# Best Post-War Battle Rifle



## Zniperguy114 (Apr 17, 2010)

After WWII, America, the USSR and many European countries were looking for a new, modern rifle for service. I've picked four famous post-war developments: the M-14, FN FAL/SLR, HK G3, and the infamous Russian AK-47 as choices for debate. Now this is not about how good of a weapon all around the rifle is, but how good of a RIFLE it is. (Instead of how good it is all around in killing the enemy, how good it does that like a proper rifle should.)


----------



## riacrato (Apr 18, 2010)

I don't quite get what you mean by "rifle vs. weapon" to be honest.

As far as bench shooting goes you might be happier with an M-14. As far as weapon for war goes, that would be G3 for me.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2010)

I pick AK any day of the week for your average meatball untrained 'soldier'. It is indestructable, accurate enough and needing virtually zero maintenance.


----------



## Pong (Apr 19, 2010)

Definitely the AK.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 19, 2010)

Isn't the G3 in the same family as the FN/SLR? 

Voted for the G3 but am a huge fan of the SLR, even over the M14. Last in the pack is the AK. As noted, great for the untrained solider and very low handling requirements. Even made it on the flag of an African Nation (I think it's Nambia). Definitely huge impact on the world, greater than any of the other weapons.

But, all that being said, I'm going with the SLR or G3. Better, more accurate weapons.


----------



## marshall (Apr 19, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Last in the pack is the AK. As noted, great for the untrained solider and very low handling requirements. Even made it on the flag of an African Nation (I think it's Nambia).




It's not Namibia but Mozambique.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 19, 2010)

The AK-47
The SLR was a good weapon but not a great weapon. In the hands of an savvy infantry platoon it could get through the side wall of the AFVs of the day. Firing pin had an annoying tendency to freeze in the Arctic. Gas regulator settings could get fussy from weapon to weapon.
Generally good characteristics were its non-subtle nature, it was a bit of a blunderbuss; hiding behind cars (including the engine bay), walls etc from it generally did you no good. Totally inappropriate for the streets of Northern Ireland.
I'd take one any day over the SA-80; I was hugely relieved that as they were on their way in, I was on my way out.

The AK-47 doesn't seem to have the word 'stoppage' in its vocabulary.

Tim
the FN/SLR was product of Fabrique Nationale as I recall, the G3 was part of the Heckler-Koch family.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 19, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> The AK-47
> The SLR was a good weapon but not a great weapon. In the hands of an savvy infantry platoon it could get through the side wall of the AFVs of the day. Firing pin had an annoying tendency to freeze in the Arctic. Gas regulator settings could get fussy from weapon to weapon.
> Generally good characteristics were its non-subtle nature, it was a bit of a blunderbuss; hiding behind cars (including the engine bay), walls etc from it generally did you no good. Totally inappropriate for the streets of Northern Ireland.
> I'd take one any day over the SA-80; I was hugely relieved that as they were on their way in, I was on my way out.
> ...


never had the FN freeze on me even once when it hit -35C. maybe poor maintainence?


----------



## timshatz (Apr 19, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Tim
> the FN/SLR was product of Fabrique Nationale as I recall, the G3 was part of the Heckler-Koch family.



Colin. Was aware they were from different manufacturers but thought they shared the same action. The Cetme from Spain was the patern both families of weapons came from. Could be wrong on that. 

Marshall, my bad. Probably could've googled it and figured it out but....


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 19, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> never had the FN freeze on me even once when it hit -35C. maybe poor maintenance?


We didn't use the FN version of the weapon
ours did not have the automatic fire function; no idea whether that counts for anything. I don't think many British soldiers (myself included) would thank you for questioning our diligence with weapon maintenance; there were one or two bad apples but the majority of us knew why we were there.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 19, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Colin. Was aware they were from different manufacturers but thought they shared the same action. The Cetme from Spain was the pattern both families of weapons came from. Could be wrong on that


Doubt it
probably me


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 19, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> We didn't use the FN version of the weapon
> ours did not have the automatic fire function; no idea whether that counts for anything. I don't think many British soldiers (myself included) would thank you for questioning our diligence with weapon maintenance; there were one or two bad apples but the majority of us knew why we were there.


Our version was also not auto , we did have a squad based version which had a bipod heavier barrel and was fully auto. I know your rfle wasn't as good in the colder climates for the operator as it was tough to use with mittens as the trigiger guard was stationary.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 19, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Isn't the G3 in the same family as the FN/SLR?



