The Best Assault Rifle.

Which One the


  • Total voters
    48

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

Ok NS, I am basically quoting from a book that I have in my lap

" The Colt M-16A2 Developed in collaboration with the Diemco of Canadawas based upon the M16A2 rifle, it has a heavier barrel, larger and stronger fore-end. the lenth of the rifle was about 38in long weighed close to six Kilograms like I said earlier "It was a heavy Bastard"
 
Yeah, I'd always heard that the heavier barrel of the C7 was later incorperated into later production M-16A2's and A3's in the States as well, but I wouldn't know if that's actually the case. Could be. Why the hell not, eh?
 
K guys lets keep in mind that the Ak-47 though very reliable and Powerful cant shoot further than Sadams Dick. The M-16A2 Is alot more reliable than the original M-16 and more effective ammo has been developed for it as well. Ive also mentiond The Stainles steel Canadian C-7 which I found extremely reliable against Dirt sand and mud so lets all be opend minded about this. PD I did put the FN-FAL up there but I Marked it as The Austrian Steyr.
 
You tart - the FN-FAL is the base rifle of many alterations and improvements from the many nations ....like the SLR was the British version of the FN-FAL - different rifle. FN-FAL is Belgian ...and why no SLR?
 
Yeah the FN was peice of shit, yeah it used the powerfull 7.62 round the rifle constantly jammed, I wasnt around when canada used it but my NCO's were and they dont have alot of nice things to say about it.
 
Sorry but I believe that the FN's record is exemplary. An awful lot of countries bought it (about 70) and about 10 countries bought licence's to manufacture it. I find it hard to believe so many countries would have made a mistake. Even the German army wanted to use it but the Belgians would sell them a licence to build their own so Germany went a different route.
The Australian Army used it in conjunction with the M16 in Vietnam and the result was an even split, some prefering the rate of fire and lighter weight of the M16 others prefering the accuracy, stopping power and reliability of the FN.
102 I don't know why the Canadian ones had problems. I know that the heavy barreled versions designed to fire on automatic had problems but that was more to do with the power of the cartridge. Could that have been the problem?
 
It had great qualities to it but it had alot of drawbacks, It was accurate, powerfull, Light, and easy to master but the drawbacks like I said were the fact it was an unreliable weapon, those qualities are useless if the dam weapon doesnt fire.

Now Im sure the reasons for so many countries buying the weapon was because 1. they were cheap 2. Most of the Weapons they had could not measure up to the days need of and assault rifle. and 3. If anyone was to ever blindly purchase a weapon from somebody it would be from Fabrique Nationale, cause they are known for exceptionaly fine weapons quality.
 
102. FN's weren't cheap, they were expensive due to a larger than normal number of machined parts. Just that I have never heard of them being unreliable, in fact that was a strength. One of the benefits of the FN was the ease of maintanence and field stripping.
Combining the FN with the GPMG was seen as an almost ideal match.

I admit to not understanding your second point so cannot comment on that
 
There was nothing particularly wrong with the C1, which was the Canadian version of the FN SLR. The problems that finally did occur were due to the same thing as with everything else defence related here: They got so damn old and abused that they eventually just wore out. I trained with the C1 back in basic, and it was essentially a good rifle. Every bit as reliable as the Belgian or British production versions. Like any old piece of equipment though, it required a fair bit of special attention, as did the C2 light machine gun version, and it was past it's time as the main battle rifle of the Canadian Armed Forces. The C7 was very welcomed by most of the troops, as was the C9 light machine gun (essentially the FN Minmi/M249 SAW). The 7.62mm C6 (FN-MAG 58 ) is still used as the general purpose machine gun of the Forces though, and is still pretty reliable.
 
Anyway thats my opinion, So whats wrong with the Tar-21 nobodys voted for that, or the X-M8 which is basically a space aged M-16 with a larger caliber.

The Mag 58, reminds me of the MG-42 in terms of fire rate, but jesus it overheats just too damn fast.
 
I personally would not go with any of those up there. I like the G36. It is much better than the M-16 and the M-4. When I was at our units gunnery the last 2 weeks. We spent the whole time at a German Military Post and got to shoot the G36. It was extremly accurate and just fun to shoot. We also had to qualify on the M-4 Carbine (smaller version of the M-16 with a folding stock) and we installed the red dot sites on them but I was not too impressed with the site. I am sure it is great for close quarter combat but not for long range targes. Ofcourse the real reason we were there was to do our Helicopter Door Gunnery Qualifications. As usual that was a lot of fun and I hummed the tune from Apocolypse Now the whole time I was shooting from my Blackhawk.
 
102first_hussars said:
Anyway thats my opinion, So whats wrong with the Tar-21 nobodys voted for that, or the X-M8 which is basically a space aged M-16 with a larger caliber.

How can someone vote for the XM-8 when it has not been fielded yet and is probably going to get canceled anyhow and replaced by the Barret 6.8mm?
 
The 2 smells I love the most are burn powder and burning JP8 when my engines are starting up in the morning!

Okay well there are some other smells that I really love more but I wont go into those.....
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back