king of the assault rifles

[Dench]

It may be the most accurate standard-issue assault rifle in the world...

Lack of combat doesn't mean that something isn't better than the rest. The Ohio-class SSBNs are the most powerful and survivable weapons system in existence, but they've never been tested in war either...

ehhh that example is really pushing the limits of making examples.

the Sig 550 is a good rifle so i hear. ive heard it from lots of people actualy.
but, and this is a big but, almost no other nations in the world have adopted it in significant amounts. thats says to me that their are much better, cheaper, more reliable and more effective rifles available on the world market to field your nations military with.

 

[drgrant]

It may be the most accurate standard-issue assault rifle in the world...

It also doesn't suppress very well. The gas venting makes a can
nearly worthless on the rifle. I like the 550, but that is one of its biggest weak points.

Lack of combat doesn't mean that something isn't better than the rest. The Ohio-class SSBNs are the most powerful and survivable weapons system in existence, but they've never been tested in war either...

Well, yes and no, depends on whether or not you call playing chicken with
russian subs to be "war" or not.

-Mike

 

[vellnueve]

I think cheaper is the key word there. The cost of the rifle is probably double that of an AR/M16 type rifle, and the performance is close enough that it isn't worth the difference. Effectiveness - the Swiss have their own 63 grain cartridge as well, and the rifle is optimized for that loading.

Lots of other great rifles out there that never really hit it big. The FN FNC is a great rifle, just maybe the ugliest. The AR-70 is nice too.

 

[drgrant]

ehhh that example is really pushing the limits of making examples.

the Sig 550 is a good rifle so i hear. ive heard it from lots of people actualy.
but, and this is a big but, almost no other nations in the world have adopted it in significant amounts. thats says to me that their are much better, cheaper, more reliable and more effective rifles available on the world market to field your nations military with.

The 550 is very reliable but there are four bullet points that put it out of
contention in most cases...

-Originally, there was no Sig 556, and thus no AR mag compatibility.

-No sound suppression.

-The rifle is f**king expensive. It's probably 3 times the cost of an AR/M16 (which cost like $400-500 a pop w/o optics in bulk) and probably like 10 times the cost of an AK.

-The rifle is f**king heavy compared to most others that fire 5.56 NATO.

-Mike

 

[vellnueve]

Well, it was designed for one real purpose, and that was so that some Swiss militiaman could hit an invading Warsaw Pact soldier in the head with irons 600 meters away from his perch high in the mountains...

I still want one, even if it's heavy... unfortunately there just aren't that many in the US.

 

[Dench]

Well, it was designed for one real purpose, and that was so that some Swiss militiaman could hit an invading Warsaw Pact soldier in the head with irons 600 meters away from his perch high in the mountains...

and then that soviet gets shot and the soviet heavy artillery shell the entire area into oblivion...

 

[vellnueve]

Probably true... Then again, a big part of the reason that Switzerland has never been invaded, at least historically, is because of the terrain and the fact that the entire male population has historically served in the military and had their firearms in the home. Not AS true anymore, but there are still plenty of Sig 550s (StG 90s) in Swiss homes.

The genius of Switzerland's defensive strategy is that it's such an insignificant country, and the terrain is so favorable to defense, that no attacker ever wanted to bother.

 

[Dench]

The genius of Switzerland's defensive strategy is that it's such an insignificant country, and the terrain is so favorable to defense, that no attacker ever wanted to bother.

the reason that the swiss were never over taken in modern times was becuase there were much bigger fish to try then one isolated small country.

if the cold war ever broke out, and the soviets wanted that country they would of had it no problem. the last thing the soviets cared about was high casualties. it would of turned into a race between some twisted soviet field marshals on who could crush the country the fastest.

 

[Kalahari]

I love the AUG, for example, and I've shot one extensively.

Oh man...I'm really jealous.

 

[vellnueve]

the reason that the swiss were never over taken in modern times was becuase there were much bigger fish to try then one isolated small country.

if the cold war ever broke out, and the soviets wanted that country they would of had it no problem. the last thing the soviets cared about was high casualties. it would of turned into a race between some twisted soviet field marshals on who could crush the country the fastest.

Not saying that they wouldn't crush them, although losses would be much heavier than invading any other equivalently sized/armed European nation.

But the Swiss have made themselves useful by acting as a intermediary between warring parties, which is one reason that they're typically spared.

Hitler took over all of Europe including multiple tiny, insignificant countries. Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, etc... The Swiss did accede to his demands, but if one of the greatest psychopaths in modern history didn't want to take over the Swiss, there's a greater reason... they would have gotten bogged down there. The Swiss strategy to the Nazis was quiet concession, while backing their neutrality up by making it clear that any invasion, although it would be ultimately successful, would severely cost Nazi Germany. I have no doubt that it would have indeed done so.

Couple of good, related Wiki articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Guisan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_the_World_Wars

 

[Mike S]

Dench and others had a good point as to service life. I'll put a different spin on it, let's look at body count. This is an educated guess.
AK 47 number 1 due to worldwide distribution and service life
M16/M4 number 2 despite not nearly the distribution and 50% less service life.

