Author Topic: The world's best military rifle? (Read 1200 times)

kombi1976 · « **on:** April 26, 2005, 08:01:00 PM »

Pick your fave out of these rifles.
I realise that I've stuck the AK variants of each rifle into one category each but then I can't fit everything in.

jh45gun · « **Reply #1 on:** April 27, 2005, 06:21:57 AM »

I voted for the K31 as I think it is the neatest of the guns I own. I really do not think you can catagorize these fairly by lumping them all in one poll. Semi autos are different that bolts and used in a different time frame. In its time the M1 shines yet fans of the newer battle rifles may think they are better. Before all of that the bolt guns had their fling and should be considered on just that as it is kinda unfair to compare a semi or full auto gun to a bolt gun yet in their time frames both were effective battle weapons. To lump the two together would be about as fair as putting a single shot against a bolt repeater in that case both were great for their times also. Jim

1911crazy · « **Reply #2 on:** April 27, 2005, 10:59:16 AM »

Lets face it, it has to be the AK for sure nothing comes close to its reliability or dependability its unmatched. BigBill

There should be two catagories I found this out last time I did this one for bolt actions and one for semi-auto's.

For the bolts I would pick the Finnish Mosin M39 or M27 for accuracy but for the fastest bolt to operate its the 303 britt. hands down.

jh45gun · « **Reply #3 on:** April 27, 2005, 01:52:24 PM »

Maybe you cannot consider the Swiss guns and the Swedish guns battle rifles as they were never used like some of the others in a war but both would give the Finn Mosins a run for the Money. Jim

Badnews Bob · « **Reply #4 on:** April 27, 2005, 02:10:57 PM »

AK's are great little rifles no doubt but they lose to a .308 or .30-06. The M 14 is just as reliable is more accurate and has a ton more stopping power, Price is the reason there are so many AK types out there not because they are better.

You also left out the G3 and FAL variants which are extremly good rifles themselves.

kombi1976 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 27, 2005, 02:17:02 PM »

An interesting comment about whether the Swiss and Swedish rifles are eligible.
I've been reading an interesting book that made the comment that the K31 striaght pull would've been a nightmare for trench warfare because of its susceptability to grit due to close tolerances.
But since both it and the 96 Mauser were military issue rifles the classification stands.

jh45gun · « **Reply #6 on:** April 27, 2005, 04:56:52 PM »

Quote from: kombi1976

An interesting comment about whether the Swiss and Swedish rifles are eligible.
I've been reading an interesting book that made the comment that the K31 striaght pull would've been a nightmare for trench warfare because of its susceptability to grit due to close tolerances.
But since both it and the 96 Mauser were military issue rifles the classification stands.

Considering the wear and tear the Swiss rifles got in their own country Winter and Summer I think they would have held up just fine in a battle type element. I Know the Swedish Mausers would because they are a Mauser.

NRAJOE · « **Reply #7 on:** April 28, 2005, 12:42:45 PM »

AK all the way, what I say..AK...HEY...HEY...HEY...

Longcruise · « **Reply #8 on:** April 30, 2005, 04:36:54 AM »

Patton called the M1 the greatest battle weapon ever devised. I think if he had lived to see the M14 he would have changed his vote.

Accuracy
reliability
20 round mag
long range potential
selective fire option

However, if it were a question of my favorite toy it would be the Schmidt & Rubin :grin:

darrell8937 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 04, 2005, 05:20:06 AM »

M14 in my opinion. The Ak is fine for short range use. But in the real world where someone can pick the groud they fight on., the extra range and accuracy would defeat the AK. A short barrell Ak is an excelent back up rifle for close quarters. But when the woods or Jungle gives way to fields, the Ak 7.62x39 falls behind. The Ak is superior in other ways such as easy of training. Reliability is great due to lesser tolerences in manafacture. This robs some accuracy as well as the less powerful cartridge. The Ak was manafacture for part time soldiers and civiliabs in mind(the masses). As the M14 takes a trained rifleman to use to its potential. Both have a strong place in history as well as practilaity. I own the slightly neautered M1a Bush.. Have had Ak and they are fun and have a definate use. The end of day rifle is the m1a/m14. will take Deer eaisly and will penetrate much deeper cover than the AK.

