The Greatest Combat Rifle Ever Made
- Thread starter surg_res
- Start date
support_six
New member
surg_res, when you complete your residency are you going to reregister as "plas_surg", or "radiologist", or "OR_doc"?
An Item in the category "Greatest" is only valid in it's own time, before technology makes it obsolete. The M1 "was" the greatest battle rifle of WWII and probably Korea, but very quickly became obsolete before VietNam. I will stick my neck out and profer the M16 platform as greatest currently (donning nomex underwear!) There are many good "also-rans" (now donning my kevlar).
An Item in the category "Greatest" is only valid in it's own time, before technology makes it obsolete. The M1 "was" the greatest battle rifle of WWII and probably Korea, but very quickly became obsolete before VietNam. I will stick my neck out and profer the M16 platform as greatest currently (donning nomex underwear!) There are many good "also-rans" (now donning my kevlar).
OR_doc... Hmmm, I'll keep that one in mind!
As for the rifles, I'm just curious which, if any, of the current bunch would earn that designation? There are a lot of fine weapons today, however, not one seems to have it all: power, range, accuracy, reliability and capacity.
Although the role of small arms has significantly changed in modern warfare, is the firepower from newer weapons actually that much better, or is the lethality of a modern infantry due in large part to secondary support?
As for the rifles, I'm just curious which, if any, of the current bunch would earn that designation? There are a lot of fine weapons today, however, not one seems to have it all: power, range, accuracy, reliability and capacity.
Although the role of small arms has significantly changed in modern warfare, is the firepower from newer weapons actually that much better, or is the lethality of a modern infantry due in large part to secondary support?
Chaingunner
New member
THIS one again, eh?
It's kinda heavy, but I still say the Mk14 (that is, an M14 dropped into an EBR stock from Sage; the EBR adds a pistol grip, collapsable stock and more accessory rails than you really need)...
It's kinda heavy, but I still say the Mk14 (that is, an M14 dropped into an EBR stock from Sage; the EBR adds a pistol grip, collapsable stock and more accessory rails than you really need)...
Limeyfellow
New member
Secondary support was an important part back in WW2. We had the BAR laying down supressive fire, submachineguns being used to lay down a rate of fire. This was part of the fireteams that were needed to let the Garand or any other rifle to do its job.
The Garand was hardly some super weapon however. It was overpowered, its recoil was too harsh and its loading system was already being planned to be outphased half way through the war to a lower magazine. It was outdated as soon as the Stg44 came out in my opinion, except it took time for tactics to catch up.
When it was created it was an alright design for a semi automatic and one of the earlier ones that worked properly, but I never understood Patton describing it as some superweapon anymore than just trying to keep up morale and his own biasedness. It like many things in the military was late to take in effect and was quickly replaced by battle rifles and in time assault rifles and was hardly the only semi automatic being used in the war, as we can include the Gewher 43, the SVT 40, the Johnson and at the end even the SKS that were starting to change the way we would see firearms with intermediate cartridges.
The Garand was hardly some super weapon however. It was overpowered, its recoil was too harsh and its loading system was already being planned to be outphased half way through the war to a lower magazine. It was outdated as soon as the Stg44 came out in my opinion, except it took time for tactics to catch up.
When it was created it was an alright design for a semi automatic and one of the earlier ones that worked properly, but I never understood Patton describing it as some superweapon anymore than just trying to keep up morale and his own biasedness. It like many things in the military was late to take in effect and was quickly replaced by battle rifles and in time assault rifles and was hardly the only semi automatic being used in the war, as we can include the Gewher 43, the SVT 40, the Johnson and at the end even the SKS that were starting to change the way we would see firearms with intermediate cartridges.
At the time, having a standard infantry rifle that was just as powerful and accurate as a Mauser firing semi-auto was a big advantage. So, the M1 was the greatest battle rifle. No - it wasn't a GPMG or a squad automatic (though it did double as a grenade launcher).
It might well still be the greatest battle rifle ever. The M16, Kalashnikov, FAL, and so on are Assault rifles (Sturmgewer if you will). The only other rifle newer than the M1 that you might call a battle rifle is the M14, but the auto capability makes this a bit murky.
-tINY
I said it before, so I might as well say it again
My dad was a WWII vet, and swore by the Springfield .30-06 03-A3. Never shot one myself, so I'm just passing this info along.
http://www.surplusrifle.com/03a3/index.asp
My dad was a WWII vet, and swore by the Springfield .30-06 03-A3. Never shot one myself, so I'm just passing this info along.
http://www.surplusrifle.com/03a3/index.asp
Double Naught Spy
New member
Surely you would not take the word of Patton over Col. Jeff Cooper who felt the Springfield 1903 was the weapon the military should never have gotten away from, the slow rifle before the Garand.