G3 is a roller locking design. SLR is gas piston/tilting breechlock.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 19, 2010)

AK all the way, though with any of the ones a decent shooter would have the edge in distances over 300m, vs. the AK-47.
But then, many people are not decent shooters 

G3 FN-FAL are not related.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 22, 2010)

isn't this the "one size fits all" debate? under what conditions? Where? When? Depending on the mission we generally made sure that there was at least one m-14 for its ability to penetrate cover, most carried the CAR-15 though on occasion a 12gauge was the best choice. AK's were the best "under the conditions". farmers buried them in the ground covered in sand and dung for a year and they fired while the m-16 would jam it you looked too hard at it. but the AK was only used on covert missions and the whole team carried because of its distinctive sound.
personally i used an uzi that i bought a in a bar from an old Sargent going "back to the world"


----------



## Zniperguy114 (May 10, 2010)

mikewint said:


> isn't this the "one size fits all" debate? under what conditions? Where? When? Depending on the mission we generally made sure that there was at least one m-14 for its ability to penetrate cover, most carried the CAR-15 though on occasion a 12gauge was the best choice. AK's were the best "under the conditions". farmers buried them in the ground covered in sand and dung for a year and they fired while the m-16 would jam it you looked too hard at it. but the AK was only used on covert missions and the whole team carried because of its distinctive sound.
> personally i used an uzi that i bought a in a bar from an old Sargent going "back to the world"



to answer your "under what conditions" question, i say any and all conditions. 

riacrato, what i mean by rile vs. weapon is that does it have good RIFLE triats vs. just any good weapon traits it has(i.e. smg traits and/or PDW traits)

Personally, the weapon I'd go to war with is the G3. Originally designed in bunkers in berlin in 1945, the g3 was to replace the StG 44 in service as the StG 45. Only 30 StG 45s were ever built, but the design was still there and after the war was sold to CETME. After Germany was rejected the rights to manufacture the FAL/SLR, Germany fell back to use the design and the G3 was born. The G3 used a roller-locking delayed-blowback system that used rollers to delayed the bolt until gas pressure levels inside the chamber were at a safe leve, making the rifle be just as accuate and reliable as it is powerful. So, if I had to go to war today, I'd go into battle with the G3 on my back.

Source: 
_Small Arms From The Civil War To Present Day_ by Martin J. Dougherty, Author. Copyright 2005 Barnes Noble, Inc.


----------



## gjs238 (May 29, 2010)

Comparing apples oranges here.
M-14, FNFAL/SLR G3 are main battle rifles.
AK-47/AKM are assault rifles, as is M-16, StG 44, etc.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 30, 2010)

'Main battle rifle'??
Now, that's something new.


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jun 5, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> Comparing apples oranges here.
> M-14, FNFAL/SLR G3 are main battle rifles.
> AK-47/AKM are assault rifles, as is M-16, StG 44, etc.



I see were you are coming from, but think of it this way: the AK-47 and AKM (and relitives with the same 7.62mm by 39mm round) are the only assault rifles with a 7.62mm calibre or higher. And before you say "Wait a minute, the StG 44 used a 7.92mm by 33mm round and that was the first assault rifle." I would like to point out the the 7.92mm by 33mm known better as the 7.92mm Kurz, is only .3mm of a difference from the .30 calibre carbine round used in the M1 carbine. The .30 calibre round was 7.62mm by 33mm and is clearly close both in dimensions and in how they worked on the battle field. The StG was a weaker than stardard rifles of the day but kept accuracy and range of the rifles. This made it possible to have an accurate long range weapon with full auto abilites. The StG was a weaker, light calibre weapon because the round it used was so SHORT not WIDE like with most other cases in naming the difference between an assault rifle or battle rifle. So, in other words, I think the AK series can be either or, and for that matter considered an oversized SMG because of its traits.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 5, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> Comparing apples oranges here.
> M-14, FNFAL/SLR G3 are main battle rifles.
> AK-47/AKM are assault rifles, as is M-16, StG 44, etc.


Assault rifle and 'main battle rifle'? What's the difference?
If you turn up for a gig with the wrong weapon, what happens?


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jun 5, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Assault rifle and 'main battle rifle'? What's the difference?
> If you turn up for a gig with the wrong weapon, what happens?



Colin1, a battle rifle is a rifle with a heavy calibre ( the 7.62mm NATO is noteably most common ) and an assault rifle is just about any other intermediate round smaller than the 7.62mm NATO.

One reason why I like ( and think the US and NATO should use them) battle rifles is because they are all around service weapons. As an example: The G3 has higher velocity than the AK series and thus stronger stopping power and a faster bullet. But also, Battle rifles like the G3 are usually very accurate as well. (One reason I like the G3 is because it is also reliable as well as powerful and accuate) With these reasons, anyone would think that battle rifles could excel at all ranges and in mostly all battle field situations. So by using a Battle rifle, armies no longer need the issue SMGs and other CQB weapons. Assault rifles are more sided toward one of two catagories: Accurate and Weak or Inaccurate and Powerful.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 5, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> Colin1, a battle rifle is a rifle with a heavy calibre ( the 7.62mm NATO is noteably most common ) and an assault rifle is just about any other intermediate round smaller than the 7.62mm NATO


As I recall
the AK-47 was 7.62mm. It was also slightly bigger than standard NATO 7.62mm ball; the idea being that they could use our ammunition as they overran our positions, but we couldn't do the same with theirs.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 5, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> So by using a Battle rifle, armies no longer need the issue SMGs and other CQB weapons


Shorter, sub-calibre weapons are hard to replace in the defence of field complexes


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jun 6, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> As I recall
> the AK-47 was 7.62mm. It was also slightly bigger than standard NATO 7.62mm ball; the idea being that they could use our ammunition as they overran our positions, but we couldn't do the same with theirs.



