Favorite Modern Battle Rifle: Beside AR or AK

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd have a hard time choosing between M14 clone (M1A) and FAL. I love the4 M1A for sentimental reasons and superior iron sights. The FAL is easier to maintain. Right now I am without an FAL, but have 3 M1As so I guess that's you answer.
 
M1 Garand. As pointed out earlier the AK and AR are not battle rifles. Neither is the stg44 and a few others mentioned.

I hate to quote wiki but it is correct on this one.
Click to expand...

It's a term with a dubious intellectual heritage and no real validity in official use. It was invented by the same idiots who foisted the 7.62x51 cartridge on the Free World in an attempt to make the resulting weapons chambered for it sound more general purpose than the "specialized" assault rifle.

The AR (and absolutely the AK) have fired more rounds in anger on the battlefield than any of the supposed "battle rifles" so it seems an unnecessary hair splitting to claim they don't count. Personally, I would argue "battle rifle" to reference full powered cartridge firing select fire weapons should be replaced with "Non-Adaptive Service Rifle" (NASR) which more accurately describes their place in the scheme of things in the 1950s and since.
 
Base your answer on COMBAT use NOT shooting TARGETS.
Click to expand...

I've never used a gun in combat. I daresay that most people chiming in here haven't, either. My experience with shooting rifles has been limited to merely shooting targets. Since you've stipulated, for whatever reason, that shooting targets isn't a useful metric for judging the effectiveness of a rifle, it seems that you're telling most of the people here that their experiences with various rifle platforms are null and void for reasons that aren't completely clear.


So, since any previous experience many people have has been dismissed out of hand, I guess I can just pick any old rifle and proclaim that it's just as good as any other rifle because it piques my interest.

So my vote is for the LaRue OBR in .308, and my justification is because I think it's a cool looking rifle, which means it would be a great battle rifle.
 
Justin:
You misunderstood the comment.

It is not requiring you to HAVE used in combat. It is telling you to base your selection on what you WOULD choose FOR combat. Rifles for the battlefield have different requirements than bullseye rifles. They CAN be used for the other's purpose BUT do better when used as intended by design. Don't overthink things so much. It's a silly survey on the Internet. Lastly, IMHO aesthetics are low on the list of important things when judging a battlefield weapon. To each his own. (I guess worst case scenario, you'll go out in style.) j/k.
 
Last edited:
I disagree, the tilt bolt is a significant feature as is the striker firing mechanism (early development of the Stg., the MKb.42, later replaced by a hammer firing mech.), which obviously owes its heritage to the Stg.44. You are right that there were numerous design changes (mostly improvements), but I believe the foundation was the Stg.44.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that the foundation for all assault weapons was the Stg44, by definition. However, the Vz.58's combination of tilting bolt and short stroke piston--and even the design of the rear receiver cover--was something that could very easily be attributed to the SKS. Striker designs, besides being very common in bolt action rifles, appeared in Czech machineguns like the (Zb26, aka the Bren) before WWII.
 
However, the Vz.58's combination of tilting bolt and short stroke piston--and even the design of the rear receiver cover--was something that could very easily be attributed to the SKS.
Click to expand...
Okay then...the VZ.58 is based upon the SKS, which owes its heritage to the Stg.44. Better? :p
 
An XCR, fn2000, AUG, FAMAS, or Tavor

What can I say...I like bullpups. Short gun with long barrel. Solves that whole problem of SBR's and poor performing bullets (when dealing with 5.56).
 
Not sure that I would consider WW2, which ended 65 years ago modern. I love the FAL but it is almost that old, as is the M14/ M1A. Not very "modern". But since you precluded the best and most modern rifle I will go with FAL. But I like the OBR that Justin mentioned as well.
 
It is not requiring you to HAVE used a combat. It is telling you to base your selection on what you WOULD choose for combat. Rifles for the battlefield have different requirements than bullseye rifles. They CAN be used for the other's purpose BUT do better when used as intended by design. Don't overthink things so much. It's a silly survey on the Internet.
Click to expand...


