Top 10 Combat Rifles - Do you agree?

[oldbillthundercheif]

Those moronic "Top 10" shows do not use any logic or reason in choosing their featured items. Thankfully, they seem to be slowly going away... except very late at night. They are always on when the bar closes.

"Top Ten Most Dangerous Snakes!", "Top Ten Scariest Swarms!", "Top Ten Greatest Tanks!"(The incredible burning Sherman was high on the list), and all of those shows are painful to watch. TV producers just pick ten tanks / snakes / guns that they have heard of and randomly place them into a numeric framework. Of course, the number one spot always goes to the item that the highest number of people already know something about...

Thusly, the AK is on top.

Awful.

 

[TPAW]

The only true thing the Enfield gives up to the garand is the semi-automatic action.

And it was that very same semi-automatic action that won the contest between the two. In a firefight, immediate supressive fire power is an advantage.

 

[SIGSHR]

Though I am a fan of the M-14, having trained on it in BCT and having fired
expert, I would not list it as one of the All Time Greats. Officially adopted in
1957, it was plagued by problems with quality control in manufacturing and
complaints that the tests it went through in competition with the M-16
were biased against the M-16 and in favor of the M-14.

 

[Csspecs]

I would still place the AK in the top five, but not number one as it lacks a good safety and other features that would make it more handy.

So I would list it more like so:

M-16 (variants included) (accurate, light, somewhat powerful, handles well)
Mauser and copy's (Nice rifle, but outdated for WW2)
AK models (funky size and shape that is hard to use prone, poor fire selector location)
M-1 and variants (M1 carbine M-14)
SKS (No detachable mag)
Lee-Enfield SMLE
Mosin Nagant (overpowered, poor safety)

I know little about the FAL and other weapons so my list has seven. But it seems to me that they have not seen as much field use as the above. I don't know who said the 7.62x39 was not a rifle round but if that is so the .30 30 is not much of a rifle as it has about the same power after 100 yards.

 

[Mike Irwin]

First Freedom,

While the Spencer was certainly groundbreaking, I'm not sure that I agree that it's a "combat rifle."

To my way of thinking it's a carbine, significantly less powerful than a standard rifle. In that sense I feel that it's on par with the M1A1, and was really a speciality weapon, issued mainly to cavalry and mounted infantry, but not as a general issue weapon.

Unlike the M1A1, the Spencer was also never issued in the kinds of numbers that would qualify it as a combat rifle, either. It was also fairly short-lived in American service, being pulled from cavalry service, IIRC, by 1875.

That said, I've made the argument before that the military should have redesigned the Spencer to take either .45 Colt or .45 S&W ammo and kept it in service with cavalry. It would have removed the compaint (one main reason why the weapon was withdrawn) about ammo commonality, and would have given cavalry much greater firepower in battling the Plains indians.

I don't think I'd count the Henry rifle in there, either.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"And it was that very same semi-automatic action that won the contest between the two."

TPaw,

Have you ever seen a truly profiencient shooter work the Enfield?

It's stunning just how fast a trained user can drop 10 rounds.

Certainly not as rapid as the Garand, but very, very fast.

During World War I at, IIRC, the Battle of Mons, German generals assumed that they were facing massed British machine guns from the tremendous volumn of fire they were facing.

It was nothing more than 2 divisions of British regulars armed with Enfields.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Let's see, SR...

On top of being familiar with Mr. Emerson's draft, I've yet to see anything it in that supports your contentions that the M14 is the greatest combat rifle ever fielded.

Mr. Emerson's work recounts the rifle's short life as the US military's standard issue rifle followed by its life as a SPECIAL PURPOSE weapon...

Yes, the M14 certainly hung on in Vietnam, with some people refusing to give up the weapon. There was a lot of suspicion among some in the military about the new rifle and cartridge's effectiveness.

That again, however, doesn't discount the many complaints that were received about the rifle, from its weight to its length to its wooden stock swelling in tropical climates and affecting the accuracy or functioning to other issues.

Here are some indications about how the M14 is being used today...

