I know, even though there were various versions produced to accomplish that function.

Deovolens, any rifle, when first introduced to combat will show problems not encountered in the most strenuous of testing. This was true even of the fabled M-1 Garand when it first saw combat in the South Pacific and was true of it right up until the end of its production. One example of that was the "en bloc" 8-round clip that weas required to load and to fire it. Ask any combat veteran of WWII how awkward the sound of that clip ejecting was during a fire-fight. It is my understanding that the British bullpup rifle has been pretty well debugged by now and is considered reliable by the troops using it. Please see http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm for the details. The question of the range is a matter of the size and weight of the bullet being fired, fir which please see above.
 
Bronco said:
Where the hell did they come up with 1960 as the introduction date for the Steyr AUG? That's got to be at least 15 to 20 years too early. And while I love the rifle and would be thrilled to own one, as far as this list is concerned, has it really seen that much combat time in the hands of regular infantrymen?
Click to expand...

I agree. According to Wilipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_Aug

1977.
It is way better than the M16. Own an AUG, and 20 years qualifying with m16A1

Paul
 
Posted by FullerH:

Ask any combat veteran of WWII how awkward the sound of that clip ejecting was during a fire-fight.
Click to expand...

Let's drive a stake through the heart of this right here and now. For the Garand clip to eject, the rifleman must have just fired the last round. I would submit that the report of a .30-06 round being fired pretty much cancels out the relatively minor noise of the clip being ejected. Slide lock is never a good thing when you need bullets, but it does happen (unless you're using an AK, where you get that wonderful trigger pull on an empty chamber). Worse than the ejecting clip is the manual of arms that is more awkward and less rewarding (fewer rounds) than a box magazine fed rifle.
 
Yeah, that story about the sound of the clip falling on frozen ground letting the enemy know you were empty is utter nonsense. You might not have an M1 clip handy but take a large nail or any piece of scrap metal you have around and drop it on frozen ground ... drop it on rock ... try different kinds of rock to see if you can make a louder noise ... if it's real quiet you might be able to hear it as far as ten feet away, and that's without shooting off a rifle immediately beforehand.

I can't imagine how that story got started, or why anybody repeated it.
 
deovolens said:
And Lee Enfield against a Mauser, that are two different classes,objectivity?
Click to expand...
The 98 is probbaly inherently more accurate, but that was small consolation to the German dead at Mons. They were probably more impressed (if only briefly) by the significantly higher rate of fire of the SMLE. The 98, of course, has a "stronger" action , but the SMLE action proved to be strong enough to keep killing for three generations. Looks don't count

But I'd rather have my FAL. :thumbup:

And is not the lineage Stg44-CETME-HK91? Same lock, same general configuration, and shared members of the design teams?
 
IMHO, the M-16 shouldn't even be on this list; and the AK-47 needs to be knocked down a few notches based solely upon the retarded design of the magazine well -- if you're reloading under stress, it's possible to insert the magazine into the well incorrectly, resulting in a failure to feed as well as a jammed magazine. Most other assault rifles have been idiot-proofed better.
 
Hmmmmm......I'm glad to see the Fal made the list but I would like to see it a little higher. :)
SKS should be there, Stg 44 should not.
The M14 really is just a product improvement on the M1, and I believe it is a good one. Unfortunately it was sold a little too hard. IIRC it was touted as the ulimate solution to logistic issues for the following reasons.
1. Common ammo with the machine guns. (M60)
2. Larger magazine capacity.
3. Automatic fired allowd it to replace not only the M1 but also the BAR and SMG.
In reality it was only fit to replace the M1.
Also, IIRC, then orginal intent with full-auto capibility was increase the amount of supressing fire that could been generated while moving.
For those not familar with firearms and the tactics of that era, the name of the game was fire and maneuver. The enemy would be engaged, their postion would be "fixed" by fire, literally pouring enough fire onto them to make movement difficult, while another unit maneuvered into postion to destroy them. (This is a gross simplification of the tactic)
With full auto rifles a unit could more effectively "fix" a target for a short period.
Also, there was study conducted by the Army durring the Korean war that suggested a change of theory. Many soldiers would not fire until the enemy was within 200m.......might have been less than that. Combine that with human wave attacks and close in night fighting and you have even more reasons for full auto.
Having stated all of that, MBRs and ARs make poor LMGs, or SMGs for that matter.
Now when we start seeing more assault rifles that can fire a burst before the recoil impulse moves the barrel............
 
Cougar, I read you loud and clear, but my comment was based upon the experience of my father and uncle in the ETO during WWII. Both were officers and both carried M-1s with thei .45 1911A1s in shoulder holsters as that made them rather less of a target for German snipers. They both told me that they had problems in firefights with clip popping out. They never specified the exact nature of the problems, just that it was a problem. They did, however, like the fact that the bolt locked back until you inserted a new clip. I was also told the same thing by sergeants down at VMI who were veterans of Korea and, some senior ones, of WWII.
 
At Mons the English professional army performed well but a few days later this army was almost decimated by the Germans.This was the first time they had to fight against the worlds most powerfull army by far.Our (Belgian)Mauser the first of all of course (1989) did a good job during the 4 years mud and water treatment.Thanks valiant Englishmen for helping us then.We must have been "mad" after the German ultimatum to oppose our very little army against the Kaisers troops.
 
They both told me that they had problems in firefights with clip popping out. They never specified the exact nature of the problems, just that it was a problem.
Click to expand...

Well, there was the reality that you couldn't do a tactical reload (reload before you went empty).
 
Well, there was the reality that you couldn't do a tactical reload (reload before you went empty).
Click to expand...

You can eject the partly empty clip and whatever ammo is in it and then reload, but your ejected ammo will be all over the place.

As I said before, I cannot see how the ejecting clip can be a problem. If, in the middle of a fight, the clip is empty and ejecting, the rifleman had better be reaching for more ammo or a secondary weapon, not listening to it hit the deck.
 
deovolens said:
At Mons the English professional army performed well but a few days later this army was almost decimated by the Germans.This was the first time they had to fight against the worlds most powerfull army by far.Our (Belgian)Mauser the first of all of course (1989) did a good job during the 4 years mud and water treatment.Thanks valiant Englishmen for helping us then.We must have been "mad" after the German ultimatum to oppose our very little army against the Kaisers troops.
Click to expand...
At Mons, the Germans thought that every British Tommy was equipped with a machine gun because their sustained rate of fire was so great with the SMLE rifles.

As an aside, the Springfield 1903 was nothing more nor less than a Mauser Model 98 made in the USA. We actually paid the Mauser factory for patent rights until WWI, when we siezed the patents as enemy property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top