Poll - Favorite Assault Rifle
 

I know we've done this before, but it's been a while.

A couple of different philosophies seem to apply here:

1) My PC is from X country. X country issues Assault Rifle Y to their soldiers. My PC trained on this in boot camp and is most familiar with it and possibly has the spare parts to support it. Therefore, my PC carries Assault Rifle Y.

2) Assault Rifle Y has the least recoil for its weight, highest rate of fire, or fires the 6.5 Grendel, IMHO the baddest round ever. It never jams and could gut an elephant with a single shot from 1200 meters. It was a test weapon that my PC found in a burnt-out supply truck on the side of the road in western Poland. I'll worry about finding ammo later, and since it never breaks there is no need for spares. Therefore, my PC carries Assault Rifle Y.

3) I like the looks of Assault Rifle Z. Therefore my PC carries it.

(I exaggerate a little)

What is your favorite, and why? Do you think my philosophies apply.

M16 series, most of the time my PC's have been American's. The occasional British PC I have had used the L85. I tend to go with the issued weapon per the nationality played, unless I'm playing a SpecOps munchkin (whom can get anything).

Do you consider the G3 series and the FN FAL/SLR "assault rifles"? Since neither are choices, I figure that maybe you consider them "battle rifles". I don't really see a clear distinction- seeing as the AKM is a choice on this list- but some folks (including the boys at GDW) do. Just wondering.

I like the AK-74. With it's fairly unique muzzle brake, it has very little muzzle rise on full auto and it's got the AK-47's legendary simplicity, toughness, and reliability. Since I'm rapidly becoming a Pole-o'-phile, I'd take the Polish equivalent Wz. 88 Tantal instead.

Well, assault rifle-wise, I'm most familiar with the M-16, and I know what it can do and what it can't do. Unfortunately, I know what it can do and what it can't do.

Assault Rifles, hmmm, Something robust, but also with the capacity for accuracy. Thus,

The SOCOM Model M14 which is a shortened version of the M14, or even the Carbine version. Another vairant would be the G3 cut down into an assualtrifle size or the L1/FN-Fal series in .308 cut down to carbine or assault rifle size.

If its purpose made assault rifle, then the HK 33/93 series seems to be good to go. Rebosut, reliable and accurate.

The G-11.

It uses caseless ammo. I mean it's CASELESS! How cool is that!? :P
The low recoil, good range and massive standard mag size doesn't hurt either...

FN-FNC. Two main reasons: first, my SEAL PC needed a weapon that he could carry anywhere, even in prewar operations where carrying weapons "Made in the USA" could cause problems if KIA or captured. Second is more simple, really: I own a semi-auto version of the rifle. Which I had to register with the State of Calfornia after the state stupidly passed an assault weapons ban and I had to pay a $45 "registration fee".

Seeing as I'm a lefty, I prefer the M-16 series. But, as Raellus mentioned I also like the G-3, but it's not on your list so I don't know if it's counted in this mix.

Sounds like you just need a real weapon that can be quickly and easily converted to left handed use...
The Steyr AUG would suit you nicely and is definately a better weapon than an M16...

M16, cause I know it

Preference would actually be a Battle Rifle (specifically the L1A1).

However, if I had to choose an assault rifle for a PC, I'd probably go for the L85 (based on philosophy #1).

A plasma rifle in the 10MW range...

M-16A2 or A4, I used an A2 in the army and loved it, got my hands on an A4 a few times and its even better.

#1 with the twist of picking up the OPFOR #1 weapon for the extra ammo

Galil, hey its cool. Other then that the M-16a1, a2, a3, a4 etc.

ak-74, because I'm always the GM and therefore I'm almost always a marauder, a Pole or a Soviet :).

The M-16/AR-15 series all the way. I always loved it. It's sexy. I had the hots for it when I was a boy and when I finally got my hands on one it didn't let me down. I prefer the carbines, but the full size rifles are great too. Besides carbines just don't have the range for that open terrain. I love this gun and never had probelms with it, unlike like the stories people always post. It's a solid weapon system, and if it wasn't it would have been replaced long ago. It has lasted longer then any other service rifle the USA has ever had, and I don't really see a replacement soon.

Heres one for the Lowly stamped reciever AKM!