"The 256th BCT was deployed in Baghdad, Iraq from October 2004 to September 2005. During this deployment, the 1st Battalion 69th Infantry Regiment equipped one soldier from each ten man squad with a M14 rifle..."

One in 10. I wonder what the other 9 were armed with?

"In 2003, the U. S. Army added the M14 rifle to the weapons inventory of the Stryker brigades. The Designated Marksman (DM) for each squad is outfitted with a scoped M14 rifle."

OK, 1 man in the squad of what, 10 men? I'm not sure how large Stryker squads are.

And all that information about how the M14 has been a honey for Hollywood? The A-Team? That really helps make the case for the rifle being the best combat rifle of all time?

In the words of Mr. T... "Ah Pities the Fool!" or whatever the heck he said.


It's really interesting, though, that the Taiwanese bought the manufacturing rights and machinery for the M14, and made MORE of them than the United States did, but used fewer of them in combat than the United States did.

Nice for overall numbers, but still not indicative of the M14's prowess as the world's greatest combat rifle.


Time for some original thought, SR.

Tell us, in your own words, why YOU think the M14 was the greatest combat rifle ever fielded.

In your own words.

Not a link to someone else's.

 

[Mike Irwin]

CSS,

Just curious, what's your issue with the safety on the AK-47 family of firearms?

I've always found it to be particuarly easy to use, but not particularly easy to disengage inadvertently.

It's also very similar to the safety on my Model 81 Remington.

 

[blackamos]

I think the Fn-Fal should be a little higher on the list, 90 or so nations used them at one time or another.

 

[joshua]

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.

If that's the case then the French Muskets should be #1. Without it would have been difficult to win the Revolution against King George III. josh

 

[BlondieStomp]

I wouldn't pick any rifle chambered for .308 for the top ten.

After the research on infantry tactics during WWII showed that GI's of the time would time and again wait for the enemy to close within 300 yards to engage and that only a select few of the draftees would actually engage the enemy. The idea of massed long range marksmanship with the infantry rifle, ie One Shot, One Kill, was taken from the forefront of military thought. The best possible weapon for an infantryman in this case would be an intermediate cartridge firing, full-auto capable rifle, to maximize the available firepower of the infantryman at reasonable ranges. It makes sense, if thought about on a practical level.

Given the choice, would you rather take potshots at your camoflaged, moving enemy at 600 yards with an ironsighted rifle, or conserve your ammunition until the chances of a hit were more likely?

The british developed a 270 caliber intermediate cartridge which was set to become the world standard, and the original FAL's were chambered in it.

However, the historically well documented backward stubbornness of the US ordnance department stepped in in favor of the full power cartridge marksman, and forced the .308 round down the throats of NATO. Thus, the FAL was never fielded in the chambering it was intended for. All of its fine qualities aside, as soon as the m14 saw combat against the kalashnikov, it was almost immediately proven out of date, due to poor controllability in full auto. The long range accuracy of the m14, while superb, never benefitted the US soldier in vietnam because the long distances weren't available, and even if they were, a reasonable draftee private wouldn't take 500+ yard shots.

The merits of .223/5.56 as an intermediate cartridge are somewhat questionable, but its full auto controllability and volume of fire provided by light ammunition weight are markedly superior to the m14/.308/7.62x51 system.

As far as criteria of judging service rifles, what is valid and objective?

Number of battles won? Number fielded? Length of time in regular service? Reliability? Number of enemy killed?

While we Americans do love our garands and 03's, it's a common misconception that we "won" the 2nd world war. The vast majority of the fighting took place between the germans and russians. If we rank rifles on any of the above criteria, the mosin nagant and Kar98k are surely the top two. One could argue that the kalashnikov rifles have won many battles and been fielded by many many armies. However, warfare in the second half of the 20th and in the 21st centuries has not been anywhere near the scale of battles like Kursk or Operation Bagration.

 

[SR420]

MI: Personally I don't think the M-14 should be on the list at all.

Tell us, in your own words, why YOU think the M14 should not be on the top 10 list.
Not regurgitated internet falsehoods, but your personal experiences with the weapon system.

