Best ever battle rifle

[Dougan]

SMLE / No 4: hmm, almost, ooman, almost...

By your criteria, the only thing that puts the P14 ahead of the SMLE/No.4 is the sights...but do you need adjustable rear apertures in 'battle'...

...and what about the magazine?...only 5 rounds in the P14, and it's an integral mag, meaning if it's damaged you've got to fix it...

...surely a detachable 10 round magazine would be far better for a 'battle rifle'...

[tackb]

Mark 5 smle , all the lovelyness of the smle with better sights , and a whopping great bayonet , they don't like it up em !

[snayperskaya]

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".

I couldn't agree more

[HALODIN]

I love my FAL.

FN FAL gets my vote

[HALODIN]

I think I'm going to say the L129A1.

[meles meles]

And what, pray tell, are its advantages over the venerable mechanical musket* ?

*Rifle, Self Loading, L1A1

[Blu]

I believe the best battle rifle is the one you never have to use in battle.

Blu

[HALODIN]

You can bolt QD accessories/scopes to it, the barrel is easily changed and it's variable in length because of the collapsible stock.

And what, pray tell, are its advantages over the venerable mechanical musket* ?

*Rifle, Self Loading, L1A1

[Stuck]

I believe the best battle rifle is the one you never have to use in battle.

Blu

I hope I never have to learn how true that statement is.

I'm ok shooting paper targets but paper targets do not shoot back.

[meles meles]

Ah, we seem to differ in our definition of advantage, ooman. We were thinking of qualities such as simple, rugged and reliable. Being able to festoon it with baubles doesn't count