king of the assault rifles

[vellnueve]

Where would any of you be without the Navy to carry you around?

 

[bpm990d]

Why does this thread make me think of Dr. Lynette Nusbacher?

B

 

[Gammon]

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.

I disagree. The primary mission of a military rifle is to kill the enemy. The politicians figure out who will win the war.

 

[Gammon]

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

I belive the 7.62 Nato round was adopted to facilitate the building of a more compact rifle. Feeding from a magazine was not a problem for the 30 06; the success and reliability of the BAR is proof of this.

 

[maxdogk911]

Any rifle that works best for you during a crisis or war. Thats the best one, the one you shoot well, have confidence in and know you can hit what your aiming at. There is no best rifle for everyone! Just whats best for you. But I do like an AR platform. 22lr, 9mm, 762X39, 556 and now 7.62X39

 

[drgrant]

Why does this thread make me think of Dr. Lynette Nusbacher?

 

[vellnueve]

I belive the 7.62 Nato round was adopted to facilitate the building of a more compact rifle. Feeding from a magazine was not a problem for the 30 06; the success and reliability of the BAR is proof of this.

The 7.62 NATO round was developed to save space, as you say, because the .30 was not originally developed for smokeless powder, but was switched very early in its life, eliminating the need for such a huge case.

 

[EddieCoyle]

because the .30 was not originally developed for smokeless powder, but was switched very early in its life

Huh? That is not true at all.

The .30-06 was always a smokeless powder cartridge, as was its predecessor the .30-03, as well as the original ".30 Army" - the .30-40 Krag.

I don't think the US military ever used a black powder .30 cal cartridge.

 

[mark056]

I belive the 7.62 Nato round was adopted to facilitate the building of a more compact rifle. Feeding from a magazine was not a problem for the 30 06; the success and reliability of the BAR is proof of this.

Gammon,

That is an interesting belief. The only problem is that neither the M14 or the FN FAL are inherently more compact than the Garand. Unfortunately I do not have the time this morning to provide a quick and easily referenced reply. However a quick perusal of the subject using both my personal reference library and the internet sheds some light on this subject. Below is quoted text which succintly puts the development of the 7.62 NATO round in the proper context:

" The development work that would eventually develop into the 7.62x51 started just after World War I, when it became clear that the long cartridge of the US standard .30-06 round made it difficult to use in semi- and fully-automatic weapons. A "shorter" round would allow the firing mechanism to be made much smaller, and improve the feeding, both of which would allow for higher rates of fire. At the time one of the most promising designs was the .276 Pederson , but in 1932 it was rejected with an Army recommendation that only rounds of .30" would meet requirements.

Thus when the war appeared to be looming again only a few years later, the .30-06 was the only round available. Nevertheless the US Army did use it to great effect in the excellent M1 Garand, which gave US troops with considerably higher firepower than most of their bolt action armed opponents. The Garand was so good that the US saw little need to replace it until almost a decade later, and the .30-06 remained in service until well after the Korean War.

During the 1940's and early 1950s several experiments were carried out in order to improve upon the Garand. One of the most common complaints was the difficulty in reloading the weapon using its "stripper clips", and many experimental designs modified the weapon with a detachable box magazine. One of these, Springfield Armory's T22, was a fully-automatic version. The US Army finally found this design to be worthy enough to consider replacing the Garand, and decided it was also time to look at improved ammunition once again."

I don't dispute your claim about the BAR except that it was heavy and had a fairly low magazine capacity, but was and is an excellent weapon. Were I to have one, even at this late date, I would consider myself well armed.

Regards,

Mark056

 

[Mike S]

I could be wrong but I thought the cartridge was shortened because it would feed faster (due to shorter length) and the rifle would recoil less which enabled the shooter to better engage multiple targets more efficiently. Isn't that the principle behind the assault rifle philosophy?

Rapid force multiplication.

 

[0311]

Why does this thread make me think of Dr. Lynette Nusbacher?

B

Why isn't "she" featured on the Military Channel anymore?

 

[vellnueve]

Huh? That is not true at all.

The .30-06 was always a smokeless powder cartridge, as was its predecessor the .30-03, as well as the original ".30 Army" - the .30-40 Krag.

I don't think the US military ever used a black powder .30 cal cartridge.

Yep, you're right. I'm thinking of the .38 and .357.

 

[Dench]

before

after

ohhhh yeah.

 

[Blitz1]

before

after

ohhhh yeah.

You just had to go an post that Dench.

 

[Dench]

You just had to go an post that Dench.

he actualy didnt come out nearly as bad as i figured it would end up.

 

[Blitz1]

he actualy didnt come out nearly as bad as i figured it would end up.

Are you trying to tell us that you would hit it?

