Top 10 Combat Rifles - Do you agree?

[Lonestar.45]

The M14 should be at the very top of the list. #1

Based on what? It's a fine rifle that has been used in specialized roles for nearly it's entire career.

The AK-47 is clearly #1. Produced in more numbers, used by more countries/factions, in service as a front line rifle longer than any other. M16 a close second. Can anyone deny, and if so what's your basis?

 

[SR420]

The M14 should be at the very top of the list. #1

Based on what? It's a fine rifle that has been used in specialized roles for nearly it's entire career.

What better reason is there?

If you base your choice on total production numbers then you must choose the AK-47.
If you base your choice on battlefield application then you can not deny the M14.


As for the numbers of M14s currently in service, the NAVY alone has more than 5K in service...
There are thousands of 14s in service and that number is growing daily.

Check out what Smith Enterprise, Inc. is doing with the M14.

 

[TPAW]

RockyMtnTactical: I will say this, the M14 shouldn't even be on the list IMO.
It's hardly been fielded by anyone, it didn't change anything for anyone (unlike it's predeccessor).

Truth is, during the 10 year Vietnam War, the M14 was extensively used as was the M-16. The M14 probably saw more combat in 10 years in Vietnam than the M-1 saw during the 4 years we fought WW2.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Face it, even if you go based on the design and how popular or "good" it is (no reference to track record in the service), the M14 is still lacking. The FAL is a better BR by far. The M16 and it's variants are one of the best designs ever conceived, light, accurate, modular, scopes easily, seen 40+ years as our primary rifle etc... much better than the M14. What gun is more prolific than the AK and it's variants? The M1 was a huge improvement against the K98's fielded by the Germans. Do you see a trend with the guns listed??

It would beat out guns like the Enfield, Mauser, Garand, and maybe even a few more semi autos, but not all that many.

I think the list takes into account what the rifle did for our country (and for other countries) in battles. Based on that, the M14 has done almost nothing. Even if it saw much conflict in Vetnam (which I doubt was more than the M1 saw in WWII), it didn't revolutionaize anything. It wasn't a far superior weapon to those it went up against. It is still only a slight improvement on the M1.

Using the same logic, that's why the Springfield doesn't really deserve to be on the list either.

 

[SR420]

Face it, even if you go based on the design and how popular or "good" it is (no reference to track record in the service), the M14 is still lacking.

...

I think the list takes into account what the rifle did for our country (and for other countries) in battles. Based on that, the M14 has done almost nothing. Even if it saw much conflict in Vetnam (which I doubt was more than the M1 saw in WWII), it didn't revolutionaize anything. It wasn't a far superior weapon to those it went up against. It is still only a slight improvement on the M1.

Face it, you really don't know that much about the M14.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"The M14 probably saw more combat in 10 years in Vietnam than the M-1 saw during the 4 years we fought WW2."

With all due respect, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that statement...

Let's see...

4 years service in World War II in both the Pacific and in Europe.

3 years service in combat in Korea (forget about Korea?) not only with the American military but also in the hands of the South Korean military.

Plus some limited service in South East Asia during the Vietnamese conflict.




"If you base your choice on battlefield application then you can not deny the M14."

Wanna bet?

Define "battlefield application."

All of the weapons on this list, plus those that were nominated otherwise, had "battlefield applications."

"As for the numbers of M14s currently in service, the NAVY alone has more than 5K in service..."

Source, please?

I have no doubt that the Navy has some thousands of M14s, but I have no doubt that most of those are currently in warehouses and therefore do not qualify as "in service."

I also really hesitate to list those rifles currently in shipboard armories as being "in service."

I suspect that virtually all of the Navy M-14s that are "in service" are actually with Marine units in Afghanistan and Iraq, and from what I can tell they are NOT that widely issued. They're a speciality weapon.

The majority of th

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Face it, you really don't know that much about the M14."

So, enlighten us, SR.

Lay out your case.

You must have a masterful argument prepared for why the M14 is the world's greatest combat rifle of all time, and how it won many battles, killed many enemies, and was widely hailed by all who ever carried it in combat as the greatest implement of personal arms ever created by man and god...

You seem to know far more about the M14 than any living mortal, so enlighten us. Make us know what you know, see what you see, believe what you believe.

Dazzle us with facts.

Tell you what.

I'll start us off with a fact.

The M14 holds the honor of serving the SHORTEST active life as a main battle rifle in the history of the United States.

Here's a fact that I didn't know...

Virtually the entire American service production of M14 rifles, nearly half a million, were destroyed during the Clinton administration.

 

[bclark1]

The problem with these threads, and why no one ever agrees, is that we don't set guidelines for how to rate. We all have different things that we consider.

Most people killed? Probably the AK.
Biggest impact on history? Probably the M1. Perhaps the M16, but I think the former more likely.