darrell8937 · « **Reply #10 on:** May 04, 2005, 05:35:44 AM »

Yes I see that the numbers put the Ak on top,But when you consider that the Garand and the m14 are pretty much the same rifle except for internal enbloc clip vrs twenty rounnd detachable, There action is identical. If there were two distinct varints of the AK similiar to the relationship of the Garrand and m14 that would devide the numbers. the m14/garand would be ahead. I think that price is the major factor in the number of ak fans out there. If the M14 /m1a didn't start over 1000 in price alot more people would have them. I know looks are importand in selling certain guns. The Ak looks scary while the m14/m1a looks more like a huntimg rifle. The pistol grip of the AK and its compactness make it a favorite among some shooters. Many Ak enthuist have never owned a m1/m14/m1a. Most m1a/m14/garrand as they are not entery level guns. Many buy Ak's as their first battle rifle because of , yes reliablity reputation but cool factor and price. Hell, you can build one for 150.. you can get a few Magazines for the m1/m14 for that price

kombi1976 · « **Reply #11 on:** May 04, 2005, 01:42:11 PM »

Well, considering the Garrand is at 22% by itself it's not doing too bad. :wink:
And as for the M1a looking like a hunting rifle & not being scary check out Karsten's Custom Camo at this link:
http://www.imageseek.com/karsten/
Wotcha reckon? :grin:

Slamfire · « **Reply #12 on:** May 04, 2005, 09:39:40 PM »

None of the above. My Arisaka is stronger than any other milsurp. PO Ackely overloaded until the barrel blew out of the action, then rebarreled and shot some more. Every other action tested was destroyed by that treatment.

1911crazy · « **Reply #13 on:** May 05, 2005, 02:34:12 AM »

The Garand was great for WW2 but the AK47 has taken the world by storm its one of the most popular, reliable and dependable assualt rifles ever made next to the SKS. Nothing comes close to its performance have you ever shot a M14 in full auto I have and its a joke. The Russians are way far ahead of us in weapon developement. They do one hell of a bang up job in research, developement and testing too before they put it in the field. We forget the disaster we did with the M16 it was a joke and its still a joke to this day because of its weapon failures. Lets face it we don't put the time into weapon developement that we should here in the US. We have the best in air power, the best on the ground in tanks and we slack off in making a decent rifle for our troops and thats sad. We have to refurbish the M14's back into service and what does that tell us? It says what were doing isn't working. Someone in our goverment needs to be slapped to get a wakeup call. Guns aren't rocket science it can't be that hard to develope a good weapon, one that works in any enviroment, heck the russians did it. We have lost something here in the US and one of them is american pride we just don't build things like we once did. BigBill

Longcruise · « **Reply #14 on:** May 05, 2005, 06:02:20 AM »

Quote

We have to refurbish the M14's back into service and what does that tell us?

That they are the best?

1911crazy · « **Reply #15 on:** May 05, 2005, 11:39:09 AM »

Quote from: Longcruise

Quote
We have to refurbish the M14's back into service and what does that tell us?

That they are the best?

No way there just better than the POS M16!!!!!!!! The taliban is out gunning us with the old 303 britt's and russian mosins just like they did to the russians!!!!! I knew those old war horses would shoot longer distances than our M16 it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out but it sure took us a longtime to realize it(goverment) I knew from the news report it was going to happen before the Afganistan war it was on TV they showed the old guns they took the russians apart with from the high ridges with long shots. DA!!!! Does anyone in our goverment watch TV news reports?? BigBill

rockbilly · « **Reply #16 on:** May 05, 2005, 02:37:12 PM »

Many of the SF troops in Nam traded their AR15 for the AK-47 due to better performance under the harsh conditions of the jungle.. I thought it was a great gun for close warfare, but when we were in the highlands with enemy force 12-1500 yards away it wasn't that effective. Some of the Korean troops were armed with the M1, they gave em hell. We fired the AK in the general direction, but I doubt if we actually did any damage.

I think all of the rifles listed are great for their intended purpose, some perform better than others under different circumstances, if I had to select one it would be the AK, and I would hope like hell the bad guys didn't catch me exposed from 12-1500 yards away.

