Poll - Favorite Battle Rifle
 

OK, it seems I've been remiss in the polls... folks like Battle Rifles more than Assault Rifles.

So here's a poll for your favorite full-caliber semi-automatic rifle. I'd say detachable magazine, but I want to include the M-1 Garand for those hard-core history buffs out there, if any...

And keep in mind that with our user group, there are a lot more folks that used the L1A1/FAL (Australians and Brits) and M-14/M1A (Americans) than the G-3 (Norwegians), so that may skew the results...

That was a hard one. I've actually had some range time with an M-1 Garand and it was fun, but I wouldn't have to fight with a powerful cartridge in a general-purpose rifle. The AR-10 has good ergonomics, and the FAL is an excellent rifle, but they're both too light for automatic fire.

Having only used the L1A1, SKS and SKK, my vote is for the L1A1 SLR.
A good, solid weapon which if taken care of and fitted with the marksman's leaf battle sights (smaller peep hole in reat than the standard issue) extremely accurate (it's not bad with the standard leaf either as long as the shooter can handle the larger sight picture).

I've also used the heavier barrelled automatic version which I found to be a reasonable support weapon if firing short bursts from the bipod. It does have a high rate of fire and only 30 round mags though, which are nowhere near enough for a sustained fight (even if a decent supply of mags is available).

I'd have been more than happy to take one home to use as a hunting rifle.

The M14 is there. That is enough. The FAL/L1A1 is nice and a very good platform, but it doesn't have the accuracy that the M14 platform has and that in my view places it well over the top.

It is not just about volume of fire or the power of the cartridge, but it is ACCURATE FIRE which is key. And that allows you to use the benefit of the weapon. That also is one of the reasons I tend to go with the 16 over the AK, accuracy and range, as for reliability, just clean your weapon and it will work, simple.

PS: I do own an L1A1, the Canadian variant and it is very accurate but there is no arraingmenet for windage so a mam sized target is hard to get past 300m.

Even 16 years after I last laid hands on an L1A1 I can say with absolute CERTAINTY there most definately IS windage adjustment contained within the rear leaf sight mounting.
You'll note two screws, on on each side. By loosening one half a turn and tightening the other half a turn you adjust the sight. I can't remember how far half a turn puts the point of impact at what range though.

If yor weapon does not have these two screws, you don't have an authentic weapon (at least not the right rear sight).

Even as a machinegunner, I was still able to score in the top 5% of may infantry battalion using the L1A1 and standard battle sights. You just need to know how to zero it properly and follow through on your shots.
The army states it's range to be effective to 300 metres and harrassing to 600 metres - in good hands it's accurate well over those battlefield ranges.

That would be the C1 rifle and not the L1A1. The Canadians used a different rear sight to the British and Australia SLRs although I can't imagine they would not include windage adjustment and I think it is exactly the same as found on the British and Australian rifles and indeed the entire FN FAL/SLR range. From the images I've seen of the M14 it has a drum you can dial for windage making life very easy, the L1A1 philosophy is that you shouldn't be doing those changes on the battlefield.

I can tell you without any fear of contradiction that the Australian issue L1A1 most definitely has an arrangement for windage, two screws on either side of the rear body upon which the rear sight block sits. You adjust both of them to shift the entire block left or right, once set for the person using that rifle, you aren't supposed to adjust it again. The idea being that a rifleman should know his rifle & abilities well enough to shoot off if he needs to take windage into account - if you really need to adjust for windage by changing the sight itself, by the time you finish mucking about with altering the sight to shoot at someone, they're already gone.

True. After I had zeroed my SLR I scored 100% against man sized targets on the 600m pop-up range on my very first range practice in the Army Reserve. I was lucky, it turned out I was a natural at land navigation and shooting. I certainly wasn't the perfect soldier in other areas though.

You call it a drum it is called the "windage knob" or "elevation knob."

And you gents say that one should muck with adjustments in windage. But, if you wish to be accurate, to engage an enemy at range, you will have to study the wind, adjust for range in order to engage. It takes less than a couple of seconds to adjust your windage.

Using battle sights sure they should be generaly locked, And this does work for short ranges 300m or less. But, when you want to engage on man sized targets out to 500 and 600m and beyond well then it is critical and you will want fine adjustment.

And that gents is the thing, you want to be able to use the inherent accuracy of your weapon to its fullest. I dare say that for most, the potential for accuracy of the weapon is greater than the ability of the shooter. And for the 7.62 Nato cartridge, to limit to just 300m for a man sized target is under utilizing it.

As for the L1 vs M14, which weapon is easier to adjust windage if you had to?

As for adjusting the point of aim, that is called Kentucky Windage, which is far from accurate, and as state, not bad for 300m and less, you can even hit a man sized target at that range much of the time.

But, also, consider this, the ability to engage an enemy before they get close enough to engage, that will force them to to do a coolness check, since most would be very very upset at having to suffer accurate fire beyond your ability to return fire, so they just have to suffer and advance and take the casualties. When it comes to such, well, I'd like to be on the side handing out the damage at a range beyond the ability of my enemy.

I mean come on guys, we used to be able to nail a man sized target at 500m with the 16, it only has a bullet drop of about 6 feet at that distance. With anything in the 7.62 you have less drop, less affect by wind, damn, with practice 800m would be easy enough, before the shooter starts to fail <I can hardly see that far these days>

Next time I go to where my rifle is stored <Illegal to have in this state> I will check it out and see about those screws and make some adjustments.

L1A1 every time.

Yes it may only be semi-auto but at least you know it's going to hurt someone if they get hit by it.