 

[Gammon]

Gammon,

That is an interesting belief. The only problem is that neither the M14 or the FN FAL are inherently more compact than the Garand. Unfortunately I do not have the time this morning to provide a quick and easily referenced reply. However a quick perusal of the subject using both my personal reference library and the internet sheds some light on this subject. Below is quoted text which succintly puts the development of the 7.62 NATO round in the proper context:

" The development work that would eventually develop into the 7.62x51 started just after World War I, when it became clear that the long cartridge of the US standard .30-06 round made it difficult to use in semi- and fully-automatic weapons. A "shorter" round would allow the firing mechanism to be made much smaller, and improve the feeding, both of which would allow for higher rates of fire. At the time one of the most promising designs was the .276 Pederson , but in 1932 it was rejected with an Army recommendation that only rounds of .30" would meet requirements.

Thus when the war appeared to be looming again only a few years later, the .30-06 was the only round available. Nevertheless the US Army did use it to great effect in the excellent M1 Garand, which gave US troops with considerably higher firepower than most of their bolt action armed opponents. The Garand was so good that the US saw little need to replace it until almost a decade later, and the .30-06 remained in service until well after the Korean War.

During the 1940's and early 1950s several experiments were carried out in order to improve upon the Garand. One of the most common complaints was the difficulty in reloading the weapon using its "stripper clips", and many experimental designs modified the weapon with a detachable box magazine. One of these, Springfield Armory's T22, was a fully-automatic version. The US Army finally found this design to be worthy enough to consider replacing the Garand, and decided it was also time to look at improved ammunition once again."

I don't dispute your claim about the BAR except that it was heavy and had a fairly low magazine capacity, but was and is an excellent weapon. Were I to have one, even at this late date, I would consider myself well armed.

Regards,

Mark056

I have a different take on this. The research group that studied the various cartridges and designs to build a semi auto rifle to replace our venerable bolt gun prior to WWII made several suggestions and size and weight reduction were of primary interest.

A .28 caliber round was proposed. Why? To reduce the size and weight of the round. This would allow for a higher capacity weapon of smaller size.

A detachable box magazine was also proposed to allow for higher capacity. This had nothing to do with size and weight, but was a major step forward.

The story has a sad ending. Due to the existing stockpile of millions of 30 06 rounds, the brass demanded that the new rifle chamber this round. The military establishment also balked at a magazine that extended below the stock. This was relatively new and some thought that the mag would cause handling problems. The end result was the M1 which was a disaster, IMHO.

We entered WWII with an EIGHT SHOT rifle that was not that easy to reload when we could have armed our troops with a lighter 30 shot weapon. How many lives could that high capacity, easily reloaded rifle have saved?

The history of the development of the standard issue rifle has been consistently one of weight reduction. The fact that the M14 and FAL didn't offer a significant reduction in weight doesn't mean that this was not the intention. The M16 is the ultimate example of the weight and size reduction campaign.

It is interesting to note that there is some dissatisfaction with the current .223 round and that a larger 6.8mm round is gaining support. 6.8mm is pretty close to .27. Maybe those guys back in the 30's knew what they were talking about. Too bad the Army didn't listen.

 

[mark056]

...
The history of the development of the standard issue rifle has been consistently one of weight reduction. The fact that the M14 and FAL didn't offer a significant reduction in weight doesn't mean that this was not the intention. The M16 is the ultimate example of the weight and size reduction campaign.

It is interesting to note that there is some dissatisfaction with the current .223 round and that a larger 6.8mm round is gaining support. 6.8mm is pretty close to .27. Maybe those guys back in the 30's knew what they were talking about. Too bad the Army didn't listen.

The British wanted to go to a cartridge that was very similar to the .270 Winchester in the 1930's but finally stuck with the venerable .303. Again this idea was revived after WWII and the Canadians did as well. The 7.62 NATO round was foisted on our allies primarily because at that time we were the biggest kids on the block and could impose our wishes on a Western Europe that was rebuilding after the war. I think it is interesting to note that both the Swedes and the Italians used some form or a 6mm cartridge at different times.

As far as the M1 goes, the idea of a rifle holding more than five or eight rounds was pretty radical. One concept that has been pretty consistent in US miilitary thinking is that troops will needlessly waste ammunition if given a chance. You will recall that both Spencer and Henry repeating rifles were proven to be effective in the Civil War, yet after that conflict the new service rifle and carbine was single shot and it wasn't until the adoption of the Krag in the 1890's (well after most European states) that the US put a repeating rifle in service. To a degree this was reflected later on even in contemporary times with the change in design of the M16A1 from fully auto to the three round burst in the M16A2. Ostensibly this due to better control, but I also think that the bean-counters thought that it would reduce the expenditure of ammunition. If you ever get the chance read the book "The Black Rifle" which discusses this concept of ammunition expenditure and how it has been a theme in US military thinking going back for centuries.

