In Your opinion, which is the best battle rifle ever made?

[Skyman]

Yay...the experts second my choice .The fal over AK for me, but both legendary guns.

[BowMan]

AK - Freakin......47 ,no questions asked

[tandavbaba]

with timmy

[INSAS556]

FOR A BATTLE RIFLE, IT IS CERTAINLY TO BE MAUSER(7.92MM) - THE BOLT ACTION MECHANISM WAS EVOLUTIONARY AND KICKED STARTED A NEW ERA OF RIFLES - ACCURATE RIFLES, ALSO SMLE TOO IS GOOD. I DONT WANT TO INCLUDE SPRINGFIELD 1903 COZ ITS BOLT ACTION MECHANISM WAS SIMILAR TO MAUSER, AND SPRINGFIELD PAID ROYALTY TO MAUSER FOR THE MECHANISM (FUNNY, BUT TRUE). I THEREFORE SAY MAUSER IS THE DADDY OF BOLT ACTION MECHANISM.
FOR BATTLE RIFLE IN SEMI CATEGORY IT HAS ALWAYS TO BE FN-FAL/ 1A1 SLR.(7.62X51MM), THE FULL FLEDGED BATTLE CARTRIDGE, I HAVE FIRED THIS GUN AND BELIEVE ME, U DONT WANNA BE ITS TARGET. IT WILL TEAR THRU THE TARGET.
FOR ALL TIME GREAT ASSAULT RIFLE IT IS AND ALWAYS WILL THE THE KLASHINIKOVA SERIES NOTHING COMES CLOSE TO ITS RELIABILITY AND DURABILITY. IT IS THE "GOD OF WAR" AND IT IS ITS MECHANISM THAT MAKES IT SUCH A MASTERPIECE

Please do not use CAPS for your posts. it is considered shouting and is rude. - Mod

[xl_target]

The AK series (although not battle rifles) are supposed to be quite inaccurate in burst mode, but then, the modern philosophy seems to be leaning towards a "wall of bullets" rather than aim-and-fire.

Here is the issue; full auto personal weapon fire is reserved for close ranges. Using any hand held weapon (as opposed to crew served or fixed machine guns) in full auto mode at distances over 50 yards gets iffy. With an AK in full-auto, hitting a man sized target at 25 yards or even 50 yards is not that difficult. At 100 yards with the AK in semi-auto and iron sights, if you can hit a 8" pie plate, one would be doing good

You're correct about the "wall of bullets" training. With every war, the number of cartridges fired vs the body count goes up. For Vietnam, various sources claim figures as high as 50,000 per enemy soldier. In Afghanistan, it can only be higher.

According to figures released by the Department of Defense, the average number of rounds expended in Vietnam to kill one enemy solder with the M-16 was 50,000. The average number of rounds expended by U.S. military snipers to kill one enemy soldier was 1.3 rounds. That's a cost-difference of $23,000 per kill for the average soldier, vs. $0.17 per kill for the military sniper.
According to the U.S. Army, the average soldier will hit a man-sized target 10 percent of the time at 300 meters using the M16A2 rifle. Graduates of the U.S. Army sniper school are expected to achieve 90 percent first-round hits at 600 meters,

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armytrng ... school.htm

At 300 meters, will the average Taliban militant be able to hit a man sized target, even 10% of the time with an open sighted AK? At 300 meters with iron sights and an AK, I'm not sure that I could hit the broadside of a barn. However, with the M4 and optical sights, the US army/marines seem to be able to do that pretty consistently. The US even investigated the large numbers of head shots in the Iraq war because they thought the army/marines were executing enemy soldiers.
Training helps
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... iper_x.htm

Which is quite reflected in this thread - almost all the weapons discussed above are historical!

I agree. There isn't an army out there anymore that fields a battle rifle as its main infantry weapon.
Definitely true for the most part but remember in the recent Libyan uprising, a significantly large number of FAL's showed up. It seemed whenever I saw news footage from Libya , there were always a bunch of guys with FAL's standing around. Wonder where those came from? Israel? Europe?

Also in the ongoing Syrian uprising, FAL have started showing up.
Check out these photos of Free Syrian Army fighters with FAL's



images from HERE and HERE

[timmy]

XL:

It seemed whenever I saw news footage from Libya , there were always a bunch of guys with FAL's standing around. Wonder where those came from? Israel? Europe?

Now, there's a good question. I can't say, but thought I'd throw a few speculations out there.

1. France. The whole Libyan exercise saw France in the forefront of supporting the rebels. My take on this is that France has never given up its aspirations of power in the Mediterranean, and that this foreign policy was an extension of this. So, I wonder if weapons were shipped in by France.

2. Venezuela. The Chavez regime adopted the AK47 as the standard arm for troops sometime back, and as part of the deal with Russia, not only AK47s were imported, but also lots of ammunition. Supposedly, this was the cause of the scarcity of 7.62x39 ammo in the USA a few years back, and the sharp price rise, as well. Also, Chavez was supposed to have had three arsenals that would manufacture ammunition domestically that was to be built by Russians as part of this deal, as well. Venezuela had a large number of FN-FALs, which would then be surplussed. I had heard that Chavez intended to stockpile these as a resource for revolutionary groups abroad and National Guard type forces internally. Whether this is true or not, certainly Venezuela had a number of FN-FALs available. I believe that Chavez and Khadaffi were buddies; perhaps the FN-FALs were sent to Libya, meant for Khadaffi's forces, and they were then grabbed by revolutionaries.

Now, these are just speculations. I was thinking in terms of a motive with regard to France and thinking of who had a bunch of FN-FALs with regard to Venezuela. But I'd surely like to know the answer to your question, myself.

