Best Post-War Battle Rifle

Best Post War BR

  • M-14

    Votes: 12 21.1%

  • FN FAL/SLR

    Votes: 13 22.8%

  • G3

    Votes: 13 22.8%

  • AK-47

    Votes: 19 33.3%
  • Total voters
    57

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...
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 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
(Main) Battle Rifles use full size rifle rounds while Assault Rifles use Intermediate Rounds (basically a full-size Rifle round cut in half).
 
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.
 
Another question:
If you chamber the M-14 for the M43 7.62×39mm, is it now an assault rifle?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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) .
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best plan for Argentina in Falklands War
Replies
9
Views
1K
EwenS
E
A
Best post-MiG 21 single engined Soviet/Russian fighter or bomber?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
bf109xxl
A very simple test of knowledge of the post-war Soviet Air Force
Replies
14
Views
1K
PStickney
P
Vietnam War Books?
Replies
7
Views
959
Tony Kambic
Korean War Aircraft: The F9F Panther, MiG-15, And Other Key Jet Fighters And Bombers
Replies
1
Views
226
Gnomey
Menu
Log in
Register