Not to be critical, but the 7.62mm NATO was 51mm long and the russians used one 39mm long. But by all means, try to load a NATO round into an AK and tell me how well that worked out.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 7, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> Not to be critical...


You're not being critical
I'm just trying to understand the difference between a main battle rifle and an assault rifle


----------



## sniperexpertL96 (Jun 10, 2010)

my opinion is that for the modern soldier to understand the complicated interior of the fal compared to the g3 would leave the g3 in a better position to take apart. however they are both good but the way that the fal works in my opinion doesnt match the g3.


----------



## Loiner (Jun 11, 2010)

Are there any official figures on the maximum 'effective' ranges of the M14, FN/SLR, G3 and AKM, ie. the max range with a high probability of a hit on a human sized target.

I think I read once that the AK is substantially less than the others based on it's shorter round and the weapon's lower tolerances during manufacture. Of course it scores highly on reliability, probably due to the rugged nature of its design.


----------



## Chief (May 14, 2011)

(Main) Battle Rifles use full size rifle rounds while Assault Rifles use Intermediate Rounds (basically a full-size Rifle round cut in half).


----------



## gjs238 (May 15, 2011)

Battle rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## glennasher (May 19, 2011)

Not to be too pedantic about it, but the AK is an assault rifle, with an intermediate sized cartridge, where the other three ARE battle rifles, firing "full-sized" cartridges. So my vote is for the SLR.


----------



## gjs238 (May 19, 2011)

Didn't the US test the FN-FAL against the M-14 and found it wanting?


----------



## gjs238 (May 19, 2011)

Another question:
If you chamber the M-14 for the M43 7.62×39mm, is it now an assault rifle?


----------



## renrich (May 20, 2011)

Having qualified with the Garand in basic and later with the M14 and since the M14 is similar to the M1, I vote for M14. An interesting article in the "American Rifleman" points out how the average US soldier is not a good shot and how that is hurting us in Afghanistan. Part of that problem is caused by the "trainfire" training they get today as well as the M16 type weapon which is certainly not a long range weapon. When I was in basic we still trained on the KD range with ranges up to 500 yards and then were exposed to "trainfire" shooting at shorter undetermined ranges at pop up targets. I can see how that, along with the M16 type could lead to poor marksmanship abilities. If I have a bad guy shooting at me from 300-500 yards away, give me my trusty Garand(or M14) and he is in trouble.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 20, 2011)

I just fired in the Adjudant generals match here in my home state. I am a member of an official state militia, if the Governor goes completely insane we can be activated, otherwise we are a ceremonial drinking and marching unit with a history that goes back to 1775 

We had to use borrowed M-16s and M9 Berettas. There were at least 16 other National Guard teams and a trophy (and bragging rights) are up for grabs. It was held indoors at 75 ft max range as it has been for the last 3 years. This year there was even less precision fire than last year and while it might reflect close quarters combat a bit more the actual "marksmanship" skills seemed a bit lacking (last 6 shot stage with pistol are fired at 3 yds with the pistol held waist level with both hands. 4 sec to fire 6 shots?) 
20 rounds out of 80 fired with the rifle are done while wearing a gas-mask. A useful skill I suppose but for us older bifocal wearers (can't fit glasses under mask) the only learning experience was that I might be more dangerous to my friends than to an enemy if I have to wear a gas mask and shoot. 
You can see where the emphasis is and long range (anything much over 200-300yds) precision fire isn't it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> 20 rounds out of 80 fired with the rifle are done while wearing a gas-mask. A useful skill I suppose but for us older bifocal wearers (can't fit glasses under mask) .


 
You don't have the inserts for the mask. I still have my gas mask "glasses" inserts that fit inside the gas mask so that I can still see...

Never bothered me though because I always wore contact lenses unless I was flying. Didn't want to take the risk of them falling out in flight.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 21, 2011)

Our "unit" isn't issued gas masks (we had to borrow them) and we didn't know the course of fire until 30 minutes before going on the firing line despite several requests by our team captain for the information in the weeks previous. Although they have to include us they don't like us competing with them. two years ago they never notified us of the match date. This was the year after we placed 3rd team out of 16 and one of our members got high individual rifle. The men running the match offered us every courtesy and were most helpful but the HQ staff doesn't think it looks good to have some middle to retirement aged "semi-official" militia group out shooting regular National Guardsmen.