If your talking about rifles made for combat, these two have by far put more harm on the enemy than any other.

Nothing else comes close.

 

[fubar]

I consider my AR14/M4gery to be a defensive carbine , or maybe a Civilian Homeland Security Rifle.

But I have been lusting for a full sized walnut stock M1A for a while now .... I'll call that one a "Defensive Hammer of Thor " .. or maybe something less intimidating - " Fluffy. "

 

[vellnueve]

Dench and others had a good point as to service life. I'll put a different spin on it, let's look at body count. This is an educated guess.
AK 47 number 1 due to worldwide distribution and service life
M16/M4 number 2 despite not nearly the distribution and 50% less service life.

If your talking about rifles made for combat, these two have by far put more harm on the enemy than any other.

Nothing else comes close.

Do you have numbers for that? If you're talking about rifles made for combat, 37 million Mosin Nagants and millions upon millions of Mausers may have something to say about that.

 

[CrossFrire]

One of the best would have to be an original Israeli made Galil. Reliability of an AK and the accuracy of an AR.

+1 on the Galil. I bought one last fall and it's become my favorite for those exact reasons. It's just too bad the mags are so expensive
I agree that the FAL and M14/M1A are better classed as Battle rifles because of their far superior firepower and range. To my mind the M1A is the ultimate example of the American blending of wood and steel that started with the old German gunsmiths in York and Lancaster Counties in PA.

 

[Gammon]

+1 on the AK. The stats don't lie. This is the most successful assault rifle of all time.

 

[ranger4-7]

Do you have numbers for that? If you're talking about rifles made for combat, 37 million Mosin Nagants and millions upon millions of Mausers may have something to say about that.

Right, but as stated earlier, this thread is specifically about assault rifles. Those are battle rifles.

 

[ranger4-7]

+1 on the Galil. I bought one last fall and it's become my favorite for those exact reasons. It's just too bad the mags are so expensive
I agree that the FAL and M14/M1A are better classed as Battle rifles because of their far superior firepower and range. To my mind the M1A is the ultimate example of the American blending of wood and steel that started with the old German gunsmiths in York and Lancaster Counties in PA.

I think the Galil is a fine rifle. However, the point made earlier is that the adoption by a handful of countries doesn't place it in the category of "king of the assault rifles".

Battle rifles fire full size cartridges like 30-06, 8MM Mauser, .303, or 7.62X54r. The FAL and M14 fire an intermediate cartridge (.308 is basically a scaled down 30-06), which takes them out of the battle rifle category. Just because the .308 round is bigger than 5.56 doesn't mean it's a battle rifle.

 

[vellnueve]

Why don't we look at it a different way?

Which rifle won the Cold War? The primary use of a military rifle is to win the war.

 

[0311]

Isn't every single Marine a "trained Rifleman"?

That is what one motto says; meaning every Marine is qualified to engage targets with the standard service rifle out to its maximum effective range on a point target. Qualification takes place once a year, whereas in other branches of the military it is a one time deal, if at all. So, if by rifleman you mean someone who is qualified to shoot, then yes, every Marine is a rifleman. However, there is also a MOS dedicated to the trade: RIFLEMAN. These are Grunts. The Corps has an air wing and supply clerks and lawyers among other "non-combat arms" troops, those Marines know how to shoot, yet to classify any of those Marines as a RIFLEMAN is an insult to anyone who has ever had an "03" in front of their MOS.

To clarify . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS_0311

Oh, Vellnueve, you may also want to look at MOS 0317, 0321, 0331, 0341, 0351, & 0352 to get a better idea.

 

[mark056]

I would like to reply to some of Ranger's comments in his outstanding post (clearly deserving of a rep point).

I don't consider the 7.62 NATO round an "intermediate" cartridge. Ballistically it is in the general ballpark of the 30-06 and it merely a slightly shortened version of this venerable cartridge. The reason for shortening the case was supposedly it would feed better from a magazine (you will recall that the 30-06 worked with stripper clips).

As a general comment and also to specifically address Ranger's assertion that assault rifles do not need to have selective fire capability, I strongly disagree. If you buy into that argument, then you have drunk the anti's Kool Aid in the sense that you are now going to call sporting and general usage carbines/rifles such as the AR15 an assault rifle. In the Sturmgewehr concept, selective fire is definitely one of the criteron for meeting the assault rifle definition. I get very nervous when people start calling AR15's and semi-auto AK's assault rifles, the next leap would be to call a Ruger 10/22 an assault rifle and classifying a .22LR round as an intermediate cartridge is not a great leap, if you start to define what an intermediate cartridge is.

The FN FAL and the M14 are NOT assault rifles, they are Main Battle Rifles (I would classify the M2 but not the M1 Carbine as an assault rifle because of its selective fire cababiilty). Back in the day of the Pentomic Army of the late 1950's (with Battle Groups and Combat Commands instead of battalions and brigades and Atomic Cannons and other nuclear weapons freely issued to be used with little discretion on the battlefield) the M14 was doctrinally supposed to have a selective fire cabability. One selective fire M14 was supposed to be issued to each infantry squad as a replacement for the BAR.