[Skyman]

Does it really take 50,000 rounds to kill a man? I wonder how this is possible.Upto two clips i can believe.

Is it that soldiers pump rounds into things the enemy takes cover behind, or do they fire on full auto hoping to hit?

[xl_target]

Tim,
I've heard that "French suplied FAL" rumor too. I wonder if France had FAL's in stock somewhere? I was under the impression that they converted to the FAMAS rifle in the 1970's and never used the FAL as a service rifle. I could be wrong. Venezuela definitely had FAL's, though I can't see Chavez supplying rebels. Many of the Gulf countries also had FAL's ,like Kuwait (but Kuwaiti FAL's had a synthetic handguard instead of wood). Since about 90 countries used the FAL, they could have come anywhere. I guessed Israeli because of the wood furniture. The FAL's in those photos look almost new with very little damage to the wood. So they would have had to come from a country that didn't use them much or someone with a decent arsenal who could refurbish them properly. The Israeli's used theirs a lot (read: beat-up) so who knows what the origin is. Either way, it's amazing to see "The Right Arm of the Free World" still in frontline use.

I just did a search for "Israeli FAL" and came up with this:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012 ... fal-rifle/
Someone on there is claiming that it is an Israeli Eyal scope, possibly sourced from Lebanon.

or do they fire on full auto hoping to hit?

Skyman,
That's about the extent of it. The current US army assault rifle is the M4 which has semi-auto or three round burst capability. The goal, I believe, was to prevent soldiers from firing all their ammo off in one burst.

The M4A1 version has full auto capability.
We've come full circle again as the US Army has announced it has contracted for 120,000 M4 A1's to start replacing the M4. So soldiers will have full auto capability again. Compared to Vietnam where most soldiers were drafted, todays US Forces are all volunteer and the recruits are better motivated and better trained so the feeling is that full auto fire is desirable again?

On 21 April 2012, the US Army announced to begin purchasing over 120,000 M4A1 carbines to start reequipping front line units from the original M4 to the new M4A1 version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine

I can personally attest to the fact that the M4a1 is very controllable in "Rock 'n Roll" mode.

[Skyman]

But 50,000 rounds for a man is truly an unbelievable figure.The RAF estimated that 5,000 rounds were needed to down a plane (aerial combat) back during the great war.I find it hard to believe a man is more elusive! And ten times more so.

[Hammerhead]

I can personally attest to the fact that the M4a1 is very controllable in "Rock 'n Roll" mode.

Finally get it re-sized, dooffis phone pictures

[xl_target]

But 50,000 rounds for a man is truly an unbelievable figure.The RAF estimated that 5,000 rounds were needed to down a plane (aerial combat) back during the great war.I find it hard to believe a man is more elusive! And ten times more so.

I believe the figure is even higher now (for wars after Vietnam).
You also have to remember that soldiers on the ground can go to cover or concealment whereas an aircraft in the sky cannot.
You also have to remember that there is such a thing called supressive fire.
It sounds like a lot but that's because of a misconception: That you shoot a bullet to hit someone. But the vast majority of rounds fired are not aimed at anybody. They are fired to intimidate the other guys, make them keep their heads down and reveal their positions by shooting back.

From a movie perspective:
If you watched "Band of Brothers" or "Saving Private Ryan" you saw them constantly calling for "covering fire". That means everybody blaze away at the bad guys to cover us when we move. You want to keep the enemy's head down while you are advancing or doing whatever else it takes to knock out a strongpoint, etc.

Ammunition is cheap. Your soldiers lives are not.
According to these reports, US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan use 250,000 cartridges for every insurgent killed.
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/10/ga ... nt-killed/
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 50027.html

Increased training tempos also consume more ammo. More US soldiers in those locations are becoming casualties to IED's than straight on attacks. In Afghanistan especially, the insurgents are masters at using the terrain to their advantage. They also know that they cannot tackle US forces in a head-on fight. So they either wait for the forces to leave the area or enter the villages at night. When an enemy is so well hidden in terrain that allows for it, it becomes a more onerous task to winkle him out.

[timmy]

The RAF estimated that 5,000 rounds were needed to down a plane (aerial combat) back during the great war.

Ok, but when you consider that figure, you might want to keep this in mind regarding a typical American fighter, the P51 D Mustang:

"...the standard armament of the famous and most widely known D model was six, M2 Browning fifty-caliber machine guns.

There were 400 rounds for the two inboard guns and 270 rounds each for the four outboard guns for a total of 1880 rounds. This gave the Mustang enough firepower for thirty seconds of continual firing and could throw 154 pounds of lead at the enemy."

[Skyman]

The americans were quick to realize the advantage of a .50 cal against unarmored zero's.Three four hits and he was down.The Brits used .30 cal rounds well into the war.After which .50 cals and 20mm rockets made an entry.

The wildcat was the death blow to the zero.

But what i say supplements what you have said.

[Skyman]

XL, first of all kudos for taking the effort to dig up this info.

Considering suppressing fire as well as cover fire, won't things like the M60 usually fill out those shoes, granted not always but even then a quarter million rounds a man!! My god, i pity the American tax payer.I suppose i will have to believe the report.But these figures are an eye opener.

Blessed are the peaceful, they shall not pay the price of making war.

[goodboy_mentor]

Blessed are the peaceful, they shall not pay the price of making war.

No matter who is peaceful or who is right or wrong, it is always the vanquished who are made to pay the price for making war. History is full of such examples. I would like to know examples were the vanquished were able to make the victorious pay for making war.