Our web site: 2nd Company Governor's Foot Guard of Connecticut

Our rifle team consists of a small number of competitive shooters (although we are getting older) one of which spent a number of years on the state NG team when the Connecticut NG team was the best in the nation. A few others have competed at the National Matches.
Maybe I am biased due to my competition background but when I can 'qualify' expert with the Beretta pistol the first time I ever fired it while wearing bifocals ( 4 years ago) and have a hard time seeing the front sight I have to wonder.....am I that *GOOD* or are their standards that *BAD*


----------



## renrich (May 25, 2011)

I feel sure that I am not realistic about this subject, but it seems to me that the most important skill an infantry soldier can learn is marksmanship with his weapon or weapons. Supposedly the British infantryman, in 1914, was trained to lay down rapid, accurate fire at ranges out to 800 yards and they demonstrated that in combat in the early days of WW1. It seems to me that all infantry everywhere should have the skills and the weapon to achieve that same objective. Why carry something if one cannot use it effectively? Recently was shooting at a mansized target at 50 yards with a Colt's Combat Commander, 45 ACP and a Ruger Blackhawk 41 Magnum. Easy to hit with the Ruger but the Colt's was problematical. Not sure that a single action revolver would be all that practical in combat though


----------



## Shortround6 (May 26, 2011)

I have a couple of Rugers in .45 Colt and Colt Gold Cup. I have no idea how your Commander is set up but the issue small sights and quite possibly worse trigger on the Colt could be a big part of the difference?


----------



## renrich (May 26, 2011)

The sights and trigger on the Commander are terrible. The Black Hawk is the old three screw model, #2240, bought for $78, new and the trigger is exceptional and the sights adequate. The Ruger is sighted in at 100 yards and when brand new was often fired without ear protection. It's gift to me is most likely constant ear ringing.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 27, 2011)

Getting back on topic, the M-14 is probably a better "range" rifle. It can be made to perform better on the rifle range (as opposed to combat) and for an operator who knows what he is doing the sight system is better and offers more flexibility. The SLR and the G3 are probably better combat rifles. 
Look at how the world "voted". 
How many countries adopted the SLR? and how many even set up local factories for them. How many countries adopted the G3? How many local factories? How many adopted the M-14? Subtract the number of countries that were given the rifles as "aid" and I think the vote goes to the SLR by a considerable margin. Factor in any bribes, off-set deals (trade swaps?) or industrial start up deals ( we buy your rifle and pay you to set up a factory in our country) and I think the SLR still comes out on top.


----------



## renrich (May 28, 2011)

For those of you who might not be aware of this, the Garand and M14 have similar ballistic characteristics. When I was in basic training withe Garand, I was amazed that the Army could take recruits, many of whom had never fired a weapon before, and train them where on the known distance range they could put at least a few rounds into a 30 inch bull from the prone position at a range of 500 yards with iron sights( a receiver mounted peep sight.) That round at 500 yards still has almost 1000 foot pounds of energy and is still very lethal. The Army just did a marvelous job of training then, in my book.


----------



## Glider (May 28, 2011)

renrich said:


> I feel sure that I am not realistic about this subject, but it seems to me that the most important skill an infantry soldier can learn is marksmanship with his weapon or weapons. Supposedly the British infantryman, in 1914, was trained to lay down rapid, accurate fire at ranges out to 800 yards and they demonstrated that in combat in the early days of WW1. It seems to me that all infantry everywhere should have the skills and the weapon to achieve that same objective. Why carry something if one cannot use it effectively? Recently was shooting at a mansized target at 50 yards with a Colt's Combat Commander, 45 ACP and a Ruger Blackhawk 41 Magnum. Easy to hit with the Ruger but the Colt's was problematical. Not sure that a single action revolver would be all that practical in combat though


 
The pre WW1 british soldier was expected to hit a target at 300 yards with 15 shots in one minute. Not bad going you must admit. Often reported as being 30 rounds in a minute which is possible but very unlikely to hit a target, but in a WW1 mode against a large number of troops not a real problem.


----------



## renrich (May 28, 2011)

The Brit infantry of "That contemptible little army" in the early going laid down such a barrage of rifle fire at extremely long range on a German unit that the Germans thought they were under fire from machine guns. What a waste when most of the "Old Contemptibles" were gone.


----------



## davebender (Aug 17, 2011)

If we are talking about 1945 to 1960 then I vote for the Stg.45 assault rifle and 7.92mm Kurz cartridge. IMO it's the rifle and ammunition that should have become NATO standard.

We would probably have the FN FAL also. The original model of that weapon was chambered for the 7.92mm Kurz cartridge. Might have been a better overall infantry rifle chambered for the intermediate power cartridge.

