Shooters Forum banner
21 - 40 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
660 Posts
In my opinion, a battle rifle and an assault rifle are different things entirely !!! As much as I respect the AK variants, they are assault rifles. The M-1 Garand and M-14 are battle rifles. To me, were the M-14 used correctly, would have been about the closest thing to the ultimate battle rifle ever made. Like the Stoner rifle system, the military tried to "Over use" it's capabilities and that has cast somewhat of a dark shadow on the M-14. As an "Infantry Rifle", it had no equal !!! It even did an OUTSTANDING job as a sniper rifle in it's m-21 guise. But it was terrible when they tried to make it serve the Squad Automatic Weapon role. Rough and tough !!! 20 round mag...just right !!! Select fire capability !!! Sniper capable !!! It did "Almost" everything that was asked of it....extremely well !!!! But still not perfect !!!!

HD1
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
46 Posts
How about the Kentucky Long Rifle? It killed many Red Coats and helped tame the Northwest territory. And fed a nation. Many say its responsible for helping the us win independence from Britain. It was also important when the British came back for another whooping in the war of 1812 at the Battle of New Orleans! Also like the Sharps and the Thompson Auto WW 1..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,604 Posts
How about the Kentucky Long Rifle? It killed many Red Coats and helped tame the Northwest territory. And fed a nation. Many say its responsible for helping the us win independence from Britain. It was also important when the British came back for another whooping in the war of 1812 at the Battle of New Orleans! Also like the Sharps and the Thompson Auto WW 1..
The Kentucky Long Rifle is not an miltary weapon. Its a sporting hunting rifle that got pressed into service at times but lacks a bayonet, very important for a single shot muzzle loader. Sharps were nice but not revolunary in design nor adopted wide spread. Thompson is a sub machine gun which fires a pistol cartridge and not a battle rifle even though it is one of the most massed produced 1st gen SMGs.

CD
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
129 Posts
Carried the M-16,M-14 and the FN-FAL in combat.(Aussie marines gave me extra mags, found rifle in the field, still have it). Of those the FN and the 14,IMO out class the 16 by a mile, tho I realize the 16 platform is not today the rifle dumped on us. My first choice between the FN and the 14? It's a toss up, but I'd pick up the FN first. IMO the SMLE should be #1. Where has it not been and when did it not perform? Also 10 rounds in a bolt gun, hard to beat. see ya, Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Really sorry I missed this. It's a very interesting topic. I agree that you really have to break the issue down to particular conflicts or periods or action types. As far as bolt actions are concerned, i think the .303 SMLE would be very hard to beat. Very fast, great (peep) sights, good mag. capacity, very durable and accurate enough. The Mauser Kar 98k would come next in my view although the sights were never great. The Moisin-Nagant is in my opinion is a very poor design and at best adequate. Just because the Soviets issued it to the cannon fodder for an extended period doesn't make it a good rifle. As far as the AK is concerned...ugh! Reliable but inaccurate and crude. A trench-broom rather than an all-round rifle. And as far as the P 51 (ok, not battle rifle exactly) is concerned, yes an excellent piston fighter with amazing range but, if you were required to fight a series of one-on-one encounters, well, I'd suggest a Spitfire 14 would probably be the way to go. As fast or faster than a Pony, far better climb, turn and roll. A real killer!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
199 Posts
Should have bushed the Steyr, I don't think it really rates as a great piece of gear. Think the Poms had a steyr like bullpup weapon firing a .280 cartridge ready to go into service in the late 50's but the project got canned, so the design isn't that new or revolutionary. Certainly the Lee Enfield, Mauser and Garand deserve to be there. The '03 Springfield is a great rifle but wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Mauser, and I feel the sights are too fiddly for a great battle rifle. Where is the Mosin Nagant, and the M17 and P14? The M17 may not have been as popular as the '03 Springfield but in many respects IMO it's better suited for combat use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
660 Posts
I once read that as far as bolt action battle rifles go, the Germans went to war with a hunting rifle, the Americans went to war with a target rifle and the British went to war with a battle rifle. All of the others went to war with the equivilent of a crude stick. Not sure who the author was, but it's an interesting point for conversation. HD1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
853 Posts
In my view the first thing to consider is the user. Most soldiers in the world are not professionals. They need a weapon that is easily trained, easily cleaned or requires no cleaning at all, is very reliable, reasonably accurate at the ranges they they shoot, is not too heavy and sturdy enough for close combat.