Drum was the best description I could come up with at the time.

For our training, out to 400 metres was the job of the rifleman, out to 800 metres was the job of the machinegunner and although Section Fire could be conducted out to 600m, it wasn't reliant on individual accuracy, more the volume of fire.

Certainly and I am not trying to dispute what you said, just illustrating the philosphy behind our emplyment of the weapon. As I mentioned above, targets beyond 400m were the province of the machinegun, the decision to employ the 7.62mm rifle out to 400m was not about the limits of the rifle and its round but about the limits of the shooter.

Without a doubt the M14 is easier, the windage knob is far easier to access and doesn't require any tools as far as I can tell.

Again, my comment about the role of the rifleman and the role of the machinegunner apply here

You're preaching to the choir, I totally agree with you here and I'm sure a few other fans of the 7.62x51mm do as well. It's just a pity that the politicians and the army high command don't see it that way.

If you can find it, download the British Army L1A1 users manual, it should go into some detail about adjusting the sights
Did I mention that I'm supremely jealous that you own that rifle? I'd love to own an L1A1 or a C1A1 but it's never going to happen in Australia - the world's centre of fear and paranoid fantasy when it comes to guns.

Me too. I know how to strip, clean and shoot the SLR. So sad that we Aussies can't (legally) own such things.

SLR, M60, M16, F88 all blindfolded at breakneck speed, over a decade and a half later.
I suppose that's why they make you practise, and practise, and practise....

Yes, somethings gents become reflext we did them so many times in our youths. Ah the memories. And honestly, I could dial in a mortar faster and better still drunk from the evening <late morning> before than I could stone sober. Instinct and reflecx.


Ansd as for the doctrine.

You gents have the machinegun as the base of your element like most of Europe don't you? Where the riflemen support the machinegun. Whereas, for us in the US, it is oposite, the machinegun supports the riflemen. A different doctrine. And those who are playing American characters you had better adopt that mind set :p to play your characters right ;)

Also, per rifle doctrine, the Marines are the only US service who still train for long range shooting, everyone else it only goes out to 300m whereas the MC still shoots out to 500m, another organizational difference in doctrine which does shape how we see things.

Just things to consider.


As for the C1, yeah, well the last time I saw it was in 01, however, I may be moving the "bad guns" to a location out of state a bit closer, hey, they allow anything in Arizona, so I may send them there.

I've known a lot of guys who could do that. Now I could shoot better in MOPP gear than without it -- who else can claim that?;)

Oh, and BTW, have you seen the mess that happens when someone who's badly hung over throws up in his mask before he manages to get it off?

L1A1 for me every time.

Add to it, while stuck in the same confined space such as helo, tracked vehicle or aircraft interior. ICK!!!! And at times it becomes a puke fest.

M-14 FTW

chico know's why I feel the way I do, now if only he'd buy one... :)

And now you know why when I was a designated driver, my hard and fast rule was that we don't take my car!

Hey, my Garand is beautiful... like new

http://s695.photobucket.com/albums/v...ice%20Special/ (not mine, but from the same batch...)

Oh, those pics are better than porn!

Wish I had a Garand...:(

I picked the G-3. I've never fired any of the guns on the list but I chose it because it looks shorter and handier than the FN FAL (and, as opposed to the SLR version, is full auto capable) and it has a pistol grip. Some of the tricked out versions used by German and Norwegian commandos look pretty flippin' sweet too.

As a point of interest, the L1A1 SLR can be easily converted to fire automatically by several methods. Two that I know of involve a match stick inserted inside or simply removing the safety catch. Of course it's not exactly a great idea as the barrel is a bit light to cope and you loose the ability for single shots (not to mention a working safety!)

A third option is judicious application of a file to the safety which both removes the exterior "lug" from the safety which prevents it rotating around to the Auto setting (the L1A1 is marked with an auto setting even though it's not actually able to fire that way), and a little work on the same peice internally.

AR-10, as it is very familiar to the M16 which the USMC sought to train me on. And I own one. Very nice weapon.

I second that!

FN 49. Beautiful.

Does need bigger and detachable magazines, though.

- C.

That's why they made the FAL :p
But I agree, the FN-49 is a nice, classic rifle, just a shame they made it with a fixed magazine or it may have lasted as long as some of its contemporaries (I suppose it could be argued that it lived on in the FAL in way the Garand lived on in the Italian BM59)

Along this line, what do you think the possibility that that drop-in auto sear kits (such as those that used to be for sale for the AR-15 back in the mid-1960s) would make a comeback? Would governments start making them again to give out to their militias?

In other parts of the world, absolutely. I doubt they would here in Australia though. I can't imagine the Australian military thinking it would be a good idea to provide militias with full-auto converted SLRs. I think they would feel much more comfortable training militias to use SLRs in the same way that the Australian Army has always used them (semi auto).

The lighter barrel the L1A1 is equipped with probably wouldn't stand up to automatic fire for all that long. At a guess, maybe it would last through one decent contact before becoming effectively useless.

However, replacing the barrel with a heavier one while retaining the other parts is conceivable - but it would require at least a trained armourer and the correct tools.

Without a bipod though I can't really see the point. You'd also need to find a decent supply of the larger (and seriously rare) 30 round mags - the standard 20s are gone in a flash (same with the 30 true be told).

As a side note, the Infantry museum at Singleton, NSW has an L1A1 and an M16 converted to bullpup. Both weapons are capable of fire even though the "conversion" appears to be little more than application of a hacksaw, and adding a bit of fencing wire and assorted bits and peices that happened to be laying about the workshop....