best semi auto rifle ever built?

[Hunt3r]

Best tacti-cool weapon that doesn't cost a million billion fanboy dollars: XCR.

Best classic semi-auto: Hard to argue with a Garand.

Best purpose-built semi auto: An XCR or the XCR-M. Maybe in the future, the ACR.

Best weapon ever: I'm not sure you can't solve anything with a Mk48.

 

[Nhsport]

I like the solid construction of the Garand.
The history of this gun and the men who carried it just plain speaks to me in ways I can not speak of

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Best tacti-cool weapon that doesn't cost a million billion fanboy dollars: XCR.

Absolutely - Welcome, Hunt3r - great first sentence of first post!

 

[FullEffect1911]

t all depends what you classify as important. I honestly don't clear rooms or go to battle with any rifle I own. I just play with them and enjoy them. Under my criteria the M1 Garand is the best. Its the most fun to me, and is reliable and accurate. Nothing to complain about. If I were looking for the best battle rifle for today or the best cqb rifle it would certainly be different but I don't do any of that. I shoot at the range and at a few animals. For that heavy and big with a bunch of power works out real nice.

I can see why other rifles have their votes but to not understand why the M1 Garand/M1A get as many as they do certainly doesn't take into account the vast majority of the shots that go down range today and only considers the few that are used in true SHTF situations, be them hd or what not, or small game hunting. I can see why someone would pick an AR as well. Not quite as fun to me which is why it missed my #1. I can also see why some people are picking only from rifles designed to be semi only from the start and not those that have been civilianized from MG into semi auto. Its all how you define best.

I can get behind that, my definition of best would be an all purpose rifle for HD, Survival, SHTF, War, EOTWAWKI and zombies. But I really can't argue with it being the best for you because you have the most fun shooting it, that reason is as valid as it gets.

Truthfully, I would love to have an opportunity to shoot one as well.

The M1 probably did have more of an effect on the history of the world than any other rifle except maybe the Mosin Nagant. And I know which of those two I'd rather have.

I think the M1 wins in that race, but that's just my opinion.

The fact is we had the Garand in numbers, just like our tanks. Just like the Soviets had their tanks in numbers. WWII was arguably about production numbers/quantity, and with the Garand it was quantity and quality.

But I suppose that discussion gets a bit OT.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Claymore, how can the many "improvements" of the FAL over the FN-49 not make it better? Just askin...

 

[jackdanson]

Everyone knows that the Recon CS-6 is the best semi-auto ever made.



These threads make me feel like this>>>>:banghead:

 

[noob_shooter]

Ak 47 :d

 

[Claymore1500]

Claymore, how can the many "improvements" of the FAL over the FN-49 not make it better? Just askin

Bare with me, and keep in mind that this is just one man's opinion.

The old FN49 functioned very well, was availiable in several substantial loadings, and while the improvements made it a more up to date "battle rifle", they destroyed the asthetics of a fine looking machine, ( sorta' like putting a "wing" on a 1966 corvett stingray)

If that makes any sense!

 

[JShirley]

Claymore, I love shooting the FN49. Sweet gun. If you're talking looks/nostalgia, that's different than usability, of course. But there is no best.

And you have never prevailed!
Never have and never will

If by "prevail", you mean change some one else's mind, that's impossible. People can be presented with facts and learned opinions, but the people have to choose to change.

Here's a wiki quote for you: Though the M14 has remained in service longer than any U.S. infantry rifle with the exception of the Springfield M1903 rifle, it also holds the distinction of serving as the standard infantry rifle of the U.S. Army for a shorter span of time than any other weapon. Not exactly covered in glory.

Here's the M16 Review Panel report from 1968.

Many of the deficiencies that make the M14/M1A less than ideal for almost anyone were identified before the fact by a War Department board all the way back in 1928. I quote: wound basistics tests were conducted using live pigs as targets, investigated three calibers of projectiles, caliber .30, .276, and .256. It concluded that if a semiautomatic rifle were developed using the standard .30-06 cartridge, it would be as heavy, if not heavier, than the then standard Springfield M1903; that in order to develop a lighter weapon, the Army would have to go to a small caliber, higher velocity round; N 4 and finally, that the small caliber, high velocity bullets were more lethal within the normal effectiveness range of a rifle.

