Shear_stress
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,728
Right you are. The Israelis have a pretty good track record:
The Greatest Battle Rifle Ever Devised
- Thread starter A.M. Baer
- Start date
- Status
Right you are. The Israelis have a pretty good track record:
You have to define the criterion by which "greatest of all time" will be judged by. Will it be it's impact on history, numbers produced, superiority to it's contemporaries, current superiority or something else entirely?
In terms of impact on history, I think it may be hard to beat the AK. There were just so many produced and in the early years it was about the best CQB rifle on the planet. They were also distributed worldwide and effectively armed nations and guerrillas that would otherwise only have been able to afford obsolete surplus weapons. Aside from being cheap, it also turned out to be perfectly suited to rough use and abuse by these peasant soldiers. It's a rifle that has seriously changed the course of history for 60 years and filled a role that few of it's contemporaries could have. It also shows few signs of fading and will probably still be around when our grandchildren are being issued lasers.
#2 would probably have to be the Garand. It outclassed just about everything else out there during WW2 by a large margin, with the one exception of the sturmgewehr, and made everything else obsolete. Unlike other significant breakthroughs like the Lebel, the Garand was in full production just in time for the most important conflict in world history.
Unfortunately, the Garand was itself obsolete not long after WW2.
The Lee Enfield was a great rifle in it's day as well and so was the Sharps.
In terms of impact on history, I think it may be hard to beat the AK. There were just so many produced and in the early years it was about the best CQB rifle on the planet. They were also distributed worldwide and effectively armed nations and guerrillas that would otherwise only have been able to afford obsolete surplus weapons. Aside from being cheap, it also turned out to be perfectly suited to rough use and abuse by these peasant soldiers. It's a rifle that has seriously changed the course of history for 60 years and filled a role that few of it's contemporaries could have. It also shows few signs of fading and will probably still be around when our grandchildren are being issued lasers.
#2 would probably have to be the Garand. It outclassed just about everything else out there during WW2 by a large margin, with the one exception of the sturmgewehr, and made everything else obsolete. Unlike other significant breakthroughs like the Lebel, the Garand was in full production just in time for the most important conflict in world history.
Unfortunately, the Garand was itself obsolete not long after WW2.
The Lee Enfield was a great rifle in it's day as well and so was the Sharps.
dodging230grainers
Member
Nice pic, I've seen it before a couple times.
Technically they only use the Ruger .22 against violent protesters, etc. You would never catch that gun in an actual arab-israeli war.
If you want to argue the FAL using the Israelis as a case, Israel used the FAL in two of its biggest wars (Six Day War, Yom Kippur War) to great success.
Granted, there is much more to war than rifles.
Vern Humphrey
Member
The Brown Bess was not a rifle -- it was a smooth bore.
And while the British Army and Navy were good -- especially the Navy, which allowed Britain to project power -- the Brown Bess wasn't so hot. For one thing, it had a gooseneck cock, which was much more fragile than the Charleville's double-throated cock. And for another, it had a pinned barrel, as opposed to the Charleville's banded barrel.
For a musket that was frequently used in hand-to-hand combat, the Chartleville was superior. That's why the first standard US Army Musket, the M1798, was a copy of the Charleville, not the Brown Bess.
The Brown Bess may have been used for just about forever, but as you noted, it wasn't because of any superiority that it had. While it was undoubtedly a decent musket it wasn't a great leap forward nor was it any better than it's contemporaries. It's biggest "innovation", was that it was a standardized weapon. Prior to the Brown Bess, British commanders supplied their troops with weapons they purchased with funds provided to them. Some commanders bought good gear and some didn't. The Brown Bess was a standardized musket that ensured that British troops were all armed similarly and properly.
Shear_stress
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,728
Yeah, I was kind of being a smart ass.
Anyway, my problem with the term "battle rifle" is that I think it's a great piece of jargon in search of a solid meaning. What makes a "full power" rifle more of a "battle rifle" than an intermediate cartridge, full-auto assault rifle, especially when there were full-auto full-power rifles and merely burst-capable "assault rifles"? By definition, any rifle used in battle is a battle rifle. Anyway, I'm just being picky.
What defines a modern BATTLE RIFLE.
1. Weapon is chambered for a FULL POWER CARTRIDGE.
The AK/AKM/AK74/M16 series of rifles are chambered for INTERMEDIATE CARTRIDGES.
None of these weapons are capable of effectively engaging targets at ranges exceeding 600 meters, this eliminates them as candidates for this poll.
2. DETACHABLE BOX MAGAZINE.
The pinnacle of modern weapon design was the incorporation of the detachable box magazine.
The increase in onboard cartridge capability and the ability to quickly reload or replace a defective/empty magazine makes the detachable box magazine a hallmark of the modern battle rifle design.
This innovation effectively removes the M1 Garand and K-98 from consideration for this poll.
