Poll - Favorite Assault Rifle

[ArmySGT.]

M16.

If I have to go bone stock Military than an M16A2 AKA the Musket.

However, Stoner's invention really shines in that it is completely modular. In fact one could re-configure a rifle mid mission.

So, I carry an M16 series in M4 Configuration while mounted, from insertion I keep this on until the Patrol base.

At the Patrol base the PL say it is a quick recon and I am the DM.

Drop the magazine, eject the live cartridge, separate the upper receiver from the lower reciever, stow it, remove DM 20" upper with optics, Install upper with silicone wedge if necessary, re-insert magazine.

I would still have the collapsible stock on but, I would go from a patrolling rifle to one that can confirm and engage targets at 800.

Could even change calibers as easily such as going urban with a suppressed .458 SOCCOM with a change of upper, magazines and ammo.

[Legbreaker]

Pulling apart and reconfiguring would have to completely screw up the zero of the weapon....
Even if it had been zeroed before in that config, just the slightly different seating of the parts is likely to throw the zero off a couple of mils.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Pulling apart and reconfiguring would have to completely screw up the zero of the weapon....
Even if it had been zeroed before in that config, just the slightly different seating of the parts is likely to throw the zero off a couple of mils.

The barrel and the upper receiver are one assembly.

Thereforethe optics and the barrel are one unit. No change of zero for them.

There is the fit between the upper receiver and the lower receiver that could come into play.This slight and there is available a silicone wedge that can be inserted to remove all play.

A SOF unit could have certain M16 lowers "bedded" to matched uppers. However the silicone wedge is more economical and can be applied in the field.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

The barrel and the upper receiver are one assembly.

Thereforethe optics and the barrel are one unit. No change of zero for them.

There is the fit between the upper receiver and the lower receiver that could come into play.This slight and there is available a silicone wedge that can be inserted to remove all play.

A SOF unit could have certain M16 lowers "bedded" to matched uppers. However the silicone wedge is more economical and can be applied in the field.

DOH!!

What he said.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

The barrel and the upper receiver are one assembly.

Good point. It's been nearly two decades since I last stripped an M16 so the mind was a little foggy...

Still, it's a shit rifle in my experience compared to others I've handled.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Good point. It's been nearly two decades since I last stripped an M16 so the mind was a little foggy...

Still, it's a shit rifle in my experience compared to others I've handled.

Been our Main Arm for more than 40 years. Come a long way in that time. So have manufacturing methods, materials, and practices.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Pulling apart and reconfiguring would have to completely screw up the zero of the weapon....
Even if it had been zeroed before in that config, just the slightly different seating of the parts is likely to throw the zero off a couple of mils.

Actually if the sight is already mounted and zeroed on the upper you will not have this problem. In this case one would leave the sights on the respective uppers.

At least that is the way I did it. Till I got around to getting lowers for almost all of my uppers.

[HorseSoldier]

On the AR, pretty much all the magic happens in the upper receiver, so as long as the sights or optic were pre-zeroed, installation on a lower wouldn't make any real practical difference.

There is the fit between the upper receiver and the lower receiver that could come into play.This slight and there is available a silicone wedge that can be inserted to remove all play.

Beat me to it. Upper to lower fit doesn't matter much at all. Even the accu-wedges are more for the OCD portion of the shooting community than anyone trying to get better performance.

The modularity aspect for the individual Big Army troop isn't that great a strength on the AR/M16/M4 for the simple reason that it isn't used as such -- units just don't have additional specialized uppers, etc. However, I know a lot of SF guys, in some cases entire ODAs, that have deployed with multiple uppers for their M4s, and some guys who used SPR uppers on M4 lowers with pretty good success (trigger is not as good as the one on the issue SPR lower . . . but non-match grade M4 triggers never had an army-wide safety warning about match grade triggers failing on the SPRs).