Modern Firearms - Stg.45(M)





Caliber: 7.92x33mm (7,92mmKurz)
Action: delayed blowback
Overalllength: 893 mm
Barrel length: 400 mm
Weight: 3.7 kg
Rate of fire: 400 rounds per minute
Magazine capacity: 10 or 30 rounds


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Aug 19, 2011)

I have had a chance to fire and field strip all of the guns in the poll and these are my conclusions:

First of all, the M16 wasn't mentioned, but it really is not in the same class as the AK-47. My own term when describing this class of gun is "Light Rifle" as versus "Assault Rifle". The AK-47 is typically called a 300 yard gun. I have never fired out that far, but with the sights on it and generally poor accuracy, 200 yards is challenging enough. It CAN hit a man-sized target out that far, but I would not count on making a head shot. The M16 is different. You can make a head shot if you know what you are doing. With optics and decent ammunition, you can pick which eye socket to hit. Figure that an average AK can shoot a 4-6 inch 5 shot group at 100 yards. Don't bother with optics for the AK. They won't help.

The G3 (I fired a HK-91) is chunky and feels heavier than it is. The accuracy is pretty consistent from gun to gun. The muzzle blast is noticeably worse than the other 7.62 NATO guns because of the shorter barrel. The gun is roller locked (delayed blowback) and has a fluted chamber and also tosses its spent cases forward and right at a 45 degree angle about 30 feet with almost enough energy to achieve low Earth orbit. It relies on VERY precise geometry in the trunnion and rollers to work correctly. The barrels are free floated which SHOULD be good for accuracy but even with optics, I haven't been able to achieve much better than about 2 inch groups at 100 yards. Optics are done by a very expensive mount that clamps onto the upper part of the receiver. Perhaps the sniper version (PSG-1) is more accurate, but optics on this gun just improve useability rather than precision.

The FN FAL is very ergonomic. It just feels right. The gas system is manually adjustable and needs to be tuned again (adjust until the gun ejects the cases and give it two more clicks more energy) for any ammunition change. The reason this gun (T48) failed the US Army arctic tests is because the energy wasn't quite high enough even with the vent completely closed and the fellow on site tried to enlarge the gas port for more energy (too much as it turns out) and things started to break. The rear sight on all the guns I have handled and fired are poor and wobbly. Good enough for shooting at people sized targets but not for really precise work. Optics are hard to fit to this gun and are done by replacing the sheet steel top cover. The front sling swivel is also attached to a collar around the barrel which is just plain stupid for accuracy. If there is a failure to chamber with an oversized round, the extension rod on the bolt carrier will extend into the stock and prevent the gun from being broken down. I personally experienced this. Accuracy is generally very good to excellent. I have shot 1.25 inch 5 shot groups with a standard model of these guns. The tilting block bolt is not very positive in terms of camming force to chamber rounds and typically is adjusted for slightly long headspace to take this into account. (Perhaps it is just 7.62 NATO versus .308 Winchester differences.) Typical accuracy with good ammunition is around 1.5 inch to 2 inch groups at 100 yards.

The M14 (I have only fired Commercial Semi-auto versions) has the best sights of any battle rifle made (shares them with the M1 Garand). The accuracy in untuned versions is probably around 1.5 to 3 inch groups at 100 yards. They vary so much because a lot of the accuracy depends on the exact relationship between parts that all vary a bit. The fit of the gun in the stock is even more important and will screw up accuracy even if everything else is right. Properly tuned target versions of these guns will shoot 10 shots into 1 inch groups at 100 yards. I personally have shot (with optics) groups that were only slightly over 1/2 inch for 5 shots at 100 yards. Optics mounts are hit or miss with these guns, but my own personal experience over a bunch of (commercial) rifles is that it isn't difficult.

Given a rifle off the rack, I would choose either the FAL or the M14. Given a tuned rifle, I would easily choose the M14.

Just my 1.5 cents.
- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Aug 19, 2011)

Oh yeah, 

I have never fired a StG 45, but the 7.92 Kurz has ballistics even worse than a AK round. It's a good submachine gun replacement but really isn't good enough when any kind of range is involved. 300 yards is REALLY about the furthest you can use this. FWIW though, the AK round isn't effective all that much further and the 7.62 NATO is really only good out to about 800 yards reliably.

Another consideration is that the 7.62 x 39 is reasonably good for full automatic fire, but the 7.62 NATO is just a bit overpowered for a shoulder fired full automatic.

- Ivan.


----------



## davebender (Aug 24, 2011)

I have fired M14 rifles in National Guard marksmanship matches. It's a fabulous rifle for punching holes in targets at 500+ yards. However it's not a rifle I would want to carry in the field.