(Rifles developed using an "improved" 7.62x63mm- the 7.62x51mm- would of course suffer from these same deficiencies.)

Still quoting from the M16 panel report: The M14 rifle as finally developed and standardized in 1957, was a minor improvement over the M1 which it replaced. It did not weigh less, nor was it really acceptable in the fully automatic role when fired from the shoulder. Although with the selector lever the M14 could be fired in the automatic mode, only those men designated as automatic riflemen and equipped with a bipod were issued the selector lever. The standard M14 was in reality a semiautomatic rifle with a 20-round magazine, too heavy and too long to replace effectively the M2 caliber .30 carbine and the M3Al caliber .45 submachine gun.

We can contrast this with the M16, which first entered service with the Army in 1964, and which has been the standard service rifle longer than any other rifle in history.

 

[USSR]

...in order to develop a lighter weapon, the Army would have to go to a small caliber, higher velocity round; N 4 and finally, that the small caliber, high velocity bullets were more lethal within the normal effectiveness range of a rifle.

Therein lies the logic for moving to the .223. When a conscript with minimal training and range time is given a rifle, the effectiveness of his rifle fire is perhaps around 300 yards. Given this and the ability to carry more ammo, the decision was made to go the small caliber, high velocity route.

Don

 

[JShirley]

Well, you should consider that (at this time), they were still looking at rifle cartridges considerably more powerful than .223 Remington/5.56x45mm.

You'd be looking at something more like the .280 British or .276 Pedersen round~ somewhat more powerful and considerably better ballistics than 7.62x39mm. Something actually closer to 6.8 SPC or 6.5x39mm in power. But certain die-hards just wouldn't change. (Like that grandstanding idiot MacArthur, the one who lost thousands of U.S. troops because of his refusal to obey standing orders in the Philippines in December of 1941, and who almost started WWIII because of refusal to follow orders in Korea. But I digress.)

In the current age, these same type of folks are the ones trying to hang onto the M14. If you appreciate it for its beauty or its historical oddity, that's one thing. I wouldn't mind a ChauChat hanging on my wall, either. If you think it's the greatest battle rifle ever, you're delusional.

John

 

[H2O MAN]

JShirley
If by "prevail", you mean change some one else's mind, that's impossible.
People can be presented with facts and learned opinions, but the people have to choose to change.

Both you and Wiki are stuck on Vietnam era M14s and refer to information as it was up to 1968.

The year is 2009 and the modernized and enhanced M14 is very different from the rifle that you can't get out of your head.

I invite you to join the rest of us here in the present and the the past in the history books were it belongs.

 

[taliv]

so if you're making a distinction between the modern and vietnam era m14, then i'd have to ask, exactly how many "modern" m14s have been fielded? are there even 1000 in service?

you also lose the ability to claim it was ever the standard infantry rifle.

 

[JShirley]

Even "fielded" is tenuous, at best (though I'm waiting for H2O's answer with baited breath): I was attached to the 45th Infantry Brigade in Afghanistan. We had a Connex full of M14s that we didn't use. They might have shown up as "fielded", but we used almost none of them...no point. Of course, this might be H2O's supposed "Vietnam" rifles that shouldn't be considered, anyway.

The (two different teams of) ODA I was attached to had M14s, too. They never used them. No point. Even the grizzled 18B I talked to at length about it told me he mostly played with his accurized M14 as a historical curiosity. (I don't think I saw him pull it out in the two months I was around him.) He said he much preferred the Knight. I saw shorty and full-sized M4s, MP-5s, two Barretts, MK 19 and 47s, M249, M240s, M2s, several different types of shotguns (including one Serbu), M16s, Carl Gustaf, M136s, and three different types of mortars used in Afghanistan by U.S. troops. I think I saw two M14s carried my entire time (10.5 mos) there.