When was the last time we had open field fights as in Europe of WWII and Korea? The Garand sucked for clearning towns or deployment from vehicles by soldiers. It is simply a very long gun compared to more compact versions being used today. Of course, one of the big options available today not available in the past is calling in air support when there is a problem that can't be handled on the ground, so ground soldiers don't all need to be carrying around great big clunky guns.
The Garand is a fine rifle, no doubt, but it was overly big and had that tactically unsound aspect of ejecting a ringing clip that would continue to make noise as it bounced around wooden floors or paved or cobblestone ground.
Jack O'Conner
New member
I'm sure many hunters believe that a semi-auto 30-06 or .308 is ideal for combat. Yet the Soviets learned more about actual battle field conditions than any other nation in history by interviewing severala hundred thousands vets. They concluded that a semi-auto rifle with magazine of 10 or more rounds was ideal. The cartridge they developed was halfway in power between rifle and pistol cartridge. The 7.62 X 39 and Russian SKS were born from these conclusions.
The wide use of trained snipers is another Soviet battle field protocol we have copied.
USA has the M-16 and 5.56mm cartridge. It is very easy to dis-assemble, troubleshoot, and maintain. The rifle is so user-friendly that a person who has never handled a firearm can be trained to be proficent in just one day. Killing power is a subject of much debate. Although I served with USAF for many years I never actually killed anyone. Yet I observed several Republican Guard corpses in Kuwait. Yes, they were killed by M-16 rifle bullets.
Jack
The wide use of trained snipers is another Soviet battle field protocol we have copied.
USA has the M-16 and 5.56mm cartridge. It is very easy to dis-assemble, troubleshoot, and maintain. The rifle is so user-friendly that a person who has never handled a firearm can be trained to be proficent in just one day. Killing power is a subject of much debate. Although I served with USAF for many years I never actually killed anyone. Yet I observed several Republican Guard corpses in Kuwait. Yes, they were killed by M-16 rifle bullets.
Jack
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Gen Patton actually called it the greatest "battle implement" ever devised, IINM. Which is actually a higher comliment, as it is a much broader phrase encompassing more than just small arms. At the time, that was probably true.
Much as I think the Garand was a nice piece of machinery, especially for its time, the all time "best" has to go to the AK-47(and variants). Cheap to produce, used by gazillions all over the world, still manufactured and produced in large quantity. Durable as heck, and effective "enough" for most battle situations.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The Garand is a fine rifle, no doubt, but it was overly big and had that tactically unsound aspect of ejecting a ringing clip that would continue to make noise as it bounced around wooden floors or paved or cobblestone ground."
Let's see.
You're in the middle of a battle, and so is your opponent.
Anyone care to really guess whether or not this was every some sort of major tactical disadvantage?
Hint...
There's absolutely NO evidence to suggest that the sound of an ejecting clip ever was the slightest tactical disadvantage.
Given that you jut fired your last round, your enemy already knows roughly where you are.
If he's close enough to make any sort of mad rush towards you upon hearing your clip eject, his hearing very likely has been affected by either your own muzzle blast, or the sound of the shots that he's pumped at you.
Sorry, I don't buy that old cannard in the least.
Let's see.
You're in the middle of a battle, and so is your opponent.
Anyone care to really guess whether or not this was every some sort of major tactical disadvantage?
Hint...
There's absolutely NO evidence to suggest that the sound of an ejecting clip ever was the slightest tactical disadvantage.
Given that you jut fired your last round, your enemy already knows roughly where you are.
If he's close enough to make any sort of mad rush towards you upon hearing your clip eject, his hearing very likely has been affected by either your own muzzle blast, or the sound of the shots that he's pumped at you.
Sorry, I don't buy that old cannard in the least.
HorseSoldier
New member
I'd say that today you get the same technological overmatch with the AR with rails and optics and other goodies (and the level of modularity it provides) versus the AK -- though various other western ARs provide the same level of overmatch. Admittedly, you can get an AK kitted up similarly, but the bad guys don't seem to have access to such.
It may be a different sort of overmatch -- precision and speed rather than the volume of fire the M1 brought to the table -- but it is definitely the last generation versus the new generation sort of technology imbalance you got with the M1 facing Arisakas and Mausers.
leadcounsel
Moderator
While I don't care for them personally (believe me, I've tried to like them), I'd vote for the AK47 because of it's famed reliaiblity, durability, inexpensive production, and it's by far the most favored battle weapon of the globe for going on 50 years or so. Fires the perfect war caliber. Big enough to stop men reliably, penetrate light armor or cover, not be upset by deflecting off small branches in jungle fighting, and small enough to carry a lot of ammo comfortably.
That is pretty impressive. Used heavily by the Russians, Chinese, Vietnamese, all or the middle east, south American nations, African nations, etc.
That is pretty impressive. Used heavily by the Russians, Chinese, Vietnamese, all or the middle east, south American nations, African nations, etc.