Why are definitions important? Well...because many of you own sporting arms such as the AR15, semi-auto AK47's and military arms such as M1 carbines. Since the term "assault rifle" has so many perjorative connotations these days (outside of military circles, and pleeeeeze let's not get into a "discussion" of whether it is right or wrong, it simply is), do you want to be known as the "gun nut down the street with the assault rifle" simply because you own a semi-automatic Bushmaster? I get really pissed when I read in the newspaper or see on television when people are accused of using an "assault rifle" in the commission of a crime and it turns out to be simply a semi-automatic rifle or a "machine gun" (as opposed to a sub-machine gun) when somebody has used simply a semi-automatic version of an Uzi or a Thompson. It seems like every time somebody's gun collection is seized (justly or unjustly) almost everyone has a "machine gun" or an "assault rifle"...and somebody or several somebodies are always quick to point out on this forum that they are semi-autos and the freakin' media and the coppers have it "wrong again."....So yeah...definitons are important.

Again, not to detract from Ranger's post, it was well done.

The best assault rifle? I'd say the AK-47, not a tack-driver, but very effective up to intermediate ranges and very durable and not infrequently in wars past and perhaps even present used even by members of our armed forces over the issued M16.

Mark056

 

[ochmude]

That is what one motto says; meaning every Marine is qualified to engage targets with the standard service rifle out to its maximum effective range on a point target. Qualification takes place once a year, whereas in other branches of the military it is a one time deal, if at all. So, if by rifleman you mean someone who is qualified to shoot, then yes, every Marine is a rifleman. However, there is also a MOS dedicated to the trade: RIFLEMAN. These are Grunts. The Corps has an air wing and supply clerks and lawyers among other "non-combat arms" troops, those Marines know how to shoot, yet to classify any of those Marines as a RIFLEMAN is an insult to anyone who has ever had an "03" in front of their MOS.

To clarify . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS_0311

Oh, Vellnueve, you may also want to look at MOS 0317, 0321, 0331, 0341, 0351, & 0352 to get a better idea.

[thread drift]

I sense an MOS war looming on the horizon. Let's not forget one fundamental concept, devildog. USMC rifleman = one shot, one kill. USMC artilleryman = one shot, 20 kills. Oh Three's have their place, but Artillery is the undisputed king of battle .

[/thread drift]

 

[CambridgeGuy]

As someone who likes to think in terms of economics, the AK, hands down.

Are you referring to a WASR-10 (so-called knock off), or the real-deal Polytech, etc?

 

[Kalahari]

Are you referring to a WASR-10 (so-called knock off), or the real-deal Polytech, etc?

The real deal. There's (like I said, in an economic line of thinking) a reason why so many damn AKs have been made. They're good, reliable, cheap-to-make guns. An economist would probably say the AK is the "King" of assault rifles just by looking at the numbers.

But clearly the supply/demand is not all that matters. It was just meant as another perspective. It very well may be the M16 or some other rifle.

It seems to me that "King" refers to someone who has the most power/influence, and thus I would almost definitely go with the AK considering the billions of people it has helped dictators keep "under control."

 

[notalib]

Why don't we look at it a different way?

Which rifle won the Cold War? The primary use of a military rifle is to win the war.

Does that make the Sherman the best tank of WWII??

 

[vellnueve]

No, it makes the T34 the king tank of WWII.

 

[notalib]

No, it makes the T34 the king tank of WWII.

Point Vellnueve

but I aint gonna give in.... The 88 was not the best anti tank as it was on the losing side, the V1, V2 were not the best rockets as they were on the losing side.. the best Jet etc etc etc.. Being on the wining side does not make a weapon best in class of and by itself.

 

[vellnueve]

The most successful rockets of World War II were the ones used en masse by the US Navy for shore bombardment, not the ones thrown at England in a last ditch attempt.

As for fighter, the P-51 won the head-to-heads against the Me262. If you want to talk about the jets, the Meteor.

 

[notalib]

You are not talking to my point... Even the best weapon needed people to make it, the factories to make it, the energy to make it work (fuel) and the distribution system to get it where it had to be, not to mention the R&D effort to build the next "better" model...
Winning a war does not mean that the winner had the best in breed in all weapons systems.

and by the way.. should we start a new thread.. we kinda hijacked this one

 

[vellnueve]

Well, you also have to factor in the user for certain weapons systems.

As for hijacking this thread... hijacking a "which one is best" thread is never a bad thing...

 

[type911]

[thread drift]

I sense an MOS war looming on the horizon. Let's not forget one fundamental concept, devildog. USMC rifleman = one shot, one kill. USMC artilleryman = one shot, 20 kills. Oh Three's have their place, but Artillery is the undisputed king of battle .

[/thread drift]

You started it. Where would your precious Arty be without 0331's in the defense? How would you have even entered theater without the 0311's? Sorry. The 03 field is the king of combat. Nothing is accomplished without grunts on the ground.