When I was in the Army I wanted a rifle and ammunition that were as light as possible as I had to carry it every hour of the day that I wasn't sleeping. Ergonomics were very important. The weapon must be quick to bring into action even if I was riding in a vehicle or carrying it on my back while studying a map. Reliablity is important but I don't buy into the argument that a rifle should still fire after being buried in the mud for a month. A soldier deployed to a field environment should clean his weapon every day and it's his squad leader's job to see that it gets done. A solder who doesn't keep his weapon clean is probably also neglecting other tasks that are simple yet crucial to survival.

IMO the M-16 series is close to ideal for a mass issue army rifle. However if we are talking about 1945 to 1960 the M-16 rifle wasn't available. The StG45 and 7.92mm kurz version of the FN FAL were available and I think both would work well for the same reasons the M-16 is good.

Not to be overlooked, a general issue army rifle should be inexpensive. The StG45 and Ak47 were both dirt cheap to manufacture. The M-16 was pretty cheap too. The proceeding M-1 and M-14 series military rifles are among the most expensive ever placed into mass production. Does anyone know how much a FN FAL cost during the late 1940s / early 1950s?


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 24, 2011)

There were 1,380,000 M14 rifles sold to the defense dept. at a cost of 143 million dollars, that comes to about $104 a rifle in middle 60's dollars.

In 1966 840,000 M16's were ordered, at 92 million dollars, thats $109 per rifle.


----------



## renrich (Aug 25, 2011)

My favorite rifle to carry was the M1 Carbine. Around five pounds and compact. I carried one for a year at Fort Polk in 61-62. If we had gone in to battle I would have gotten an M14. To me, in a battle full automatic capability is overated. The M14, powerful and accurate, with a 20 round capacity and self loading is almost ideal. The drawback is the rifle and ammo is heavy and bulky. For a soldier who is a good marksman and wants a rifle that is lethal at long range the M14 is almost ideal. I understand that the M14 is deployed in some units in Afghanistan today because it is better suited to combat there than the AR platforms.


----------



## Glider (Aug 25, 2011)

Digressing a little I notice that quite a number of the Libya rebels are armed with ex British SLR (FN) rifles which would indicate that people with next to no training can use them reliably. Also I have seen a couple of Carl Gustav's which were not used by the Libya or France. Funny how no one seems to be reporting this in the press. 

For those interested the give away is that the British SLR was a little longer than the FN and was all black with black plastic furniture.

PS For a person with little training the AK74 is the better choice.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 26, 2011)

The majority of the countries in Africa were armed with the Fal in the 50-70's, including Libya, but not the British version.


----------



## davebender (Aug 27, 2011)

> In 1966 840,000 M16's were ordered, at 92 million dollars, thats $109 per rifle.


I'm not disputing your numbers. However as I recall the replacement cost for an M-16A1 rifle was only about $300 during the late 1980s.

*M1 Carbine Cost and Production Data.*WWIIReenacting.co.uk Forums • View topic - U.S. Carbine Cal. 30 M1....
Looks to me like they averaged $40 to $50 each. About half the price of an M-1 Garrand but still relatively expensive, especially by WWII standards.

For comparison purposes...
Product prices
$26 (66 marks) for a StG44 assault rifle. 
StG45 mass production cost would have been less, which is the primary reason they were planning to switch to the newer design.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 27, 2011)

There was quite a bit of inflation between 66 and the late 80's.
It surprised me to see the unit cost for a M16 was higher than for a M14. But I guess the high grade aluminum, and for the time exotic plastic, ran the price up.


----------



## davebender (Aug 27, 2011)

Perhaps the U.S. Government paid a premium price for early M16 rifles in order to produce them so quickly for the ongoing Vietnam War. Companies that don't normally produce weapons (i.e. GM Hydromatic Transmission Divsion) typically have higher production costs then firms such as Colt and Winchester. In my experience the GM made rifles were also generally of lower quality.


----------



## renrich (Mar 17, 2012)

To finally put to rest the "myth" about the Garand clip ejecting causing a noise which the German soldiers took advantage of, there is an article in the latest "American Rifleman," ( just arrived today) which debunks that. Several months ago another article addressed that issue with WW2 American veterans and they thought it was untrue. That no one in combat would be able to hear the "ping" or I would call it a "ching" of the clip clearing the breech of the rifle. This latest article recounts the experience of some American veterans recently having a reunion near Bastogne, Belgium. Some older men observing the festivities nearby were identified as Wehrmacht Vets and they were asked if they used the sound of the clip being ejected as an advantage in combat. They all laughed and said it was ridiculous because no one could hear that noise in combat and even if it was perfectly quiet no one would know whose weapon was being cleared or reloaded.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Mar 17, 2012)

renrich said:


> To finally put to rest the "myth" about the Garand clip ejecting causing a noise which the German soldiers took advantage of, there is an article in the latest "American Rifleman," ( just arrived today) which debunks that. Several months ago another article addressed that issue with WW2 American veterans and they thought it was untrue. That no one in combat would be able to hear the "ping" or I would call it a "ching" of the clip clearing the breech of the rifle. This latest article recounts the experience of some American veterans recently having a reunion near Bastogne, Belgium. Some older men observing the festivities nearby were identified as Wehrmacht Vets and they were asked if they used the sound of the clip being ejected as an advantage in combat. They all laughed and said it was ridiculous because no one could hear that noise in combat and even if it was perfectly quiet no one would know whose weapon was being cleared or reloaded.