It makes pretty good sense if you're either doing mounted operations and have extra stowage for spare uppers (starts making much less sense when you've hauling a golf bag of gun parts on your back on a ruckmarch) or if your mission set(s) is/are deliberate enough you can preconfigure your weapons -- going into Fallujah, maybe 12" barrel uppers are preferable, patrolling some wide open stretch of nothing in Iraq or Afghanistan, maybe 18" uppers are better.

That said, the bigger show stopper in my experience is ammunition quality rather than optimizing barrel length. With good ammo (Mk 262) and an ACOG, shooting unknown distance targets out to 600 meters gets boring, and (with the aid of a ballistic computer and spotter making wind call) I've seen a guy make a hit on a steel chest plate out around 1200 meters with a 12" upper. With standard issue green tip, you're probably more consistently in the 3-4 MOA (and realistically, anywhere from probably 1.5-6 MOA, depending on lot), which out at 600 which is pretty much just rolling the dice before you even start worrying about things like wind, bullets going transsonic, and such.

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

On the AR, pretty much all the magic happens in the upper receiver, so as long as the sights or optic were pre-zeroed, installation on a lower wouldn't make any real practical difference.



Beat me to it. Upper to lower fit doesn't matter much at all. Even the accu-wedges are more for the OCD portion of the shooting community than anyone trying to get better performance.

The modularity aspect for the individual Big Army troop isn't that great a strength on the AR/M16/M4 for the simple reason that it isn't used as such -- units just don't have additional specialized uppers, etc. However, I know a lot of SF guys, in some cases entire ODAs, that have deployed with multiple uppers for their M4s, and some guys who used SPR uppers on M4 lowers with pretty good success (trigger is not as good as the one on the issue SPR lower . . . but non-match grade M4 triggers never had an army-wide safety warning about match grade triggers failing on the SPRs).

It makes pretty good sense if you're either doing mounted operations and have extra stowage for spare uppers (starts making much less sense when you've hauling a golf bag of gun parts on your back on a ruckmarch) or if your mission set(s) is/are deliberate enough you can preconfigure your weapons -- going into Fallujah, maybe 12" barrel uppers are preferable, patrolling some wide open stretch of nothing in Iraq or Afghanistan, maybe 18" uppers are better.

That said, the bigger show stopper in my experience is ammunition quality rather than optimizing barrel length. With good ammo (Mk 262) and an ACOG, shooting unknown distance targets out to 600 meters gets boring, and (with the aid of a ballistic computer and spotter making wind call) I've seen a guy make a hit on a steel chest plate out around 1200 meters with a 12" upper. With standard issue green tip, you're probably more consistently in the 3-4 MOA (and realistically, anywhere from probably 1.5-6 MOA, depending on lot), which out at 600 which is pretty much just rolling the dice before you even start worrying about things like wind, bullets going transsonic, and such.

OK, lets dispel one thing right now. The M4 is a pile of shit. It was designed to be a handy rifle for non-combat, support troops. Just like the M-1 carbine was designed for in WWII. A replacement for a pistol. The M-4 jams up after 2, 30 round mags, and over heats. Because it is not meant to be in an extended encounter. You can say well "professionals", and spec ops use it. Yeah, well when your choice for a short barrel rifle is and M4, or an M4. You obviously pick the M4. People seem to think that PMC's, and Spec ops can grab all sorts of neato crazy shit. They get whats in the armory. Whats there? Sig 550? AKSU74? Colt MARS? CZW-438? No, M4s, or an M-16A (whatever.)

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Ronin

OK, lets dispel one thing right now. The M4 is a pile of shit. It was designed to be a handy rifle for non-combat, support troops. Just like the M-1 carbine was designed for in WWII. A replacement for a pistol. The M-4 jams up after 2, 30 round mags, and over heats. Because it is not meant to be in an extended encounter. You can say well "professionals", and spec ops use it. Yeah, well when your choice for a short barrel rifle is and M4, or an M4. You obviously pick the M4. People seem to think that PMC's, and Spec ops can grab all sorts of neato crazy shit. They get whats in the armory. Whats there? Sig 550? AKSU74? Colt MARS? CZW-438? No, M4s, or an M-16A (whatever.)