Is the M14 in high enough production to have changed the world? No, it's true. But of those listed, I don't think it's an outrageous guess to make that it's got the highest hit percentage of any of the listed rifles. Not a lot of M14 operators employ spray'n'pray. So ask those guys who were on the other end of M14s anywhere from 0 to 1000+ meters what combat rifle must've been best once you get to heaven... and you'll get another answer. Personally, if I could pick a combat rifle, and only one, it'd be an M14. That doesn't mean I think it's the "Best," though, it just means it's my personal choice in terms of its balance on bullet weight, accuracy and aesthetics.

"Battle rifles" is an overbroad category, though. Comaparing 100+ year old milsurps to current service weapons is apples-to-oranges. Creating a standard baseline by which to measure them - as in, adjusting for technological inflation so you could compare them evenly - is far more trouble than the answer's worth.

 

[Limeyfellow]

The top 3 are right on that list with the M16 and Lee Enfield being rather close to call.

The Lee Enfield introduced a whole bunch of new features and technologies in its 60 years of front line service from the Lee Enfield No1 Mk1 to the No4mk2 and No5s. It also saw specialised sniper rifles that were in use until 1992 and were fine rifles and many new technologies. It was the first to contain a large detachable magazine of 10 rounds which at the time was unheard off. It also featured a heavy free floated barrel for accuracy.

The bolt system with its head allowed for field repairs that no other rifle at the time could do particularly with headspace fixes.

It had the sheer advantage of speed of firing, still holding the record today for bolt action shooting of 38 rounds into a 12" target at 300 yards in one minute. No other military issued bolt action could compare to that rate of fire. I doubt many people with a semi automatic could fire at that rate with aimed shots and a full powered round, let alone another bolt action.

Finally with the No9 and other later Lee Enfields they were adopted to hole 7.62mm nato and solved the ammo problem of rimmed cartridges and increased the magazine capacity to 12. I fine rifle well worth to be on the list up high.

The 1903 I would drop and have it under as one of the Mausers.

I would also add the Mosin Nagant.

The M14 probrobly doesn't need to be on the list. Its considered a miserable failure for what it was designed for and only got in to spite Stoner as an outsider.

I suspect that virtually all of the Navy M-14s that are "in service" are actually with Marine units in Afghanistan and Iraq, and from what I can tell they are NOT that widely issued. They're a speciality weapon.

Don't forget about their military use firing lines to shore to tie off a vessel since the M1s were worn out or the most important protection from sharks. Most the M14s they had were so worn out they were no use as a fighting weapon anyway.

 

[SR420]

MI, you sound like the kind of guy that appreciates doing his own research.
Please do this and report back to us here on The Firing Line.

Enlightenment is just a click away…

 

[esldude]

SR20,

Without regard to any particular rifle, describe what attributes would make the best combat rifle. And then expand upon how the M14 fits those criteria better than any other.

Might disagree on your chosen criteria. But at least I will understand why you have that opnion. I own and love the M14(actually M1A), but don't see how it could be considered the best combat rifle.

 

[Greg Bell]

My personal list

1. AK-47

2. MAUSER K98k CARBINE
3. M1 GARAND
4. Moisin-Nagant
5. M16
6. LEE-ENFIELD SMLE
1903 SPRINGFIELD
8. FN FAL
9. M14
10. G3

 

[TPAW]

As a combat weapon I think every rifle has it's own application. What I mean by that is, I would not want to clear houses or other buildings with an M14 or other similiar sized rifle, nor would I want to take 200 yard or longer shots with an AK47 or M-16. They all have their designed purpose. Having said that, and believing that most firefights take place under 100 yards or so, I'd choose the AK47 or the M-16. I've seen both used in Vietnam and they were very effective for the purpose in which they were used.

 

[Rimrod]

It's been awhile since I saw that episode but the problem lies in where they make their choices. They come up with criteria such as power, reliability, cost of manufacture, length of service etc. and rate each one on a scale for each of these. The problem is that many of the things they rate, ie length of service, have nothing really to do with how good the weapon is. Although length of service usually has a great deal of impact on the weapons rating.

Also it is hard to rate some of these firearms together because of the various conditions they were used under. Meaning, while the Garand or Mauser was a good weapon they would not be a good choice for modern warfare.

I have seen many of these shows on the Military Channel rating different weapons such as tanks, planes, ships and etc, and they all have these same problems. I do not care for the way they rate them, but the film footage is interesting to watch.

 

[STLRN]

I suspect that virtually all of the Navy M-14s that are "in service" are actually with Marine units in Afghanistan and Iraq, and from what I can tell they are NOT that widely issued. They're a speciality weapon.

The Marine Corps experimented with using the M14 as the DMR, however very few were fielded and mostly to elements of 4th MEB (AT). These weapons really only saw minimal if any combat. Since the mission of 4th MEB (AT) was force protection. The Marines on the East Coast started a limited fielding of the SAM-R (M16 based precision weapon), however because of success of the 4x sight on the M16A4 MWS, the SAM-R too may also be fielded in limited numbers. The Marines did buy quite a few Knights 7.62 versions of the AR, these however are going mostly to Scout Snipers.