If it was your intention to exclude people from naming rifles that are highly specialized target guns like, say, an ANSCHÜTZ 2013/690 .22 built for 50 meter smallbore competition, I don't think there's much chance of anyone picking such rifles.

However, it's a bit short-sighted to exclude guns that can live in both worlds, like those found in some of the rifle-based practical shooting sports.

On top of that, presuming I've somehow ended up in the combat arms segment of some military force, the answer to "what gun do you take into combat?" is pretty clearly going to be "Whichever one is issued to me."
 
I personally like the mini14s and mini30s. Then again, I'm partial to the Garand, M1A style of firearms. Not saying it's better. I just happen to like it.
 
Okay then...the VZ.58 is based upon the SKS, which owes its heritage to the Stg.44. Better?
Click to expand...

I admire your steadfast ability not to let facts get in the way of a good theory. First, the SKS owes its heritage to a Simonov anti-tank rifle from 1941, including the tilting bolt. Second, the SKS--a fixed magazine, semi-automatic weapon--ain't even an assault rifle by any measure.

Again, all assault rifle owe their conceptual foundation to the sturmgewehr, by definition. But they don't all owe their specific design.
 
Depending on the circumstances... no particular order

M1A .308
PTR 91 .308
MSAR bullpup 5.56
VZ 58 7.62x39

I would not feel underguned in most situations with an SKS or an M1 Garand - although these are not ideal for urban combat where fast reloads and higher capacity and smaller weapons are needed.

I have no experience with the FAL, but it's on my list of weapons to get and learn about.
 
Last edited:
I admire your steadfast ability not to let facts get in the way of a good theory. First, the SKS owes its heritage to a Simonov anti-tank rifle from 1941, including the tilting bolt. Second, the SKS--a fixed magazine, semi-automatic weapon--ain't even an assault rifle by any measure.

Again, all assault rifle owe their conceptual foundation to the sturmgewehr, by definition. But they don't all owe their specific design.
Click to expand...
Why don't we just agree to disagree...I still feel the VZ.58 was based upon the Stg.44; there are simply too many design coincidences for relative neighbors. I don't believe the SKS had anything to do with it...hence the smiley following that statement.

:)
 
Why don't we just agree to disagree...I still feel the VZ.58 was based upon the Stg.44; there are simply too many design coincidences for relative neighbors. I don't believe the SKS had anything to do with it...hence the smiley following that statement.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Whatever it is, I think we can both agree that the Vz.58 is one hell of a good rifle.
 
Another vote for the VZ-58 here.

These guns make the AK seem fat, heavy and crude while retaining most of that design's reliability, ruggedness and ease of maintenance. The ability to load it directly with SKS stripper clips is a nice bonus.
 
I see the '58 crew is emerging from the lurking fog..........

Here is a marvelous vid put out by CZUSA for all you nonbelievers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PqAk-qianA&NR=1

And no, in no way do I represent nor am I an agent for CZUSA;

I just happen to think the '58 represents all the advantages, and none of the disadvantages of this class of firearm.

Isher
 
The M-14 stands head and shoulders above any other battle rifle designed before or since.

The AR and the AK wouldn't make my short list. The only reason I have an AR is so I can use the enemy's ammo against them in a rifle that I have all set up the way I like it, in case I run low on 7.62x51 and .30 '06. It also doesn't hurt to stay proficient with their main rifle. I have an AK just to have that caliber covered in case I have ammo for it. That and it is a pretty good carbine for home defense.
 
Sense I have Garands an over 1000 rds. of HXP an 1000 rds. of AP....I'll go with the Garand..."Turning what the enemy thought was cover into only concealment."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
FUNNY!!! Battle rifle debate is finally over
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Hatterasguy
H
S
  • Locked
The End of the AK/AR debate
Replies
16
Views
824
Charles S
C
S
  • Locked
  • Poll
Cheap ammo shootout - AR vs AK
Replies
18
Views
1K
Shrinkmd
S
A
  • Locked
The Greatest Battle Rifle Ever Devised
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
167
Views
12K
skeet king
S
S
  • Locked
Ak
Replies
16
Views
821
Dionysusigma
D
Back
Top