Bigdog57 · « **Reply #17 on:** May 06, 2005, 07:41:57 AM »

The AK might be a good 'assault rifle' in the modern world of 'spray&pray' tactics, but back when the rifleman owned the battlefield with aimed fire, the Mauser 98 reigned as the supreme example of the 'battle rifle'. Used in some form by virtually all armies (except the Brits, Russians, french and a few other small nations), including the USA (the '03) and Japan (the Arisaka). Many built their own unique Mausers, remaining in service until replaced by the semiauto. Many millions of Mausers built worldwide.

The one gun that really shouldn't be listed is the M1 Carbine - not a battle rifle at all.

The AK's biggest assett is it's cheapness and ease of building, and being easy enough to operate by an uneducated conscript or tango. Like saying the Pinto was a better car than a Corvette because they made more of them.
Just my humble opinion.

Hey, I do own an AK! :wink:

(And four Mausers)

kombi1976 · « **Reply #18 on:** May 06, 2005, 07:48:35 PM »

Quote from: Bigdog57

The AK might be a good 'assault rifle' in the modern world of 'spray&pray' tactics, but back when the rifleman owned the battlefield with aimed fire, the Mauser 98 reigned as the supreme example of the 'battle rifle'.

I hate to say it, BigDog, but I think cycling speed is a key factor in a battle rifle.
In that sense the Mauser isn't so impressive, especially when providing cover for advancing men.

Quote from: Bigdog57

Used in some form by virtually all armies (except the Brits, Russians, french and a few other small nations), including the USA (the '03) and Japan (the Arisaka).

I believe there were more than a few countries using non-Mausers and the I believe the USA actually used more M17s in WW1 than the Springfield 1903 rifle.
Actually, more than half the Soldiers in the field during WWII were using non-Mausers, arguably because they were using semi-autos.
If you mean world wide then it's still debatable.

Quote from: Bigdog57

The one gun that really shouldn't be listed is the M1 Carbine - not a battle rifle at all.

I think a few vets might disagree.

BTW, I own an Enfield and a Mauser and aspire to own more of both. :wink:

Longcruise · « **Reply #19 on:** May 08, 2005, 06:39:47 AM »

Quote

The taliban is out gunning us with the old 303 britt's and russian mosins just like they did to the russians!!!!! I knew those old war horses would shoot longer distances than our M16 it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out but it sure took us a longtime to realize it(goverment) I knew from the news report it was going to happen before the Afganistan war it was on TV they showed the old guns they took the russians apart with from the high ridges with long shots. DA!!!!

The Taliban isn't outgunning anybody and they never have. FWIW, they didn't take "the russians apart" any more thant he VC and NVA took us apart in SEA. They outlasted the russians while the russians were slowly sapped economically and politically. Which is the same way we lost in RSVN.

The winning of battles often hinges on weaponry, but the winning of wars or long term "actions" often does not.

By your reasoning, we lost in Mogadishu (spelling?) because we were outgunned! I don't think so! :shock:

S.S. · « **Reply #20 on:** May 09, 2005, 10:09:03 AM »

The only thing that I think would keep the
M14 from getting my vote would be the fact that
it is HEAVY. So I would have to vote for an M14
with a sythetic stock :grin:

1911crazy · « **Reply #21 on:** May 09, 2005, 10:39:24 PM »

Quote from: Longcruise

Quote
The taliban is out gunning us with the old 303 britt's and russian mosins just like they did to the russians!!!!! I knew those old war horses would shoot longer distances than our M16 it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out but it sure took us a longtime to realize it(goverment) I knew from the news report it was going to happen before the Afganistan war it was on TV they showed the old guns they took the russians apart with from the high ridges with long shots. DA!!!!

The Taliban isn't outgunning anybody and they never have. FWIW, they didn't take "the russians apart" any more thant he VC and NVA took us apart in SEA. They outlasted the russians while the russians were slowly sapped economically and politically. Which is the same way we lost in RSVN.

The winning of battles often hinges on weaponry, but the winning of wars or long term "actions" often does not.