In modern times that pretty much defines the crude but effective AK series.

In recent history that pretty much defines the Enfield, the M1 and the Mosin Nagant.

For a short while I was an M14E2 automatic rifleman. I was glad that I never had to use that in combat. The rifle was ok but as an automatic rifleman with that weapon, I would not have survived long. I was soon after issued the XM16 which I used it in Vietnam. We had people over there changing parts about once a month for my entire first tour and they never got it to work properly. It was terrible, inaccurate, unreliable, fragile, underpowered, and difficult to clean. Decades of refinement has resulted in a rifle and carbine that is pretty much what it should have been to begin with. Having said that, it is still hard to clean and can be unreliable if it does not get routine attention. The modern ones are accurate.

The FAL/FN is a good combat rifle but very heavy and sometimes a bit delicate. Good power, easy to train and shoot.

The G3 and its kin are solid combat rifles but again very heavy, not so accurate, good power and easy to train and shoot. When they go wrong they are difficult to repair.

The G36 is about as good as a modern rifle gets but is a bit delicate in close combat. Very effective and reliable though.

Speciality rifles and carbines like the Steyr are interesting, have loads of features but tend to be marginal in performance. I lump the new Chinese and the UK carbine in this catagory as well.

The Mauser 98 is a standard. Effective but a bit slower and more prone to malfunction in close combat than the Enfield or Mosin Nagant.

The French and Italian stuff (other than the B59) are pretty much sticks that can kill if everything goes right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,604 Posts
The Queen of Battle is Artillery! Quite bigger guns and rifles, Also known as red legs in the US for their red strip down the trousers.

CD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
853 Posts
CD is so right. Artillery used properly is awesome..

CD...I see you are a Camp McCall school for wayward young men kinda guy. Which group?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,604 Posts
Spent 16 years with 1/5th and 6 yrs in Germany with 1/10th (both Tolz & Stuttgart). Last assignment was at MacKall as a Robin Sage instructor.

CD
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
397 Posts
When all the artillary stops flying around. I'll give you
guys one guess who goes in with a rifle and a bayonet.

Zeke
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
The INFANTRY is and always has been the Queen of battle.
They are the ultimate weapon!
Everyone else is support.

Kudu40
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
853 Posts
The Infantry is the Queen of Battle...

The Artillery is the King of Battle...

The Armor is the mother in law of Battle....comes by for short periods, raises ****, then leaves
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
505 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 ·
Didn't see the show but the FN FAL is a great battle rifle that was at one time used by 90+ different countries (carried one in Iraq in 05 and 08). The Steyr AUG, M14 and 03 Springfield don't have the wide spread useage like the Mauser 98, SMLE, Mosin-Nagant, AK47, M16. The M14 use only officially used for 5 years as the standard rifle before replacing (I say that even though I carried a M14 National Match in Iraq in 04, but its usage is a stop gap measure) The M1 Garand had more impact then the product improvement M14. The Henry wasn't the only lever action metallic cartridge rifle used in the American Civil War there was also the .56 cal Spencer. The Civil War also saw another development that we still use in Iraq and Afghanistan in a updated form and thats the Gatlin gun with a electric motor attached and now chambered in 7.62mm NATO, 20mm and 30mm.

CD
Hope your headed home soon. Saw the '10 and the newer sig. The best battle rifle will be the one that becomes a hunter/hunting rifle whan all this warring is over.;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
573 Posts
Its the garand, the jeep and the sherman tank that won WW2 for us on the ground. There like the P51 mustang, the B17, B25 and the B29 was for the air.
I beg to differ. it was the grit and guts of the greatest generation that won WWII. all of these fine weapons are just toys in the hands of children without the determination to use them.
 
21 - 40 of 40 Posts
Top