If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
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 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
Why does this thread make me think of Dr. Lynette Nusbacher?
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.
because the .30 was not originally developed for smokeless powder, but was switched very early in its life
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.
Why does this thread make me think of Dr. Lynette Nusbacher?
B
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.
You just had to go an post that Dench.
he actualy didnt come out nearly as bad as i figured it would end up.
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
...
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.
he actualy didnt come out nearly as bad as i figured it would end up.
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
I just have to ask. Why did you pee down the barrel?
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.