Amen to that!

One of the most idiotic myths of WW II 

Steve


----------



## Rogi (Mar 28, 2012)

I'm not into guns that much but I do know that: 

it paved the way for a reliable weapon any adult/child could opperate that spawned a plethora of variants to the initial version 
and many replicators but never duplicators of the brand. Its seen more wars than most countries have seen sun sets.

P.S. why is the Ak-74 not on this list?  or are we just stipulating the "best" work horse rifle after a certain date to a certain date.
Since most of the stuff you put against the AK is after its initial initiation period (some 5 years+ on most of those rifles)


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 28, 2012)

The AK-47 and variants are assault rifles, this thread concerns battle rifles.


----------



## Tankworks (May 11, 2012)

Am I seeing things or does not the poll at the top of the page include the AK-47? 
Anyhow, if I recall correctly, Israeli soldiers have said that they could not keep the enemy out of the Golan trenches because they did not have enough rifles. A testament there for the use of a rifle with a longer range punch.


----------



## futuredogfight (May 13, 2012)

M-14 or FAL, the Aks sights are bad


----------



## Tante Ju (May 15, 2012)

Glider said:


> Also I have seen a couple of Carl Gustav's which were not used by the Libya or France. Funny how no one seems to be reporting this in the press.



You imply arms smugglers may have been involved and Carl Gustav's may have been procured - illegal? In Africa..? Oh what the world have come to. This should be a new a watergate perhaps, on the continent where drugged 10 year olds run around with AK 47s fighting local warlords war, sure some smugled recoiless rifles in hands of rebels will have new value... sorry for the cynism, but you seem to be genuine shocked and seem believe somebody is covering up something..


----------



## Glider (May 16, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> You imply arms smugglers may have been involved and Carl Gustav's may have been procured - illegal? In Africa..? Oh what the world have come to. This should be a new a watergate perhaps, on the continent where drugged 10 year olds run around with AK 47s fighting local warlords war, sure some smugled recoiless rifles in hands of rebels will have new value... sorry for the cynism, but you seem to be genuine shocked and seem believe somebody is covering up something..



Shocked definately not, bemused yes. The UK often complain about different countrys who supply arms, it is often shouted from the rooftops. But when ex british weapons which can only have come from one place appear on the news, no one says a word.

Bit of a co-incidence


----------



## tyrodtom (May 16, 2012)

The Carl Gustav is a Swedish weapon, supplied to probably about 50 different countries, about 7-8 of them in Africa, Libya included.


----------



## Glider (May 17, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> The Carl Gustav is a Swedish weapon, supplied to probably about 50 different countries, about 7-8 of them in Africa, Libya included.


But the SLR's weren't


----------



## tyrodtom (May 17, 2012)

A lot of African countries were armed with the SLR, again including Libya.


----------



## yulzari (Jun 18, 2012)

The Qataris were well reported as supplying the Libyan rebels with arms (how is curiously under-reported) but where they got them from is not mentioned. One wonders if the UK substantial reserve stocks of obsolete SLRs and Charlie Gs have recently gone down? 

On the thread subject; once I moved sideways from the ruffy-tuffy infantry role to a more gentlemanly one (with a landrover, chair and tea making facilities) I realised I had different needs. In Germany, as an infantryman if I wanted to kill a Soviet soldier I wanted an SLR so that I could kill him from far enough away that his AK was unlikely to kill me. In my new role I wanted a weapon that would frighten the bugger silly if he were close to me and make him hide whilst I ran away, was short and always worked. Thus my new favourite the SMG. Ideal for self protection and close country. The M16/SA80/AK74 seem to me to trying to be both and, perhaps, falls short in each case.

The mantra was, you suppress enemy movement and fire with a machine gun, you protect yourself with an SMG and you kill individuals (including ones behind a wall) with a (proper) rifle.

It doesn't happen often but, when you are close in with the enemy and cannot reload, my SLR pointy stick is longer than your AK pointy stick.

Last thought. For a personal weapon: Charlie G with a canister round. The world's second finest shotgun.


----------



## Glider (Jun 18, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> A lot of African countries were armed with the SLR, again including Libya.