What?

Huh?

I have never experienced any of that. As for overheats, any weapons is going to do that pressed into service as a GPMG. The Rifle (or Carbine in this case) is not an M60 or M240B.

As for SOF? Yeah, they certainly can pick any wazoo stuff off the shelf. Their budget is independent of Regular "Big" Army.

Why does SOF take M4A1s or HK 416s? Logistics. Lots of parts and easy repairs.

[Ronin]

So you would trust an M4 over a M16A2,3, or 4 in an extended fire fight? Lasting over a half an hour? You would stake your life on a weapon designed for support troops as opposed to one designed for front line troops? Reports from the stan, fending off long engagements seem to say differently. Although, I dont know what youve been through. So You may have seen different. But the info I have read, and spoke to people with seems to same different. SF, inventory isnt as exotic as people would like to think. Personally I dont think the 416 is all that anyways.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Ronin

So you would trust an M4 over a M16A2,3, or 4 in an extended fire fight? Lasting over a half an hour? You would stake your life on a weapon designed for support troops as opposed to one designed for front line troops? Reports from the stan, fending off long engagements seem to say differently. Although, I dont know what youve been through. So You may have seen different. But the info I have read, and spoke to people with seems to same different. SF, inventory isnt as exotic as people would like to think. Personally I dont think the 416 is all that anyways.

Short answer, yes.
I carried an M4/M203 in Iraqi Freedom 03-04, 04-05. I am an MP.

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by Ronin

OK, lets dispel one thing right now. The M4 is a pile of shit. It was designed to be a handy rifle for non-combat, support troops. Just like the M-1 carbine was designed for in WWII. A replacement for a pistol. The M-4 jams up after 2, 30 round mags, and over heats. Because it is not meant to be in an extended encounter. You can say well "professionals", and spec ops use it. Yeah, well when your choice for a short barrel rifle is and M4, or an M4. You obviously pick the M4. People seem to think that PMC's, and Spec ops can grab all sorts of neato crazy shit. They get whats in the armory. Whats there? Sig 550? AKSU74? Colt MARS? CZW-438? No, M4s, or an M-16A (whatever.)

So,

A) I've never had trouble keeping my issue M4 or M4A1 running, even in crappy environments (ditto back when I was rocking an M16A2, though that was a long time ago).

B) I've spent a good chunk of my misspent youth in a SOF unit. I can't think of any team guys I ever worked with who shared your opinion of the M4 and, as I mentioned in a previous thread, guys were happy enough with the M4A1 that a number of them, after playing with HK416s, went back to standard M4A1s. Most were pretty skeptical about the SCAR-L as a waste of money/reinvention of the wheel (I got out before the L got cancelled).

And none of them would have considered going downrange with an AK or other foreign weapon. Whatever else can be said about it, the AR is an ergonomic miracle and those guys got the training to make the most of those strengths. Put a guy on a clock and they can make hits faster and better with an M4 compared to the alternatives. That makes alternatives a pretty hard sell.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

That said, the bigger show stopper in my experience is ammunition quality rather than optimizing barrel length. With good ammo (Mk 262) and an ACOG, shooting unknown distance targets out to 600 meters gets boring, and (with the aid of a ballistic computer and spotter making wind call) I've seen a guy make a hit on a steel chest plate out around 1200 meters with a 12" upper. With standard issue green tip, you're probably more consistently in the 3-4 MOA (and realistically, anywhere from probably 1.5-6 MOA, depending on lot), which out at 600 which is pretty much just rolling the dice before you even start worrying about things like wind, bullets going transsonic, and such.

I don't quite have as much experience here, but 1200 meters with a 12 inch upper? That's crazy! Though I suppose the ballistics computer and the spotter helped.