By your reasoning, we lost in Mogadishu (spelling?) because we were outgunned! I don't think so! :shock:

What i mean is there using weapons with longer range over our shorter shooting distance weapons. Thats why were bringing back the M14's. Back in WW2 each squad had an assortment of different fire power and we actually lost that tactic over the years because today everyone has m16's. Years ago we had Garands, M1 Carbines, Thompsons, '03 springfireld snipers and BAR's in the same group we had an assortment of fire power that could handle different situations. We have lost that adaptability by staying with one weapon that just can't do it all. Thats what i mean by saying were out gunned the M16 doesn't have the range and its a fact the AK47 doesn't either. With longer shots the Garand and M14 rule over the M16 & AK47. Lets face it there is no weapon that can do it all this is where the old way of doing things sure does work. Sometimes we change things for the worst and it costs lives when we make these mistakes too. I believe there were 10,000 russians killed in Afganistan I guess they had plenty of body bags. BigBill

Lets face it our awesome air power was used in Afganistan and they bombed the taliban that were higher up on the ridges shooting down on us other wise it would of been the same story as the russians.

Longcruise · « **Reply #22 on:** May 10, 2005, 03:16:07 AM »

Quote

What i mean is there using weapons with longer range over our shorter shooting distance weapons. Thats why were bringing back the M14's. Back in WW2 each squad had an assortment of different fire power and we actually lost that tactic over the years because today everyone has m16's. Years ago we had Garands, M1 Carbines, Thompsons, '03 springfireld snipers and BAR's in the same group we had an assortment of fire power that could handle different situations. We have lost that adaptability by staying with one weapon that just can't do it all. Thats what i mean by saying were out gunned the M16 doesn't have the range and its a fact the AK47 doesn't either. With longer shots the Garand and M14 rule over the M16 & AK47.

We are in 100% agreement. It was only the suggestion that the Russians had lost to superior weaponry that I don't go along with.

And yes, the M14 would have been superior to the the M16 in a querrilla warfare situation as in Afghanistan. My vote still goes to the M14 with the exception that I'd want an M16 or M4 in a door to door selling situation.

I think a good argument can be made for the idea that the M14 was a good replacement for the M1, Thompson SM and BAR. If you think a M14 or M1 is heavy, try carrying a Thompson with two mags taped together for a while. The M14 and the M16 are both excellent replacements for The Thompson given the short effective range of the .45 ACP. And of course the M14 did everything the M1 did with a 20 round mag and did what the BAR did as well with a lot less weight.

Not sure what to say about the M1 carbine as I've no experience with it. Apparently the paratroopers in WWII liked it just fine.

Recoil in the M14 has been mentioned, but I always found it to be acceptable.

Badnews Bob · « **Reply #23 on:** May 10, 2005, 01:42:24 PM »

Why arn't G3s on the list? They'er roots are in the oldest assult rifle made(by modern terms) The strumgivier {not sure how to spell that) and I still say the ak/sks's are so popular because of cost not because they are better rifles. The US didn't drop the M14 because of its performance, at the time there wasn't anything else in the same league with it, They dropped it to lose wieght.

1911crazy · « **Reply #24 on:** May 14, 2005, 08:19:56 AM »

The M14 was dropped because of in full auto mode hardley anyone could handle it with the barrel rise and with the M16 you could carry more of the little 22cal ammo over the 308 so I guess that weight did factor in too.
BigBill

Airsporter · « **Reply #25 on:** May 17, 2005, 11:00:29 AM »

How can you possibly include the Schmit Rubin k31 and ignore the FN FAL???

The M1 carbine is a rifle?

kombi1976 · « **Reply #26 on:** May 17, 2005, 03:43:13 PM »

Well, an interesting read.
What has me surprised is that despite the fact that the SMLE rifle was probably the most widely used rifle in WW2 it rates so a low mention.
This despite the fact it's the fastest cycling bolt action in the list and had quite a good record for accuracy. :|
Keep voting guys.
BTW, I am a fan of the M14.
I'd probably own one rebarreled to 7mm-08 if we were allowed to own them here in Oz.

Poll

The best military rifle ever?

Author Topic: The world's best military rifle? (Read 1200 times)