 

[Scorch]

My opinion (and just my opinion) goes something like this:

1. M1 Garand
2. Mauser Standard Modelle 1898/K98/1903 Springfield
3. M16
4. FN FAL
5. G3
6. Lee-Enfield SMLE
7. Moisin-Nagant
8. SG44
9. FG42
10.FN M1949

#1, because the Garand did so much in the way of upgrading the durability and adaptability of the infantry rifle. Although I am not a particular fan of the M1, it is the rifle that set the standard for many years.
#2, because for over half a century, if you wanted the very best, you bought the M98 Mauser rifle. The Springfield is just a copy.
#3, because for over 40 years, it has kept our behinds covered while they were exposed due to poor choices of where to hang them out.
#4, because it is one of the most durable and lasting designs to come along since John Browning gave us the BAR.
#5, because it has been tested in various wars around the globe for over 40 years and has stood the test of time.
#6, because, in spite of my lack of appreciation for this deformed bastard child, it did have redeeming values. A detachable magazine was not one of them, sorry to say.
#7, because even though they are ugly and rough, you pull the trigger and they go boom. Pretty reliably.
#8, because if it had been given a bit more time, it would have been a tremendous weapon to face, and it was one of the first of a new era. Gas operated, detachable magazine, shoulder fired weapon.
#9, for basically the same reason as #8. Pretty awesome weapon for its time.
#10, because it led to a lot of developments and improvements (notably #4 above) and a lot of copies.

I am sorry to say, the AK47 did not make my list, because you specified "BATTLE RIFLES", and the AK47 or AK74 do not shoot a full-power round, therefore they are not battle rifles. The M16 is, although full power for a 5.56X45mm may not seem like a full powered round when compared to the others on the list.

The M14, which many seem to fawn over like a gifted child, was removed from service after 10 years of general issue due to excessively fragile barrels when used with a bayonet, inability to be controlled in full auto fire, and gas system issues. It is a particularly good example of how to build a rifle, but the Beretta BM59 is better. With a little more time and effort, it could have been so much better.

At least that's my opinion. Yours may be different. So be it.

 

[FirstFreedom]

Virtually the entire American service production of M14 rifles, nearly half a million, were destroyed during the Clinton administration.

I think I'm gonna be sick. :barf:

Once again, I ask and challenge ye, o' wise gun gurus, how on earth can you leave out the Spencer repeating rifle? The question is most assuredly NOT limited to 20th & 21st century guns, and it's not limited to the best, period, either. How do you overlook a gun that can shoot 20 rounds in the time the enemy can shoot 2 or 3? There was no similar mismatch of firepower of the foot soldier offered by an advance in engineering either before OR after that time (10 times the firepower). It should definitely be in the top 5, probably in the top 3, and a strong case can be made for #1. So what gives; no one even has it top ten?

I suppose the OP needs to define the word "Top"....

 

[Buckythebrewer]

I would say the ar15/m16 #1 ,but In the beginning of its life it would have to be at the bottom of the list or not even on it..It was never ready when it was thrown in vietnam..And soldiers died because of it, so I can't argue that the ak47 is #1..I know some guys that had no problems with the m16 even from the beginning but others (who survived the failures) HATE the m16 because of its problems in the past..I say the ar15/m16 is #1 to ME because of its amazing accuracy and reliability,as well as its almost unlimited flexibility to be anything you want it to be(Mr. Potato Head gun).If I was to see battle I would want it by my side even over the AK47.If I was going to use an AK,I would pick the Ak74 with 5.45x39 any day of the weekJMO.

 

[270Win]

FirstFreedom, nice point!!

 

[liliysdad]

I completely agree with its ranking, might even place it higher. This design has fought wars from Africa to Vietnam, and is still being used in Afghanistan Pakistan, and India. Through its incarnations, its been the primary issue for the US, Canadian, British, Australian, Indian, and God knows who else. It was used in WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam, not to mention every little skirmish, battle, and scuffle the crown was involved in the last 100years.

It carries 10rd of ammo equivalent to the 30-06, and fires faster than any bolt action on the planet. It is easily worked on, and tougher than nails. I feel the SMLE was as good a service rifle as the Garand, maybe even better.

It is often said that the Germans fielded a hunting rifle, the Americans a target rifle, but only the British had a true fighting rifle. I am inclined to agree.

Personally, given the proper ammo supply chain, Id take the Enfield, if it was a No4Mk1 or later over the Garand, and any definitely any bolt action rifle fielded in this century.

The Enfield holds ten rounds, versus the Garand's eight

The Enfield can be loaded with single rounds, stripper clips, or even a complete magazine. The Garand requires en bloc clips, and cannot be loaded mid stream, or with loose ammo.

The Enfield can be had in carbine or rifle length, and fires a round that gives little or nothing up to the 30'06.

The Enfield can be fired accurately nearly as fast as the Garand. If you dont believe me, fire an Enfield as fast as you can, aimed, sometime. The gun never leaves the shoulder.

The Garand was a damn fine weapon. But it was no better than the Enfield, and even a lesser one in a few aspects. The only true thing the Enfield gives up to the garand is the semi-automatic action.