Greatest All around battle rifle?
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
I think the Germans really had something in the 1898 Mauser and it's descendents. I think, over all, the Mauser 98 action is really something.
General Patton liked the M1 "Garand". It's hard to refute that.
Some say the No. 1, Mk III Lee-Enfield should take the prize. I have a No. 4, Mk 1, and it's okay, but it's not a Mauser.
Did I mention the 1898 Mauser?
------------------
If God didn't want us to own guns, why did He make the 1911?
General Patton liked the M1 "Garand". It's hard to refute that.
Some say the No. 1, Mk III Lee-Enfield should take the prize. I have a No. 4, Mk 1, and it's okay, but it's not a Mauser.
Did I mention the 1898 Mauser?
------------------
If God didn't want us to own guns, why did He make the 1911?
The AK47 isn't a battle rifle, it's an assault rifle. A battle rifle would fire a full-power rifle cartridge such as the 308 or 30-06.
If you meant the actual meaning of battle rifle, the greatest one IMHO is the FN FAL.
If you mean general-issue military rifle, I would go with the M16A2.
------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure
If you meant the actual meaning of battle rifle, the greatest one IMHO is the FN FAL.
If you mean general-issue military rifle, I would go with the M16A2.
------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure
Joined
·
73,831 Posts
My vote goes for the FN-FAL. 7.62 power, superb ergonomics, flawless reliability. I'd own one myself if it wasn't for blowing all my money on 1911s.
![]()
------------------
D. Kamm
USGI M1911/M1911A1 Pistols Website
http://usgi1911.tripod.com
------------------
D. Kamm
USGI M1911/M1911A1 Pistols Website
http://usgi1911.tripod.com
Joined
·
345 Posts
Galil ARM in 5.56. 2nd choice would be a
M-16A2.
Now as to battle rifle/assault rifle confusion. If I change the Galil to .308/7.62, does that now make it a battle rifle? Or change the M-16 to .308/7.62 and call it a AR-10, is it now a battle rifle?
Now, if I take an M-1 Garand or M-14 and convert them both to .223/5.56. Does it now make them assault rifles instead of battle rifles? I'm confused.
M-16A2.
Now as to battle rifle/assault rifle confusion. If I change the Galil to .308/7.62, does that now make it a battle rifle? Or change the M-16 to .308/7.62 and call it a AR-10, is it now a battle rifle?
Now, if I take an M-1 Garand or M-14 and convert them both to .223/5.56. Does it now make them assault rifles instead of battle rifles? I'm confused.
Joined
·
469 Posts
You can make an M1 full auto. Don't know why you'd want to but they could do it back in the day with a file and some free time.
The thing is, the M14 isn't very useful on full auto, so I doubt the Garand would be. I wouldn't particulary want to use a FAL on auto either. The option is nice to have, of course.
The point of a battle rifle, though, is to have a weapon accurate and powerful enough to put a single round into each target and quickly move on to the next. Thus assault rifles don't qualify - too little power and too much temptation to spray aimlessly. Bolt rifles are a tad bit slower than semiauto rifles, so why use them when you have the choice? I'd go into a modern battle with an M14 but not a 98k. The latter has more of a sniper application.
I advocate assault rifles like the AK and the M16/M4 for CQB, MOUT, and other special applications but I'm not sure if the move away from the full-power cartridge was a good idea for the regular infantry.
The thing is, the M14 isn't very useful on full auto, so I doubt the Garand would be. I wouldn't particulary want to use a FAL on auto either. The option is nice to have, of course.
The point of a battle rifle, though, is to have a weapon accurate and powerful enough to put a single round into each target and quickly move on to the next. Thus assault rifles don't qualify - too little power and too much temptation to spray aimlessly. Bolt rifles are a tad bit slower than semiauto rifles, so why use them when you have the choice? I'd go into a modern battle with an M14 but not a 98k. The latter has more of a sniper application.
I advocate assault rifles like the AK and the M16/M4 for CQB, MOUT, and other special applications but I'm not sure if the move away from the full-power cartridge was a good idea for the regular infantry.
Battle rifle (as per definition stated earlier), toss up to me between M-1 Garand and it's offspring the M-14.
Assualt rifle the M-16A2
now if i had to chose one of the three above to carry into combat as a standard infantry troop, I'd pick the M-16A2. three things: it's lighter, it's More ergonomic for use Eg. the safety, mag release, ect. are placed so as to ease and speed their use under stress., and lastly you can haul a considerably larger store of ammo for the same weight consideration.
Say what you will of the gun. it's Designer was a genius. all the M-16's problems came to be AFTER it's development left Eugene stoner's hands, (the deletion of the chome barrel liner, Colt's decision to market the rifle to the army as self-cleaning, and the decision of the army to use the old slower burning Ball powder) even with as many nay-sayers as it's had since it's origins, it is STILL in service and is the longest serving US issue longarm.
Assualt rifle the M-16A2
now if i had to chose one of the three above to carry into combat as a standard infantry troop, I'd pick the M-16A2. three things: it's lighter, it's More ergonomic for use Eg. the safety, mag release, ect. are placed so as to ease and speed their use under stress., and lastly you can haul a considerably larger store of ammo for the same weight consideration.
Say what you will of the gun. it's Designer was a genius. all the M-16's problems came to be AFTER it's development left Eugene stoner's hands, (the deletion of the chome barrel liner, Colt's decision to market the rifle to the army as self-cleaning, and the decision of the army to use the old slower burning Ball powder) even with as many nay-sayers as it's had since it's origins, it is STILL in service and is the longest serving US issue longarm.
