The top 10 combat rifles

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

Good stuff Rog and if you have a regiment of German infantry in the open at a range of 800 yards in 1914, the 3O3 British SMLE and trained like the "Old Contemptibles" were.
 
T4.H said:
As I know, they realy like the new HK G36 in the German army. One I know, he said it is the best one in the world now. If it is true, I don't know.
Click to expand...

He very well could be right. When I was in the US Army we had a partnership with a Bundeswehr unit and we got to go and shoot to qualify for the German Schutzenschnur and we had to shoot the G36 among other weapons and it was an outstanding weapon.

After that fun filled weekend we all decided we would trade our M-16 in for a G36 anyday.
 
I think the M-1 garand was better then the Enfield but in my opinion. It was used all the way into Viet Nam and was very accurate, I can understand the AK-47 being ahead of the M-16.

And again in my view everything Hekler and Koch makes is the bomb diggity!
 
Hi guys!
I`ve only found this thread now, so if you don`t mind i will post my opinion!!

herei s the list:
1. HK G36
2. AK-47
3. HK G3
4. M-16
5. Mauser model 98K Carbine
6. M1 Garand
7. Lee Enfield SMLE
8. 1903 Springfield
9. Sturmgewher 44 (MP43)
10. M14

has for the FN FAL, is a sorry excuse for a rifle!!!
I will tell you why, the Portuguese Air Force Paratroopers used it in The colonial wars in the 60s, and was even worst them the AR-15 they allready used, the barrels bent with the use! not something you are loking in your rifle is it? we had no trouble with the substitute for it! the Portuguese made HK G3
only problem is only uses 20 rounds in Mag! or it would be nr.1 for me!!
 
this woud be my second shoise

1.AK-47
2.Mauser 98
3.Springfield 1903
4.M1 Garand
5.Sturmgewher 44 (MP43)
6.Lee Enfield SMLE
7.M-16
8.HK G36
9.m14
10.fx-05
 
Garand was a good design, but I am loathe to describe it a great design. It was a little on the heavy side, not quite as resistant to mud and dust as it should be, and slightly less accurate than the springfield, or even the lee Enfield.

The success of the garand owes more to the soundness of US small arms procurement policy than to the outstanding nature of its design. Credit must be given to the fact that it was the first self loader to be adopted enmasse by any army in the world, but this is hardly reason to place it in the upper echelons of the "best of the best"

Its also interesting to look at the M-16. During the Vietnam war, the Australian forces used as their standard side arm the FN FAL, or SLR as we called it. There was some use of the M-16 as well, but it was not generally liked by the Australians, because it was thought to lack killing power (something I dont agree with). There were three versions of SLR, but as rifles thre were really only two, the L1A1 20 round version, and the L2A1 30 round version. The 30 round versions were known to be slightly more prone to jams.

The SLR was seldom used in an automatic capacity (as built it does not have such ability, but mods can be made in the field to make it automatic. The Australians adopted a much more conservative approach to jungle warfare than the American, who had a reputation to blunder about the place, with their automatic weapons making one hell of a racket. My opinion is that the Australians were more successful in the jungle than their American cousins, brought about in part by the weaponry they were carting about the place. So, in my opinion, FAL rates as a better weapon than the M-16, at least in some circumstances
 
Parsifal, with respect, you are way off on your appraisal of the Garand. It was the first successful semi auto battle rifle, just as accurate for infantry purposes as any other battle rifle and was probably more resistant to dirt and mud than any other semi auto ever made. It was rugged, easy to maintain, powerful, accurate, fast to load without undue exposure to the user, was little more heavy than the Mauser or Springfield and bottom line, it gave a huge advantage to the US soldier over his enemy. I never was in combat but during training I never once had a stoppage and saw few stoppages with other soldiers. I was absolutely dumbfounded to see the Army teach guys who had never fired a weapon before to hit a target at 500 yards fairly consistently with iron sights and the Garand. The only change I would have made with it was to have gone to a round similar to the .270 Win. It was a war winner!
 
renrich said:
The only change I would have made with it was to have gone to a round similar to the .270 Win. It was a war winner!
Click to expand...

Really ... why?

I love the .270. I have a pre-64 model. It shoots flat, fast and accurate but the bullet is kinda small. With a semi-auto and the average foot soldier, i'd rather have the heavier round. Soldiers with semi auto capability tend to be ammo wasters and pin point accuracy is not always an advantage in combat situations. often the more rounds you can put down field wins the day and if those rounds have more stopping power... all the better.



Single shot, I'd take the .270.

.
 
Hi Renrich

I wont argue the point because my experience with the garand is very limited. My father saw it in use in PNG during the war, and thought it too prone to stoppages in the mud and slush of the jungle. I saw it on hunting trips once or twice, and observed a number of stoppages that I thought should not occur

I knew if I put that post the Americans would come at me like whirling dervishes. I will concede the point, in the intersts of keeping good relations.

