Best Post-War Battle Rifle

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Amen to that!

One of the most idiotic myths of WW II

Steve

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)

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

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.

M-14 or FAL, the Aks sights are bad