Best ever battle rifle

[meles meles]

AK-47 ? SA-80 ? No. We don't class anything that fires half pint rounds as a 'battle rifle'. The definition of a battle rifle is that it fires a full power cartridge. Half pint poppers are 'assault' rifles.

[zzr1100]

FN FAL gets my vote

[breacher]

I really don't understand the many references to the AK / AKM being inaccurate !!

It will CONSISTANTLY hit a 6"x4" torso box on a man sized target at 300 yards with iron sights - exactly what it was designed to do. And exactly the sort of accuracy required in many battlefield scenarios - woodland, cqb / urban etc

And that's with crappy Russian ammo not renowned for consistency. I tried some privi ammo in my Saiga ( which is almost match grade in comparison to Russian milsurp ) and it was shooting 1.5 moa with 4x scope !

As to ergonomics - since when has that been of any concern ? Yes, a range rover is more comfortable than a wilys jeep or a Humvee or a snatch landrover but that does not take away the fact that the wilys, the Humvee and the snatch landrover do a fantastic job AT WHAT THEY ARE DESIGNED FOR.

And the point made re quality of enemy is a valid one - you really cannot say that its lucky our enemies don't have a better rifle when most of the enemies using AKs are untrained and using poorly maintained weapons, very often holding them above cover and shooting unaimed without even seeing what they are shooting at !! If you gave the Taliban M4s or SA80s or whatever, they would still probably use them from the hip or in "Lebanese unload" mode and accuracy would be about the same !

The NVA / Vietcong seemed to use their AKs to good effect.

Yes, the question is subjective but if you take into account the following -

1, It has been proven that the majority ( even trained soldiers ) do not aim carefully in the heat of battle, but use suppressing fire. 10,000 rounds per kill ? Does that sound like well aimed fire ?
2, Weapons take a lot of abuse on a battlefield.
3, For a long time now, the majority of engagements have been at 300 yards or less.
4, Most armies have designated marksmen with .30 cal scoped rifles for the occasional longer range engagements.

Then the AK/AKM fulfils the criteria for an effective general issue weapon. Even more so in a "world war" scenario where conscripts would need to be rushed into battle with the minimum of training.


And yes, the true definition of a battle rifle is different to an assault rifle. BUT........................the term battle rifle is outdated as the "battle" has changed over the years.

The assault ( intermediate cartridge and select fire ) rifle is todays "battle rifle".

[Blu]

Way I see this with regards to "the best battle rifle ever", first you have to separate bolt actions from auto/semi auto otherwise it's like comparing apples to oranges as a fair bit of time passes and with weapon development being an ongoing thing. I notice that the L1A1 hasn't been mentioned. Having carried one on the streets of NI and in the Falklands for me it is right up there with the best of them. Not once did that rifle ever let me down. Also another proven battle rifle to be considered IMO is the American M1 Garand, it's ruined the day of a fair few Germans, Japs and North Koreans in it's time.

Blu

[meles meles]

Oh the SLR has been mentioned, Blu, in its FN FAL guise at least. There's no need to separate them by action: most good bolt actions can hold their own against a semi-auto when in the hands of a trained soldier. We have a fondness for the SLT too...

[Blu]

FN FAL gets my vote

Yep having fired one or two of them in my time the FN Fal is not a bad rifle, but it's just about useless in full auto mode as it way too hard to control.

Blu

[breacher]

Oh the SLR has been mentioned, Blu, in its FN FAL guise at least. There's no need to separate them by action: most good bolt actions can hold their own against a semi-auto when in the hands of a trained soldier. We have a fondness for the SLT too...

Hmmm - I would not want a bolt action in house to house battle.

[Blu]

Oh the SLR has been mentioned, Blu, in its FN FAL guise at least. There's no need to separate them by action: most good bolt actions can hold their own against a semi-auto when in the hands of a trained soldier. We have a fondness for the SLT too...

Must have missed it, I saw the FN Fal mentioned which is a different animal. I disagree when you say that there is no need to separate auto from bolt action, while say a Lee Enfield is a worthy tool in the hands of a trained soldier so is an AK or an SLR, the difference though is the rate of fire put down by the soldier. By that I mean I'd be willing to bet that a soldier with and SLR will put more rounds on target faster than a soldier with a Lee Enfield. Also weapons such as the AK or the M16 are mostly used or have been used as spray and pray weapons where that is not the case and can't be with bolt action weapons if you see what I mean.

Blu

[meles meles]

We see what you mean, oomans. The assault rifle was developed precisely because the full length, bolt action, battle rifle is not suited to closer quarter battle and FIBUA. We're debating battle rifles here, not assault rifles. There's a good argument for the L1A1 / SLR being considered the pinnacle of the battle rifle evolutionary tree.

[Blu]

We see what you mean, oomans. The assault rifle was developed precisely because the full length, bolt action, battle rifle is not suited to closer quarter battle and FIBUA. We're debating battle rifles here, not assault rifles. There's a good argument for the L1A1 / SLR being considered the pinnacle of the battle rifle evolutionary tree.

You got it Badger.

Blu


Sent with my 16 year old PC using my fingers and thumbs