Regards

Michael
 
There was one further important point I forgot to mention. The Firing mechanism in the garand was not conducive to providing a grenade launcher. Not sure why, but it just isnt good at it. Consequently the US forces that used it generally had to rely on hand thrown grenades, which may, on occasion, have placed the US fforces at a slight disadvantage
 
Comis, glad you asked. I used to do a lot of handloading and hunting and here is what I found out. The standard military round is the 150 grain spitzer bullet. One can actually load the 270 with a 150 grain bullet to a higher velocity than you can the 06. BUT, I would have loaded the 270 Win (actually a .277 bullet) in the Garand to the same velocity as the 06. Since the 277 bullet has better sectional density and better ballistic coefficent than the 06 of the same weight and shape, you will have a bullet which weighs the same that has better downrange ballistics. It will shoot flatter and arrive with more velocity thus more energy and with more penetration. The place where an 06 out performs the 270 is with big bullets like the 220 gr but they have a rainbow trajectory and are not as suitable for the battlefield. The British tried a bullet of around .274 and considered adopting it but backed off. Same with the US. I believe the reason they stuck with the 06 was because of commonality and all the other weapons using the 06 but it would have been better in the long run IMO to have gone to the 277. Parsifal, the users having trouble with stoppages probably did not know the critical parts of maintaining a Garand. I don't know where the problem with the rifle grenade comes in. I know there were plenty of Garands firing rifle grenades in WW2 and I personally fired one and saw others fired in basic. I got lucky and mine went right into the cave where I was aiming. The cadre made a big deal out of it but I just acted as if all Texans knew how to fire rifle grenades.
 
Interesting. The theory seems sound. Thanks.

I know what u mean by "rainbowing". I use to shoot the Garand at competition matches. I remember a cold day in Oregon shooting at targets 600 yards away. The round left the barrel with a vapor trail that you could follow all the way to the bullseye. It was like a tracer. I was impressed at how accurate you could be with the peep sight even with a drastic arch.

.
 
Parsifal, I agree with your Aussies who believe the M16 lacks killing power. I am not a combat veteren but have killed a lot of game and consider the .223 inadequate for deer which are about the same body weight as a man. When I was on active duty in 61-62, I carried a carbine and it was easy to carry and handy but if we had gone into combat against the Warsaw Pact countries, I would have wanted something more powerful. To me something on the order of the power of the 7x57 would be ideal in a self loading battle rifle and I don't believe full auto is necessary. One more thing on the Garand. If one has a stoppage he is reduced to a bolt action rifle which was the same as the Mauser or Arisaka.
 
Guys

having trouble with my access. keeps dropping out. this is ajust a test to see if I am connected now. Will reply propperly If i can get better connectivity
 
Hi Guys

I am not a vet, served in the RAN 77-85, was trained by guys who did serve (in the army before transfer to RAN as QMGs).

Will defer to your superior knowledge on this one.

Am curious about people who have seen the newer sidearms in action, particualrly the new steyr rifle being carried aound by the diggers. The couple of guys I have spoken to think its great. I have heard that the Brits are unhappy with their new side arm. Not sure whay, any clues???

On the issue of the AK, my wife is Russian. One day I was showing off (as you do), and proudly stated how long it took me to strip down and re-assemble my SLR. She just laughed saying if i was in the Red Army I would have been put back through the small arms course, because I was too slow. She said to me that as a schoool girl (junior high) she could strip down and re-assemble the AQK in about three minutes. If there are any Russian guys or people with AK experience would like to hear. TInternet says that the regulation time to strip and re-assemble is just 38 seconds....wow

Why is there so much vision at the moment of US forces carrying around AKs. US military have been aroun this weapon a lot before, and I never saw them use it in preference to their own side arms to this extent before. Are the Yanks short of bullets or something????
 
Speaking of M1's, I just bought a converted Garand in a .308,great shape,new barrel, had a smith check it over.i paid 625$ for it. I know it's not a collector piece but I have a ton of .308 that I need to shoot and this will be a fun rifle to do it in. looking forward to some range time.
 
parsifal said:
Am curious about people who have seen the newer sidearms in action, particualrly the new steyr rifle being carried aound by the diggers. The couple of guys I have spoken to think its great.
Click to expand...

Hi parsifal, I'm ex-Army and I loved the steyr. It was simply to use, light, easy to clean and strip and I can't remember ever having a stoppage. The recoil was minimal and the adjustable front hand grip was a benefit when firing in different positions. The only thing I didn't like was the crosshairs in its 1.5x optical sight, but that was only a personal opinion as others I know liked it.
 
Thanks Wildcat. Do you know people in Adelaide. One of my best mates is Kev Reid, recently retired from the RAAF, a W/O, was a loadmaster serving in the C130 J sqn?

I see as usual that people are nominating the mauser. There is no easy way to put this, its a terrible gun, very nasty. Not outstandingly accurate (at least the 1935 98K, mostly because of the short sight radius), slow and cumbersome in the action, hard to build relatively, at the end of the war suffered from QA problems, small magazine.

The 98K was the standard issue weapon of the Wehrmacht

Whereas Allied soldiers were often only too willing to use other captured german weapons (like pistols smgs and the like) there are very few examples of the Mausers being employed in this way....reason, poor performance.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
The OV-10 Fought ISIS
Replies
0
Views
576
MIflyer
M
THE A-10 THUNDERBOLT II Attack Aircraft AKA The Warthog
Replies
4
Views
846
Denniss
D
A-10 THUNDERBOLT II "Warthog." The Untold Story And Things You Might Not Know, Part 2
Replies
0
Views
522
Dronescapes
A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog". The Untold Story And Things You Might Not Know
Replies
1
Views
616
Gnomey
M
Last USAF KC-10A Heads For The Boneyard
Replies
14
Views
759
MIflyer
M
Menu
Log in
Register