The Greatest Combat Rifle Ever Made

[tINY]

The M14 got caught in the middle.

It's an wonderful semi-auto battle rifle. But the MP38/40 changed military tactics about 10 years before the trials.

Unless you are using supressive fire for "shoot and scoot" manuvers, I'd still take an M14 over an m16 (though an AR10 might be a good middle ground).




-tINY

 

[Ian2005]

Thoughts

Well I think this question is more a battle over semantics- "Battle" rifle vs. "Assault" rifle. WWI /II was of course the days of fighting over the rolling hills of Germany, the fields of Italy, the plains of _______ where men with their M1 took shots at the enemy utilizing their battle rifle. Today’s army uses assault rifles to storm buildings, fight from street corners, shoot from rooftops, etc. There's no trench warfare here folks, its all up close and in your face. So the question inherently brings a generational gap in warfare, the older crew will say the M1 / Garand, the younger will choose the AK-47, because that’s all we've ever seen in the enemy's hands throughout the years.
Asking what is the greatest weapon of all time is almost the same as asking what your favorite weapon is, there’s too much bias in there. Each weapon has its own merits and flaws.

 

[STLRN]

Ian

It not exactly that way or wasn't back than. The nature of warfare changed in the 1st World War, they went from close order battle tactics to open order battle tactics, hence the ability to delivery effective long range fire was greatly reduced. The problem is many "gun" people never realized this, similar to during the Civil war when they failed to realize rifle fire made most close order battle tactics obsolete.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Basically echoing what STLRN said -- to those who claim the Garand was the ideal rifle for how we fought wars back then . . . we didn't actually fight them that way back then, either.

Various people (including people within the US military) had already figured out that infantry rarely engage beyond 300 meters or so by the end of World War One, when the machinegun, indirect fire, and airpower had mandated everybody wear uniforms basically the color of mud and disperse as much as possible to survive exposure on the battlefield when up out of the trenches.

Consequently, .30 caliber full power rifle rounds were more round than was needed for the way combat really happened by 1917 and 1918. During the interwar years, the US military looked at a lot of smaller rounds (down to .25 caliber) that look, performance-wise, a lot like modern assault rifle rounds, including the .276 caliber round the Garand was originally designed to fire.

The 30-06 Garand was by no means an ideal weapon for the way combat was fought in those days, or for the technology of the era (whatever George Patton might have said on the matter). It was, however, a better weapon for how war was fought back then (and how it is fought now) than its bolt action contemporaries and it was fielded in massive quantities, and is justifiably famous because of this. It left some things to be desired, but was better than the alternatives.

 

[tINY]

For street fighting in europe and the thick jungles in parts of the south pacific, I'm inclined to believe you. That's why the model 12 and the Thompson were popular.

But, for beach landings, taking hilltops and advancing up to the Rhine, the full power semi-autos would be much better than an asault rifle. Remember that supplies like gasoline were in short supply and conserving ammo was important.




-tINY

 

[HorseSoldier]

US troops in WW2 were not particularly known for conserving ammunition. World War 2 was where recon by fire was born, etc.

If anything, a smaller and lighter round like .276 Pedersen would have (slightly) reduced the logistics burden. It also would have had 10 rounds in the gun rather than 8 and still packed a lethal punch at combat ranges (1700-1800 ft/lbs of muzzle energy compared to 2500 for 30-06 M2 ball and 1325 for 5.56mm ball). The logistical advantage would be minimal at the big picture level (though larger basic load per joe at the user end), though, since various other expendables like artillery ammunition dwarfed the logisitcs burden of small arms ammo for personal weapons.

 

[STLRN]

Tiny
The majority of combat engagements in the ETO were under 100 meters, with very few shots even attempted beyond 300 meters. That is one of the facts of life that military men have had to accept since they realization in World War 1 that advanced against fixed lines defended by machine gun, rifle and indirect fire was suicidal. Once troops broke down into small packages, didn't stand shoulder to shoulder and advanced in bounds, the ability to hit them at extended range almost disappeared.

Ask yourself this would you just stand there across an open field and let someone shoot at you without at least making it hard for them? Men tend to hide from fire and attempt to not get shot.

 

[tINY]

Two things come to mind here:

The 30-06 does a pretty good job of turning cover into concealment when compared to 223, 7.62x39, and the 1940's options of 12 gauge and 45acp. All this and a crew of one....

The other thing that comes to mind is harrasment. You can pin down guys at 600+ yards if you are reasonably accurate at those distances (so that the mortar team can get set-up, or whatever).

And, yes, most of WW2 in Europe was fought with larger weapons when distances exceeded 100 yards or so. At least that is what I read. But, I believe the South Pacific Islands were a different story.





-tINY

 

[joshua]

I actually did some research on this. The greatest combat rifle ever made is actually made in France. Those darn Frenchies are very good. josh

 

[STLRN]

The other thing that comes to mind is harrasment. You can pin down guys at 600+ yards if you are reasonably accurate at those distances (so that the mortar team can get set-up, or whatever).

You can suppress at that distance with both the M4 and A4 and can suppress a target out to 1000 meters with a SAW.

 

[bdcochran]

Yes. First a couple of weapon identifications. Then the philosophy.