Joined
·
246 Posts
If by greatest you mean the most effective in actual use, I would have to vote for the M1 Garand. In actual numbers used in combat, it qualifies as "The greatest battle implement ever devised"!
If we are speaking historically; I would be tempted to go with the Mausers, starting with the M 1888 "Commission Rifle" to the 1898. Because they had (arguably) the greatest impact in the dawn of modern warfare/history.
But the M1 had a similar impact - albeit later on. So I would be hard pressed to pick one over the other.
But the M1 had a similar impact - albeit later on. So I would be hard pressed to pick one over the other.
I don't know how many respondents have extensive use with a variety of battle rifles in combat; I certainly have not.
However, a friend and instructor of mine has had such experience, and his views surprised me. He said that outside 125 yards, he preferred the M-14, which usually has better accuracy and a better trigger than the alternatives. (My FAL does 2 moa with ball ammo, which is pretty good, but the trigger is horrible.)
However, he surprised me by saying that the vast majority of combat is inside 125 yards, and up close he has had about as many failures to stop the enemy with the M-14 as with the M-16. He prefers the M-16 for general duty use, since it is as effective and much lighter, as is the ammo.
He advised me to set up my AR-15 with the AimPoint on a flat top receiver and a 16" barrel. He said this is the arrangement his Marine Force Recon boys have settled on for durability and effectiveness, and they can have anything they want.
Whether or not the AR-15 meets someone's definition of a battle rifle is irrelevant -- it works.
However, a friend and instructor of mine has had such experience, and his views surprised me. He said that outside 125 yards, he preferred the M-14, which usually has better accuracy and a better trigger than the alternatives. (My FAL does 2 moa with ball ammo, which is pretty good, but the trigger is horrible.)
However, he surprised me by saying that the vast majority of combat is inside 125 yards, and up close he has had about as many failures to stop the enemy with the M-14 as with the M-16. He prefers the M-16 for general duty use, since it is as effective and much lighter, as is the ammo.
He advised me to set up my AR-15 with the AimPoint on a flat top receiver and a 16" barrel. He said this is the arrangement his Marine Force Recon boys have settled on for durability and effectiveness, and they can have anything they want.
Whether or not the AR-15 meets someone's definition of a battle rifle is irrelevant -- it works.
I would feel safer having the standard, mechanical, A2 rear sight elevation disk and FSP. Those Aimpoint sights would be ok for SWAT and CQB, but I wouldn't want them out patrolling in the bush. That piece of plastic with it's battery operated sight would go out when Murphy struck. Then you don't have a sight at all.
Most people opt for these types of sights on their AR-15s and such. If people would learn how to use the standard A2 sights, they would find that they are very accurate and reliable. Guess you have to root it up for the marketing bubbas for this feeling that one needs as improved sight system for a gun that only needs operator TRNG and skill to fire effectively.
------------------
If you don't mind being where you are, you are not lost.
Joined
·
3,113 Posts
Pat Rogers favors the Aimpoint Comp M2 and has a great deal of experience with these sorts of sights under difficult conditions. The single-plane, parallax-free nature of the sight facilitates use in the various improvised and/or non-traditional shooting positions that can be helpful in utilizing cover.
Being a believer in Murphy, I think the rifle should have backup iron sights. The optic should also be quick-detachable in case the lens' become muddied, fogged, or broken. That is, one should not count on being able to use his backup iron sights through the optic's tube.
It is counterproductive to just decry a lack of training and skill when there are inexpensive "hardware" fixes that will allow more of one's people to hit effectively. If they can hit effectively, then they will enagage targets, rather than just hunkering down.
As to the battery issue (Rogers terms it "batteryphobia"); there are batteries in much of the stuff that the modern soldier must rely on...communications, GPS units, night vision devices, his vehicles, and so forth. If we are postulating a post-apocalyptic "Mad Max" kind of scenario, then I share your concern about batteries.
Rosco
Being a believer in Murphy, I think the rifle should have backup iron sights. The optic should also be quick-detachable in case the lens' become muddied, fogged, or broken. That is, one should not count on being able to use his backup iron sights through the optic's tube.
It is counterproductive to just decry a lack of training and skill when there are inexpensive "hardware" fixes that will allow more of one's people to hit effectively. If they can hit effectively, then they will enagage targets, rather than just hunkering down.
As to the battery issue (Rogers terms it "batteryphobia"); there are batteries in much of the stuff that the modern soldier must rely on...communications, GPS units, night vision devices, his vehicles, and so forth. If we are postulating a post-apocalyptic "Mad Max" kind of scenario, then I share your concern about batteries.
Rosco
Well no.
First off, the housings for the Aimpoint Comp M are metal, not plastic, and it is shock proof and water proof.
Second, the Rangers and Special Forces use the Aimpoint for patrolling in the bush and those who I've talked to love it.
Third, I've used it in some pretty nasty conditions in the swamps on my buddy's ranch and it works great, particularly in low light conditions.
Fourth, you do indeed have sights because the Army and prudent individuals who mount the sight on a flattop also mount a flip up rear sight that can be used through the Aimpoint. For fixed carry handle ARs/M16ss, there is a mount for the Aimpoint that allows the use of the A2 sights AND the Aimpoint. Also, for CQB, the Aimpoint even without the dot on makes a good close range sight.
It is probably the best all-around combat sight made right now.
------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!