It might be especially germane to repeat that I was attached for several months to troops who had access to virtually any weapon in inventory. I never saw them use an M14. Not once. The couple of times I did see M14s, they were carried by regular troops, and did not have optics.

John

 

[Lazuris]

Hate to say it but the AK47 is the best semi ever built.

 

[ARNETT44]

The question should be the best semi auto rifle for you.
As in one size does not fit all.

The answer is the rifle that you know, its reliable, you can take it apart, clean it, its accurate, (can YOU hit with it),you can operate it in second nature mode, clear malfunctions, and you have confidence in it. Can ammo, mags, or parts be found easy and cost effectively?

Best does not always translate to most accurate, or THE most reliable. Or CDI factor. (Chicks did it)
If the above criteria is a 10/22 or M-14 or M1 Garrand so be it. To my father it is a M-1 Garrand, to my uncle it is a M-14, to me it's the AR to my Friend Boris its an AK.

 

[H2O MAN]

taliv...so if you're making a distinction between the modern and vietnam era m14...

How can you not make the distinction between the old Vietnam era m14 and today's modernized and enhanced M14s ??

taliv ...you also lose the ability to claim it was ever the standard infantry rifle.

No ability lost here, I never claimed it was a standard infantry rifle.

taliv ...i'd have to ask, exactly how many "modern" m14s have been fielded? are there even 1000 in service?

Add up the total number of Crazy Horse M14s, MK14 SEIs, Crane built MK14s and TACOM RI built M14
EBRs issued over the past few years and we have thousands of enhanced modern M14s in service.
The does not count the M14s that were put into SAGE stocks by individual units back in the early days.

Remember this... the official M14 modernization program is only about two or three years old.


Hold your baited breath...

JShirley I was attached to the 45th Infantry Brigade in Afghanistan....the (two different teams of) ODA I was attached to had M14s, too.

What year was this??

Do you realize the current M14 modernization program is geared specifically towards use in Afghanistan??

best semi auto rifle ever built?

It depends on who built it. My M14s are built by Ron Smith and SEI.

.

 

[JShirley]

I was in OEF from July 06 to May 07. I was part of a fire support/counterbattery team tasked out to first 3rd Group, then 7th Group from Jan to April 07.

As I said, I saw two M14s carried, no optics, and by regular troops, the entire time there. That's it.

John

 

[taliv]

How can you not make the distinction between the old Vietnam era m14 and today's modernized and enhanced M14s ??

the same way i don't make a big deal about M16A1, A2, M4, etc. it's the same gun, they just changed the stock and barrel length. it's the action we're talking about here mostly.

so it's got a SAGE stock? that makes it a new gun?

 

[natescout]

M14/M1a

 

[H2O MAN]

taliv


so it's got a SAGE stock? that makes it a new gun?

Only in your close minded world

 

[H2O MAN]

JShirley I was in OEF from July 06 to May 07.

This confirms to me that you have not seen any modernized and enhanced M14s.

 

[LoneStarWings]

A good friend of mine was a scout sniper in Iraq in the '03-05 timeframe, he swears by the M14 and used it very succesfully. Sure he carried an M4 for CQB, but favored the reliability and power of the M14 for battlefield-type scenarios in the gritty desert envrionment.

With that said the AR is undoubtely a better automatic weapon, which is the point most arguments against the M14 hinge on. When you bring full auto into the equation, then the point about ammo capacity and weight also become an issue, but not so much in semi. This thread is about semi-automatic weapons, and in that case I'll take the M1A.

 

[JShirley]

Even- or perhaps, especially- for the lone rifleman, the additional ammunition a .223 user can carry, to me, is an important factor.

Don't get me wrong- I AM NOT one of those who claims the AR-15 or M16 is teh ultimate!!!1! or anything. I just don't think the M1A or M14 is, either.

modernized and enhanced M14s

I suppose the ones the ODA had were not "modernized or enhanced"?! Whatever, man. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

John

 

[waiotahi52]

It is said, by extremely wise people that the AK47 is the greatest weapon of mass destruction ever made. It is responsible for more deaths than any other rifle. Might be a contender????