Still, I would suppose that hitting anything past 300 or maybe even 150 meters accurately and consistently would depend on a crapload of other variables like the ones you described, plus weather conditions (rain, snow, etc.), dust, debris, if the target(s) are behind some form of cover (most likely) or moving/running between positions and firing from cover (also likely), and add to that adrenaline, fatigue, pucker factor, etc. etc. etc.

I think a Navy friend of mine who has a just a bit of experience in this department put it rather bluntly when he commented on other shooters at a range accurately placing shots on paper/steel targets. "Yeah, a lot of them shoot well. Only problem is, the targets don't shoot back..."

[Targan]

Leg and I have very similar views on firearms I think. Even with increased weapon and ammo weight I'd go for a 7.62mm rifle over 5.56mm any day. My deep and abiding love for the SLR will never die. Sure it's old school but it's the only rifle I'm still confident I could strip, clean and reassemble in a hurry. And it's so damned rugged, a really solid piece of equipment. The 7.62mmN round will knock a man down and leave him DRT nearly every time. And up close and personal there is a big difference between a butt strike from a "plastic fantastic" modern assault rifle/carbine etc and a battle rifle, not to mention what you can do with a SLR with a fixed bayonet. Terrifying.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Targan

Leg and I have very similar views on firearms I think.

You got that right!
Give me five minutes to re-familiarise myself and I'd be able to field strip, clean and reassemble the SLR at light speed again. Could do the M60 in about two minutes flat (including a thorough field clean and oil) back in the day and wasn't bad on the M16 either (as much as I loathe the thing). Was quite good with the F88 Steyr AUG too before I got out and although they're a nice weapon to patrol with, they're still woefully underpowered for my liking.

Most weapons are fairly easy to operate if you bear in mind there's really only a couple of different ways a semi or fully automatic weapon can work. Basically there's open and closed bolt, coupled with gas piston, impingement, or recoil operation. The rest is really just fairly minor details. Remember those basics and most stoppage drills are relatively easy to transfer from one weapon to another.

[B.T.]

Originally Posted by Targan

Leg and I have very similar views on firearms I think. Even with increased weapon and ammo weight I'd go for a 7.62mm rifle over 5.56mm any day. My deep and abiding love for the SLR will never die. Sure it's old school but it's the only rifle I'm still confident I could strip, clean and reassemble in a hurry. And it's so damned rugged, a really solid piece of equipment. The 7.62mmN round will knock a man down and leave him DRT nearly every time. And up close and personal there is a big difference between a butt strike from a "plastic fantastic" modern assault rifle/carbine etc and a battle rifle, not to mention what you can do with a SLR with a fixed bayonet. Terrifying.

Hey, that's what I think - although I'd replace "SLR" by "G3" and I've got no clue about fighting with a bayonet

What I really dislike with all the AKs is the right hand position of the cocking handle (Hope this is the right term. I'm talking of the lever you have to pull to load a round into the action.). In my mind, this is so unusual, I can't see to get familar with this. When I have to load the rifle, I still want to have my firing hand at the pistol grip - and my eyes on target. I just can't imagine, that would work with the lever on the right side of the rifle.

And for all of your thoughts on the AR15/M16/M4-thing: There are loads of extra parts for this system. If one has the money, he can build a relatively rugged rifle, in which the upper receiver and the upper part of the rail/handguard are one piece, therefore eliminating some of the problems with to much stuff fitted to the rifle (barrel!). And there are tons of extra stuff, that can be mounted via the rails. The hole system has the big advantage, that you can build your weapon for a specific task/mission. And it's the service rifle with several Western armies.

I would strictly avoid a prolonged firefight, if I were to live in a world like the Twilight 2000 world. Therefore I think that a rifle, that is precise, is better, than a weapon, that can be stuffed with tons of dirt, but might not be that precise.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by B.T.

What I really dislike with all the AKs is the right hand position of the cocking handle (Hope this is the right term. I'm talking of the lever you have to pull to load a round into the action.). In my mind, this is so unusual, I can't see to get familar with this. When I have to load the rifle, I still want to have my firing hand at the pistol grip - and my eyes on target. I just can't imagine, that would work with the lever on the right side of the rifle.