There are four serious candidates for this poll
1. The M14
2. The FN-FAL
3. The H&K G3
4. The Dragunov, ( go to Afghanistan if you seriously think this weapon is not used as a battle rifle.)
1. Weapon is chambered for a FULL POWER CARTRIDGE.
The AK/AKM/AK74/M16 series of rifles are chambered for INTERMEDIATE CARTRIDGES.
None of these weapons are capable of effectively engaging targets at ranges exceeding 600 meters, this eliminates them as candidates for this poll.
2. DETACHABLE BOX MAGAZINE.
The pinnacle of modern weapon design was the incorporation of the detachable box magazine.
The increase in onboard cartridge capability and the ability to quickly reload or replace a defective/empty magazine makes the detachable box magazine a hallmark of the modern battle rifle design.
This innovation effectively removes the M1 Garand and K-98 from consideration for this poll.
There are four serious candidates for this poll
1. The M14
2. The FN-FAL
3. The H&K G3
4. The Dragunov, ( go to Afghanistan if you seriously think this weapon is not used as a battle rifle.)
Shear_stress
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,728
What defines a modern BATTLE RIFLE.
Hi Onmilo. I'm aware of the connotation. I just think that the use of the term "battle" to describe these rifles is vague and arbitrary, especially when engagements in modern warfare occur at relatively close distances (Afghanistan excepted).
Hi Onmilo. I'm aware of the connotation. I just think that the use of the term "battle" to describe these rifles is vague and arbitrary, especially when engagements in modern warfare occur at relatively close distances (Afghanistan excepted).
1. Edward Clinton Ezell
2. Julian Hatcher
3. Janes Defense
4. Palladin press
5. United States Military
6. West Point Military Academy Museum
7. Been there, done that.
You need some more or is that enough source material?
I should also add that the 600 meter effective ranging requirement is seriously pushing the limitations of the G3 rifle.
I am also well aware that someone, somewhere out there, knows this guy who knows this guy who killed a bad guy with one shot from his M4 carbine at a laser ranged 875 meters,,,
Shear stress, that is exactly why the intermediate range cartridge, large capacity, select fire Assault rifle was developed.
2. Julian Hatcher
3. Janes Defense
4. Palladin press
5. United States Military
6. West Point Military Academy Museum
7. Been there, done that.
You need some more or is that enough source material?
I should also add that the 600 meter effective ranging requirement is seriously pushing the limitations of the G3 rifle.
I am also well aware that someone, somewhere out there, knows this guy who knows this guy who killed a bad guy with one shot from his M4 carbine at a laser ranged 875 meters,,,
Shear stress, that is exactly why the intermediate range cartridge, large capacity, select fire Assault rifle was developed.
Last edited:
tnieto2004
Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,389
I would add the SKS
maddog1775
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2008
- Messages
- 57
Speaking of which, when I was in Afghanistan we found an Enfield in perfect working order. If I recall correctly it had a date stamped on it, sometime around the 1920s I think.
It was loaded, too.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,438
I have been in battles if it were me I rather be looking down the sights of an M14 or M16. An AK or SKS has almost no accurate range. I love the Garand and the 06. But the M14 is better, and the M16 is quicker, and more accurate. A lot depends on what kind of battles you're going to be in. Imagine guys hunting each other in all kinds of terrain. I would go with the M16. If you happen to be in wide open country with no cover, or with body armor the M14 wins.
The rest aren't even it the running if I had to pick and hunt and be hunted.
The rest aren't even it the running if I had to pick and hunt and be hunted.
I have shot out to 400 yards using iron sights on a PSL, which is basically just a big, long barrelled AK. I don't find it particularly difficult to keep all my shots on an 8.5x11 piece of paper at 200 yards with a regular AK either. It's true that AK's aren't MOA weapons like free floated AR's, but they're a lot more accurate than they're given credit for.
If you have trouble hitting things with an AK and there's nothing wrong with the rifle, then it's probably because you're not very good with the AK sights. Notch and post sights are more difficult to use well than the truly excellent iron sights on either an M14 or an M16.
Most AK's will shoot around 4 MOA. You won't win any shooting competitions with that kind of accuracy, but it's still good enough for a head shot out to 200 yards.
best battle rifle of all time: M14
best assualt rifle of all time: AK
best bolt action rifle of all time: MAUSER,probably the only time in history that something was done right the first time.
i find your question extremely flawed but i think i understand.you want something like from those highlander movies,there can be only one....but that is not real life.ask me what you want it for and the answer may become clear.
battle rifles are a direct descendent from when armies used to line up in front of each other and take aim.
assault rifles come from what the germans learned during WW1 and they were correct.
best assualt rifle of all time: AK
best bolt action rifle of all time: MAUSER,probably the only time in history that something was done right the first time.
i find your question extremely flawed but i think i understand.you want something like from those highlander movies,there can be only one....but that is not real life.ask me what you want it for and the answer may become clear.
battle rifles are a direct descendent from when armies used to line up in front of each other and take aim.
assault rifles come from what the germans learned during WW1 and they were correct.