Tell us all of the M14 type rifles that you personally own. Share with us your likes and dislikes.
How long have you been shooting the M14 type rifle? How many different variants do you own?
Do you prefer wood, synthetic or other stocks? What ammo do you prefer?

Please enlighten us with all that you personally know to be true about the M14.

 

[FirstFreedom]

Thanks Mike I, that's good info!

 

[tom98390]

SR420 I was under the impression that this list was not about what you personally but what has made the largest impact in the world when it was being used?

For me I would have to say the AK 47 gets the nod. Cheap to make cheap to feed hard to break seems to be a winner when it comes to arming 3rd world areas. M1 and m-16 are also right up there as well. For me at least.

 

[juliet charley]

While I have shot and like the M14, when we look at its direct competitors as "combat rifles," the FN FAL and HK G3, the M14 probably deserves nothing more than an "honorable mention" (and that only if you are feeling especially generous).

 

[joshua]

SR420, I have shot both M1 and M1A1. Both are heavy to be manuevarable in a combat situation, but our soldiers and soldiers from other countries made due with the rifles to win battles. I personally like the M1A1 over the M1 due to the fact that it incorporates a detacheable and higher capacity magazine, whereas the M1 only has 8 rounds and it tells everyone that you are out of rounds after firing the last round. I prefer the 7.62 NATO round over the 06 because the NATO round recoils less. I'm sure the recoil is probably almost the same since the M1A1 that I shot had a nice recoil pad installed instead of the standard hard butt the M1 that I shot had. I personally haven't field strip both rifles, but I've seen folks do it so no inputs there. As you can see my experience with both is very limited, but one day I'll get a chance to purchase both - I hope. As the original list shows the criteria is not about what is best in combat, but more of popularity of each rifles shown by production numbers, length of service and I think innovation that opened up new applications in modern warfare. josh

 

[roy reali]

Left Out?

There is no mention of Carcano rifles here. An oversight I guess.

 

[TPAW]

Mike Irwin asks

Have you ever seen a truly profiencient shooter work the Enfield?

It's stunning just how fast a trained user can drop 10 rounds.

Certainly not as rapid as the Garand, but very, very fast.

Yes Mike I have, but that is the exception and not the average soldier.

Mike Irwin says:

During World War I at, IIRC, the Battle of Mons, German generals assumed that they were facing massed British machine guns from the tremendous volumn of fire they were facing.

It was nothing more than 2 divisions of British regulars armed with Enfields.

Mike, 2 Divisions of British soldiers totaled nearly 40,000 men! I would not want to face that if they were shooting spit balls!

The Division was the largest tactical unit of the British Army in the Great War of 1914-1918, consisting of units of all ground forces : infantry, artillery, engineers, transport, signals, medical, training units, etc. The first Divisions to go to war were of the Regular Army; they were supplemented by the volunteers of the Territorials, and later by the New Armies formed by the Secretary of State for War, Lord Kitchener.

A Division consisted of a Headquarters, 3 infantry Brigades, and Divisional troops of various sorts. In all, at full establishment it was composed of more than 18,000 men and 5,000 horses and would occupy when moving 15 miles of road.

 

[Mike Irwin]

TPaw,

Even someone who is only moderately trained in the Enfield can still maintain a significant rate of fire once he masters the three finger/pinky drill.

IIRC the standard in the British army at that time was 15 aimed shots a minute, but not all troops would have been firing continuously, nor would they have been concentrated in a single, small spot on the line. At Mons the British were spread quite thin and facing at one point up to 5 German divisions, which they successfully repulsed.

I think it's also interesting that the Germans never came under that kind of concentrated, sustained, rapid fire from French, American, or Russian troops, at least not so that the Germans mistakenly assumed that they were facing massed machine gun fire.

The Germans at that time had the highest concentration of machine guns of any army in the world, upwards of 20 a division.

TOE for the British Army at that time was 2.

 

[juliet charley]

It would be a fairly easy to build a case for the Lee-Enfield in its various Numbers and Marks as the best bolt action battle rifle ever. The Mauser may be a better hunting rifle and the Springfield a better target rifle, but when it comes to the battlefield, the Lee-Enfield reigns supreme.