I've never had a problem keeping my firing hand on the pistol grip and reaching over the top of the rifle to run the charging handle. Using Hungarian 20-round magazines, I also can reach underneath the rifle without difficulty. But I'm 6'1" and have never had to do it in body armor, both of which may have been factors in my favor.

- C.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by B.T.

What I really dislike with all the AKs is the right hand position of the cocking handle.

There are many, many weapons with the cocking handle on the right side of the weapon - take the M60 machinegun for example.
I agree though it's bad practise to remove your master hand from the pistol grip, but if that's the way the weapon is designed, so be it. You can't actually shoot while operating the cocking handle anyway (unless there's something seriously wrong with the weapon), so it's not all bad.
And then there's bolt action rifles....

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by Targan

Leg and I have very similar views on firearms I think. Even with increased weapon and ammo weight I'd go for a 7.62mm rifle over 5.56mm any day. My deep and abiding love for the SLR will never die. Sure it's old school but it's the only rifle I'm still confident I could strip, clean and reassemble in a hurry. And it's so damned rugged, a really solid piece of equipment. The 7.62mmN round will knock a man down and leave him DRT nearly every time. And up close and personal there is a big difference between a butt strike from a "plastic fantastic" modern assault rifle/carbine etc and a battle rifle, not to mention what you can do with a SLR with a fixed bayonet. Terrifying.

Yeah, I have similar views myself, even though my experience is limited. If I was dropped into an unknown planet that is Earthlike, I'd want at least something from .270 caliber but I'd prefer something at least .30 caliber. The AK being tolerant of harsh conditions with 7.62mmS would be a good choice. At least the .7.62mmS is comparable to a .30-30, a a good deer round. Anything larger, hopefully with enough hits, I could bring it down. I would like something more powerful, that would be something like the M-14 or SLR in .308 Win (7.62mm NATO) or even the M1 Garand in .30-06. The M-16 series, better than nothing but if I had to go back in time, at least they should have uprated it to something like a .243 Winchester.

P.S. - Since this is for assault rifles only, my choice is the AKM/AK-47, but the rest of my post about having a battle rifle stands.

[Legbreaker]

Personally I'm not a huge fan of the 7.62S round. Very hard to hit the broad side of a barn at a decent range unlike 7.62N. Hell, even 5.56N is in my experience more accurate (if less hard hitting).

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

M16.

If I have to go bone stock Military than an M16A2 AKA the Musket.

However, Stoner's invention really shines in that it is completely modular. In fact one could re-configure a rifle mid mission.

So, I carry an M16 series in M4 Configuration while mounted, from insertion I keep this on until the Patrol base.

At the Patrol base the PL say it is a quick recon and I am the DM.

Drop the magazine, eject the live cartridge, separate the upper receiver from the lower reciever, stow it, remove DM 20" upper with optics, Install upper with silicone wedge if necessary, re-insert magazine.

I would still have the collapsible stock on but, I would go from a patrolling rifle to one that can confirm and engage targets at 800.

Could even change calibers as easily such as going urban with a suppressed .458 SOCCOM with a change of upper, magazines and ammo.

Yeah, I remember when that gun was called the Stoner. To heavy, and to complex.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Originally Posted by Ronin

Yeah, I remember when that gun was called the Stoner. To heavy, and to complex.

Hell the USMC wanted the Stoner 63 system/rifle. I was in later so I never had any personal experience with it. My first Gunny thought highly of it.

Personally I would have liked to give it a try. Though its kinda hard getting a hold of one.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Cpl. Kalkwarf

Hell the USMC wanted the Stoner 63 system/rifle. I was in later so I never had any personal experience with it. My first Gunny thought highly of it.

Personally I would have liked to give it a try. Though its kinda hard getting a hold of one.

Robinson Arms Expedition Rifle