HorseSoldier
Member
What I think elmerfudd already said -- what does "best" even mean? Production numbers, technological/ergonomic superiority that makes it superior to contemporaries, or some other criteria?
Invented by apologists for the 7.62x51 round and the rifles that fired it (primarily the M14) to explain why the US and NATO had decided to adopt weapons that were intentionally less well tailored for real combat than the AK-47.
Picking which conventionally/traditionally defined "battle rifle" is best, is kind of like debating who made the best Betamax VCR at this point.
The AR-10 probably deserves a nod as well, if we're considering the Dragunov and considering the M14 as something besides a short-lived failure as a service rifle based on its limited use as a DMR. The SR-25 and M110 are going strong and look likely to be around when the last M14s are back in their crates or helping build a nice reef off the coast of Florida.
In 7.62x51, though, SCAR-H is probably the winner -- though it should be, being 50 years younger than its competitors.
Invented by apologists for the 7.62x51 round and the rifles that fired it (primarily the M14) to explain why the US and NATO had decided to adopt weapons that were intentionally less well tailored for real combat than the AK-47.
Picking which conventionally/traditionally defined "battle rifle" is best, is kind of like debating who made the best Betamax VCR at this point.
The AR-10 probably deserves a nod as well, if we're considering the Dragunov and considering the M14 as something besides a short-lived failure as a service rifle based on its limited use as a DMR. The SR-25 and M110 are going strong and look likely to be around when the last M14s are back in their crates or helping build a nice reef off the coast of Florida.
In 7.62x51, though, SCAR-H is probably the winner -- though it should be, being 50 years younger than its competitors.
Deputy25
Member
Garand.
The AR10 may very well end up on the list in future times as may a host of other rifles.
Time in use, combat involvement, and numbers issued decide whether a rifle is truely qualified enough to end up on a best of list.
The M1 Garand would certainly capture the title if this Poll had instructed "Prior to 1950",,,
Time in use, combat involvement, and numbers issued decide whether a rifle is truely qualified enough to end up on a best of list.
The M1 Garand would certainly capture the title if this Poll had instructed "Prior to 1950",,,
camies
Member
L39Al 7.62 sniper.
Tough as old boots and reliable out to 1000 yards.
Tough as old boots and reliable out to 1000 yards.
Ignition Override
Member
Aren't most combat encounters 300 yards or primarily much less, except in desert, mountains?
What was the average range at Stalingrad, Berlin and Hue?
How about right now in Iraq?
Being sort of new with guns, curious about some real-world distances.
Am re-reading the superb book about Marine Lt. Philip Caputo's experiences ("A Rumour Of War") near Danang, Viet Nam, 1965-.
Quite grim but fascinating. How could the much faster, but slimmer, smaller mass of the 5.56 compete through jungle growth against the 7.62x39?
How was it? Wasn't the round much more unstable, easier to deflect when it hit any object before hitting the enemy? I don't quite understand debates about tumble etc in typical combat settings, or anywhere else.
Having owned just two Minis (14/30), an SKS and MN 44s for less than a year, although a novice, there is something very simple and extra appealing about the SKS. If they all were designed for AK mags, and original combat issue versus Norinco etc, how would they then rank?
What was the average range at Stalingrad, Berlin and Hue?
How about right now in Iraq?
Being sort of new with guns, curious about some real-world distances.
Am re-reading the superb book about Marine Lt. Philip Caputo's experiences ("A Rumour Of War") near Danang, Viet Nam, 1965-.
Quite grim but fascinating. How could the much faster, but slimmer, smaller mass of the 5.56 compete through jungle growth against the 7.62x39?
How was it? Wasn't the round much more unstable, easier to deflect when it hit any object before hitting the enemy? I don't quite understand debates about tumble etc in typical combat settings, or anywhere else.
Having owned just two Minis (14/30), an SKS and MN 44s for less than a year, although a novice, there is something very simple and extra appealing about the SKS. If they all were designed for AK mags, and original combat issue versus Norinco etc, how would they then rank?
Last edited:
woodybrighton
member
the mauser makes for a good hunting action.
but not a combat weapon especially against the lee enfield
10 round mag vs 5
much faster to shoot and easier to load.
was winning battles and wars before the m1 and m14 existed and was still on issue when those two had faded away.
but not a combat weapon especially against the lee enfield
10 round mag vs 5
much faster to shoot and easier to load.
was winning battles and wars before the m1 and m14 existed and was still on issue when those two had faded away.
English Bob
Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 153
Garand
- Status
Similar threads