Compared to just about anything else on the block in the 1930's the M1 was a pretty advanced rifle especially when one takes into consideration what other countires were issuing at the time, which were bolt action rifles. It wasn't until the Germans began issuing the Sturmgewehr circa 1944 that anything really surpassing it was in general issue and of course, the new German assault rifles never saw wide-spread issue the way the Garand did.

Personally I think the .270 Winchester or a round ballistically similar is a good all purpose round. So did the late gunwriter of a different generation, Jack O'Connor who frequently got into debates over its merits with those who thought that the 30-06 was king of the hill. When I was growing up and even when I was a young man, the 30-06 was considered the ne plus ultra in rifle cartridges.

Mark056

 

[bpm990d]

he actualy didnt come out nearly as bad as i figured it would end up.

Unfortunately they probably couldn't do anything about her personality. I'm sure her blood thirsty enthusiasm or should I say glee is not a good fit with the fairer sex. It was pretty ugly on a guy, but on a woman it would be downright disturbing. I'd still like to see her talking about cannonballs blowing people to shreds and ripping limbs off. She would be like an insane Ms. Doubtfire.

B

 

[sgtdemeo]

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...

accuracy is NOTHING in a military style rifle if it dosen't function in SHTF conditions. mind you that the great majority of engagements occur at ranges of 150m or less, and for that reason, i will take an ak variant over anything else anyday. acceptable accuracy with iron sights, ammo availability ANYWHERE in the world, and will function no matter what, everytime. there is a reason every third world militia uses the ak. it takes about 1 hour to show you everything you need to know to maintain it.

 

[Gonzo]

there is a reason every third world militia uses the ak. it takes about 1 hour to show you everything you need to know to maintain it.

They're cheap. Nigerian national police run around with old AK's and WWII era British Stens. They can't afford anything else.

 

[PatMcD]

acceptable accuracy with iron sights, ammo availability ANYWHERE in the world, and will function no matter what, everytime. there is a reason every third world militia uses the ak. it takes about 1 hour to show you everything you need to know to maintain it.

Probably the greatest myth in firearms.

 

[Trupo]

Probably the greatest myth in firearms.

Oh I beg to differ...the AK-47's widespread usage/acceptance, reputation, and body count is based on far more than "myth".

 

[mark056]

Probably the greatest myth in firearms.

That's an interesting statement that flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Would you kindly elaborate and share you experiences?

Thx,

Mark056

 

[Mike S]

Here's my question, will the new movement towards SDM type, highly accurate M4s/M16s shift the paradigm in that it enables the shooter to be lethal and engage the enemy at a greater distance?

 

[PatMcD]

That's an interesting statement that flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Would you kindly elaborate and share you experiences?

Thx,

Mark056

Go back to my post and re-read the text I put in bold type from the quote.

That just isn't true, but is held as gospel by just about everybody.

 

[vellnueve]

accuracy is NOTHING in a military style rifle if it dosen't function in SHTF conditions. mind you that the great majority of engagements occur at ranges of 150m or less, and for that reason, i will take an ak variant over anything else anyday. acceptable accuracy with iron sights, ammo availability ANYWHERE in the world, and will function no matter what, everytime. there is a reason every third world militia uses the ak. it takes about 1 hour to show you everything you need to know to maintain it.

The Sig 550 is also perhaps one of the most reliable firearms in the world.

 

[CrossFrire]

I just have to ask. Why did you pee down the barrel?

After a few K rounds it failed to eject.
I put the butt on the ground and my boot heel to the bolt handle - that ejected the case.
Then I pulled the bolt & carrier, whizzed down the barrel and pushed a patch thru it.
Back in action.
The bore and chamber on the rifle are fine. and other than an occassional wipe down and basic lube it has received zero maintenance in two tears.
The Yugo runs fine and is as accurate as another that gets normal upkeep.
This is why the AK gets my vote over the AR.

I saw a sig line on another board that sums things up pretty well, "A decent rifle in hand beats a perfect rifle in mind."

 

[mark056]

Go back to my post and re-read the text I put in bold type from the quote. That just isn't true, but is held as gospel by just about everybody.

So what evidence are you offering to refute it? Perhaps you served in the Russian Army, were a mlitary advisor in country that had primarily Warsaw Pact weapons, or what? I really think you need to elaborate. At this point, I am not questioning your integrity or anything like that, as I have an open mind, but I am not sure where you are coming from.

No offense is intended, I just think you need to elaborate a bit, that's all. In other words I am supposed to accept that statement at face value because.......(fill in the blank).

I hope you understand where I am coming from with this, and again no offense intended.

Regards,

Mark056

 

[PatMcD]

The statement was made that the AK series of weapons will function no matter what, every time. I said everybody seems to think that is an absolute fact.

It's not. The AK's need to be maintained just like anything else. They can jam due to poor maintenance, debris, crappy magazines, etc..
More reliable than other "assault rifles"? Probably. I don't have enough experience with them. As you correctly guessed; I wasn't in the Russian military or a Warsaw Pact advisor.