They weren't, they did use the FN but the British SLR was I believe only used by the British.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 18, 2012)

Glider said:


> They weren't, they did use the FN but the British SLR was I believe only used by the British.



who the heck can tell the difference? Especially if it's a older model FN-Fal. The SLR is just a FN-Fal made to inch deminsions, instead of metric.
I've fired them both in Germany, only difference I can remember is the FN-Fal could go full auto.


----------



## Glider (Jun 19, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> who the heck can tell the difference? Especially if it's a older model FN-Fal. The SLR is just a FN-Fal made to inch deminsions, instead of metric.
> I've fired them both in Germany, only difference I can remember is the FN-Fal could go full auto.



If you have fired both then I would expect you to know the difference. British SLR's were quite a bit longer than the FN, with an all black furniture and as such are immediately recognisable when looking at them.

The first British SLR was just an Imperial version of the Metric version but when in the early 1970's the black furniture version arrived, they were longer.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 19, 2012)

It's was in 1972 or 3 when I fired both in Germany, at Wildflecken, Germany, where Nato did their mountain warfare training. The British with their SLR, the Belgium or Dutch with their FN's, and the Germans with their Cetmes.
There's been so many versions of the FN's made, I wouldn't go by color or length to tell one from a SLR in a picture.
Some of those SLR/FNs could be over 50 years old, i'm sure i'm not the only person in the world to refinish and reblue a rifle.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 19, 2012)

...and the inch mags and metric mags are not interchangeable. I have an SLR and the fooking inch mags are a pain in the azz to get ahold of. Or at least they were 10+ years ago. I would be stocking up with more, if my SLR wasn't such a dog. Some goofball cleaned the $hit out of it from the muzzle end on a VERY frequent basis. In hindsight, I wish I had not bought it and I certainly overpaid for it (thanks Clinton you SoB). Not the rifle's fault. Mine. Fantastic design and very heavy.


----------



## yulzari (Jun 28, 2012)

The SLR magazines were designed to be interchangeable with LMG (7.62mm Bren gun) so you could have a 30 round SLR magazine.


----------



## Airframes (Jul 8, 2012)

There is actually quite a bit of difference between the L1A1 (SLR) and FN FAL, externally and internally. The SLR has a different shape to the top cover and the rear of the receiver, has a 'folding' cocking handle, which does not reciprocate when firing, a different fore sight and protector, different rear sight, the gas plug arrangement is slightly different, magazine release different, safety catch only, no selector, and a different shape, and the flash suppressor is totally different, on a slightly longer barrel.
Internally, the gas return piston and spring are a different length and spring tension, the barrel is lighter than the FAL, the bolt carrier, bolt and ejector claw differ, and the sear is a different shape.
That said, they both work, very well indeed, although the L1A1 has a tendency to be more reliable over all, probably due to semi-auto only.
And from experience, when you hit a target using the SLR, it stays hit !


----------



## Glider (Jul 8, 2012)

Airframes said:


> .
> And from experience, when you hit a target using the SLR, it stays hit !



Something the Australians learnt in S Vietnam


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 16, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> It's was in 1972 or 3 when I fired both in Germany, at Wildflecken, Germany, where Nato did their mountain warfare training. The British with their SLR, the Belgium or Dutch with their FN's, and the Germans with their Cetmes.
> There's been so many versions of the FN's made, I wouldn't go by color or length to tell one from a SLR in a picture.
> Some of those SLR/FNs could be over 50 years old, i'm sure i'm not the only person in the world to refinish and reblue a rifle.



The German Rifles were probably G3s. I am not entirely certain what the difference is between that and the CETME though.
There are a bunch of detail differences between the L1A1 (SLR) and the FN FAL and its clones. The easiest to spot at a distance is the flash suppressor, disassembly lever and the metal at the front of the handguards.

Having fired both the FAL and M14 in civilian semiauto versions, my preference isn't all that certain. I like the M1A in accurized versions for its accuracy, but it is an awfully heavy rifle that is difficult to maintain in the field. With a match gun, you do NOT take the action out of the stock and that makes cleaning difficult. It carries optics much better than the FAL though.

Yes, I just revived an ancient thread, but I found it while doing a search.

- Ivan.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 16, 2013)

You have to give it to the FAL for ease of field maintenance. It is a beautiful design. I agree with your accuracy notes of the M14... when accurized. I'm not so familiar with similar efforts for the FAL, but suspect that is suffers from the same problem as the AK (scopes cannot be accurately mounted on the action cover and thus must be mounted on the side of the receiver). I suppose that one could argue this is in actuality no different than the M14, but perhaps the M14 design allows for an inherently more free floating barrel not subject to user torque and torsion. I don't know. I love them both and would be torn to choose between them, but today would likely choose the FAL, as much as I adore the M-14.


----------



## Jack_Hill (Feb 16, 2013)

Voted FAL.
Love G3. Shoots real fine, looks more brutal.
but voted powerfull, more simple, acurate and slick FAL.
Ps : may I have a GP35 to go with it ?


----------