I like the down range effect of the 7.62X39mm over the 5.54 or 5.45 though not as accurate as the latter two rounds ,its makes up for it with effect on penetrating cover. You can hit mansized targets at 300m without difficulty and at closer ranges it really comes into it own.

Yes the ammo and mags are heavy 8-30 round steel AK mags in my vest is about 20 lbs but Ill take it any time. Bakellite Magazines were a good developement as they allowed the soldier to carry less wieght in magazines and more in ammuntion. ( and they are tough as nails)

but with steel magazines you also have a lot of options in capacity 20, 30, 40 magazines are available and 75 round drums (china also made 100 round drums)

And yes they are heavy but about a pound lighter than the milled reciever Ak-47. And they are still very durable and I think that would be very desirable after the twilight war,

not only for when you have to kill every MotherF#cker in the room you can also beat someone to death one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQCWh...stern%20Europe

and I'd take one from any country Russia, Romania,poland, Bulgaria, Hungary,Egypt ect.

I like the standard AKM with laminate furniture it is very rugged. Though If I aquired some of the black synthetic furniture of the AK-74 I wouldn't hesitate to put it on the AKM. The heatshield in the lower hand gaurd is nice.

One of my favorite forms of the AKM especially for vehicle use is the hungarian AMD-65 with the long muzzle break removed and substituted with a muzzle nut. The first mag was a 75 round drum and 30 rounders after that.
it looks just like this :)
http://i32.tinypic.com/9kcgwg.jpg

Three cheers for the AKM

M4A1 or similar. Pretty much the industry standard for professional gunfighters.

Though I'd feel well enough armed with most anything on the list that I'm actually familiar with, and don't doubt I'd feel okay with the rest given some range time to learn how they ticked and how to run them at speed and fight them.

The SIG 550. Marry AR ergos (except the mag change) and precision to what's pretty darned close to an AK's internals. What's not to like?

I've heard it called the world's finest-made AK. Sounds good to me.

The Piston Driven ARs made by Sig and S&W seem pretty cool these days.

The classic distinction isn't operation, but power of the cartridge. Battle rifles use full power rifle cartridges, like 7.62x51mm, 7.92x57mm, 7.62x54mmR, .303 Brit, .30-06, 6.5x55mm, etc. Assault rifles use intermediate powered cartridges like 5.56x45mm, 5.45x39mm, 7.62x39mm, 7.92x33mm, 5.8x42mm, etc.

You mention the AKM. 7.62x39mm is an intermediate power cartridge. Compare these muzzle energy figures and tell me which group it fits into:
7.62x54mmR: 3600-3800J
7.62x51mm (M80): 3350J
.303 Brit: 3250J
7.62x39mm (M43): 2000J
5.8x42mm: 2000J
5.56x45mm (M855): 1750J
5.45x39m (7N10): 1400J

Have they managed to do something about the carrier tilt problems that affect most of these piston conversions?

It also seems to me that pistons would get gunked up sooner or later, and that cleaning the piston assembly might not be so user-friendly. Any truth to that?

Come to think of it, the AK does use a type of piston...

As a writer/designer, that's the distinction I use when such things matter. However, for purposes of hoplological taxonomy within the game, I generally lump battle rifles into the "assault rifle" category. Most game systems tend to loosely define "assault rifle" as "infantry rifle with burst or full auto fire mode," and there's no rigid mechanical distinction to differentiate "true" assault rifles from battle rifles. Traits derived from caliber performance or size do stand out, but I can't think of a system that makes an assault rifle fundamentally different from a battle rifle in terms of how the character makes attacks with it.

- C.

Not especially. Except for units that need to run very short barrel lengths or suppressors on their AR type rifles, the piston driver AR-15 isn't necessary. They're mostly marketed to the civilian sector as a solution to the "problem" of internet hype.

That's pretty much where I'm at. Heck, even the 10.5" DI SBR I built has been dead reliable for me. To it being, particularly for civilian uses, a solution in search of a problem, add in that the AR recoil system wasn't designed to have the operating force applied offset from the bore axis. This is what leads to the carrier tilt issues seen with the piston conversions.

Nor can I think of a reason to. But, that extends to semi-auto hunting rifles and, to an extent, even bolt-action or other manually cycled weapons.

It's an arbitrary distinction, even in the real world.

Not to my knowledge. Cleaning the pistons on my AK and SKSs isn't that difficult.

FWIW, so does a DI AR-15. The bolt basically does double duty as a gas piston.