1. T26 Garand in .308 with forward scope mount, Smith rings and scout scope.

2. Skeletonized, battleship gray Ruger 10.22 magnum rifle with forward scope mount on the barrel, and scout scope.

Why no. 1 - optics work at times when the human eye fail - low light and looking into shadows at high noon. A forward scope mount allows running shots and avoids helmets, eye glasses. More effective round at longer range than 30-06.

Why no. 2. - optics, same comment. Most combat is urban and 100 yards or less - across the street, building to building. Extremely light weight. Terminal ballistics comparable to .223 at 100 yards. 1000 rounds fit into two linked Garand web belts if you use the Winchester 40s in cardboard boxes. The belts go over the shoulder. Best of all - Volq. and Pro-mag represent that they will come out with high cap mags this year.

 

[robertbank]

Surprised at the number of votes for the M-14, might be the home crowd voting. The M 14 finished a poor second in US Army trials back in the 50's to the FN FAL, a rifle adopted by the Canadian Army among others. While the M 14 carried well and certainly did yoeman service confronting the BG along the Berlin wall but when it went to war in Vietnam it failed badly against a suppier weapon.

As far as the best battle rifle of all time - based upon years of service I would give the nod to the Lee Enfield and it's various marks. Certainly suppier to the Springfield and the equal to the P-14/P17 of an earlier period. From the latter part of WW11 and on to Korea the M1 was certainly the most effective rifle in the West.

Take Care

Bob

 

[tINY]

I think that the "superior weapon" depends very much on the application. In dense jungles, the AK-47 has a lot going for it.

In the high desert mountains, I think I like something like the M14 or even the M1 Garand have a lot to like.

For fighting in the coastal cities of western Canada, the P90 is a pretty good choice.....

The best ever made was the breech loader that the brittish decided not to buy in the late 1700's.... Good thing too!



-tINY

 

[robertbank]

tINY

"For fighting in the coastal cities of western Canada, the P90 is a pretty good choice....."

Cameras are better all things considered.

Take Care

Bob

 

[shield20]

The best rifle for its time has got to be the M1. 1st succesful military-capable self-loader in a major caliber, GREAT sights, few parts, great strength, super reliable, didn’t need lubricated/waxed ammo. Approved in ’36, its success ensured the US was the only particpant in WW2 with a SA primary-issue rifle. Only a couple major/minor design changes over 25 years of primary service in extreme climates/conditions. What Garand accomplished when no one else could is amazing. Basically the same gun with less beef and a round counter in .276 must have been real sweet shooting!

What Johnson did in such a short time a few years later has also got to be seen as a great accomplishment. I think his ’41 rifle with a bit more attention could have been really awesome too – semi-auto, clip fed or free round charged 10rnd rotary magazine, quick-removable barrel, lightweight receiver, lightweight overall, simplistic “machine shop” build, accurate, major caliber, a bolt that locked into the barrel extension...

As for overall best rifle ever? Hmmm…I’ll get back to ya!

 

[prime8]

Hk G3

Doesnt keep the bolt back after the last round, and it throws shells 15 yards, but still my 1st choice.

 

[MacGille]

USSR distributed millions of AKs throughout the third world to help foment their revolution. It is popular because it is cheap, and available (around $50.00) and is full automatic. Untrained folks can expect to hit something if they shoot enough rounds in any given direction. :barf: This is the same thinking that the US used when they changed from a rifle to a squirrel gun in the 1960s. Apparently it is cheaper to buy a lot of ammunition than to train your soldiers to shoot. The 5.56MM is popular because it is cheap, reasonably accurate (though short range) and available to all of our allies and sycophants. I know that the .22 will go 600 meters, but when it gets there it is exhausted and lies down to rest. At 50 feet against thin skinned targets, it creates devastating wounds. Unless one is using the penetrator round, then it's like a mosquito bite. The target may die, but he may kill you before he does. People talk about terrain or cover or desert or jungle. we have to be ready for anywhere, anywhen. A real rifle will serve anywhere (7.62x51MM) with good effect. If the ammo is too heavy for you maybe you should join the girl scouts. Incidentally I carried an M60 with 400 rds of ammo plus my field gear and pistol.(.45 thank you). I am not a superman, but I had to train for the weight and endurance if I was going to survive. I feel sorry for the guys in the Army now who go into battle from their civilian jobs, without training and armed with a squirrel gun.

 

[SR420]

I love the Garand, it is the 1st rifle I learned to shoot, however...

My vote for the Greatest Combat Rifle ever made goes to the M14.
The M14 never had the chance to live up to its fullest capabilities until it went to war in Iraq and A-stan.

The M14 is America's Greatest Combat Rifle.

 

[perpster]

MacGille: VERY well said. I couldn't agree more. We should go back to 30.06 or .308 (and .45 for handguns) in the military.

SR420: I agree on the M-14, but I'll have to settle for my M1 Garand for the forseeable future.

 

[HorseSoldier]

The M14 was a failure as a service rifle, mostly a failure as a sniper rifle and a debatably good enough stop-gap as a designated marksmans rifle. It seems primarily notable for having been found inadequate in more roles than any other military rifle I can think of, but that's about it.