|
|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: What is your favorite assault rifle for your PC | |||
| M-16/C-7/M-4/AR-15 series |
   
|
53 | 49.53% |
| AK-47/AKM |
  
|
15 | 14.02% |
| AK-74 and similar |
  
|
6 | 5.61% |
| L-85 |
  
|
8 | 7.48% |
| AUG |
  
|
6 | 5.61% |
| Galil |
  
|
5 | 4.67% |
| FNC / AK 5 |
|
4 | 3.74% |
| other (post below) |
|
12 | 11.21% |
| Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 107. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#61
06-22-2011, 04:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
#62
06-22-2011, 08:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I am kinda of the Maestro of battle rifles so here is my take on what a "battle rifle" vs. an "assault rifle" and is mostly dependent on caliber and conception of purpose/use on the battle field. These are my own definition between the two, both firearms have been used as standard infantry rifles which is where I believe the confusion comes from hopefully this helps in understanding the slight variantion in both types of firearm.
(ASSUALT RIFLE): a rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge, is capable of select fire and is fed by a detachable magazine. (INTERMEDIATE CATRIDGE): a catridge that is greater in power than a pistol/SMG but less powerful than a full power rifle catrige. (SELECT FIRE): Capable of Semi-automatic fire as well as full-automatic or mutilple round burst or both. The SELECT meaning the ability to choose one rate of fire or another. (BATTLE RIFLE): a rifle that fires a full power rifle catridge, maybe select fire and most likely is fed from a detachable magazine. Hopefully that didn't cause more confusion I will use examples to distinquish the two types of infantry rifles. ASSAULT RIFLES: AK-47, AKM, AK-74: in calibers 7.62X39mm and 5.45X39mm as mentioned all fire an intermediate round are select fire (Semi-auto or Full Auto) and are fed with detachble box magazines. M16,M16A1,M16A2 all in caliber 5.45X45mm, select fire Semi-Auto or Full-Auto or Semi-Auto and 3 round Burst and are fed with detachable box magazines. BATTE RIFLES: M1, M14, FAL, G3A3 in Calibers 7.62X63mm, 7.62X51mm. The M1 is Semi-auto Only, the M14, FAL and G3A3 are Select fire capable Semi-auto and Full Auto. The M1 feeds from an 8 round internal clip. The M14 can be fed with 5 round charger clips or fed with a deatchable box magazine. The FAL and G3A3 are fed by detachable box magazines. Caliber is the easiest distinction, INTERMEDIATE CARTRIDGES are 7.92x33 Kurz, 7.62x39mm, 5.56X45mm, 5.45X39mmm to name a few. FULL POWER RIFLE CATRIDGES: 7.62X51mm, 7.62X54R are the the most common with 7.92X57, .303 (7.7X56mmR), .30-06 (7.62X63MM) as older but excellent options. Last edited by Brother in Arms; 06-22-2011 at 09:15 PM.
|
|
#64
06-23-2011, 01:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The M1/M2 carbine is an interesting debate in that respect. The caliber is intermediate between military pistol ammo and full power rifle rounds, so (especially the M2), yes. On the other hand, 30 Carbine is on par with some of the heavier pistol cartridges -- ballistics are similar to 357 Magnum from a rifle barrel for instance. So it could be considered a "heavy SMG."
This is the problem with any sort of typology. As soon as you define categories you immediately have the fringe examples and outliers which are borderline for the categories.
|
|
#65
06-23-2011, 05:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Horse soldier is correct about broad sweeping definitions of firearms.
M2 carbine in my opinion is a proto-assault rifle in that they don't truly fire an intermediate catridge. I really consider the .30 carbine catridge to be a pistol catridge even though it has not been used in very many pistols (the ruger black hawk and AMT being the most notable). Its on par with .357 magnum as horse soldier said and its sort of like an enlarged SMG. I would say though there are more firearms that fit these catergories than do not. I think the biggest problem is many people think the 7.62x39mm isn't a intermediate catridge because they compare it to 7.62x51mm. While it the same diameter bullet the catridge of the 7.62x51mm has a lot more capacity for powder and can be fired at much longer ranges and pentrate thru heavier cover. 7.62X39mm is a 300 meter proposition. 7.62X51mm is good out to 800 meters and can be used by a very competent shooter further. I guess range is one way to rank the firearm... .30 carbine can be shot out to 300 meters (on paper) but that is aboslute max most people can't hit a man sized target after that range, at all so it really falls more into the SMG role than Assault rifle I wouldn't want to have to use it much further than 100 meters myself. Another good firearm that muddles these definitions I set is the SKS rifle. It is what I would consider a battle rifle that fireas an intermediate catridge (LOL) it is a more traditional pattern of rifle than the AK has a low capacity 10 round internal box magazine fed by stripper clips 20" barrel and is not select fire...but it shoots the intermediate 7.62X39mm rifle. It is another design that was attempting to be an assualt rifle but didn't quite make it. Had is been designed slightly earlier it would have been in 7.62X54mmR and been true battle rifle like simonovs earlier attempt the AVS-36 which was actually was select fire and fired 7.62X54mmR. These were used in early in ww2 before Tokarevs SVT-38 and SVT-40 replaced it. Cheers
|
|
#66
10-11-2011, 01:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I went with the M-16 series purely out of familiarity with my nation's rifle. I've never fired one yet, but I've examined my friend's M4 and it's a pleasure to hold. We'll go shooting one of these days, I imagine.
|
|
#67
10-11-2011, 06:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I love the AK47/AKM. Im not ashamed to admit it. I dislike the M-16 family, even though the product is drastically improved, from what it started as. It really boils down to two things for me. Reliability, and hitting power. Nothing beats the reliability, durability, and strength of the AK. Ive just about ever crazy torture test there is with an AK. It always comes through with flying colors. Hell I watched some spetnaz guy load a mag in to a rifle. Set it down Magazine on the ground, and butt on the ground. Then do push ups off of it. Lets see you do that with a 16
 But heres the big thing to me Caliber. If you dont have at least .30cal. You dont have enough gun. (By the way that statement, kind of frightens me. As I believe my father would echo it) I mean really 5.56, its a gopher round. Just an ok one at that. Now I know that it been successfully used for about ever now. I just need a little more. And in the end. I own a Romanian SAR1 (Civilian semi-auto AK, I know, I know, people say their junk. But I must have a good one. Shoots sweet, and true. ) I love it to death. Bar none my favorite to shoot.
|
|
#68
10-11-2011, 06:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Got to be at least 7mm (give or take) to give me confidence it's actually going to take down the target without requiring follow up shots. Circa 5.56 will do it, but what's the point of being able to carry all those extra rounds when you need twice as many to do the job properly?
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem
|
|
#69
10-11-2011, 07:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#70
10-11-2011, 07:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem
|
|
#71
10-11-2011, 07:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#72
10-11-2011, 08:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
At least that is the way I did it. Till I got around to getting lowers for almost all of my uppers.
|
|
#73
10-11-2011, 08:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
What he said.
|
|
#74
10-11-2011, 08:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
Quote:
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.
|
|
#75
10-11-2011, 08:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#76
10-11-2011, 08:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#77
10-11-2011, 08:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#78
10-11-2011, 08:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#79
10-11-2011, 08:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#80
10-11-2011, 09:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I carried an M4/M203 in Iraqi Freedom 03-04, 04-05. I am an MP.
|
|
#81
10-11-2011, 09:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Personally I would have liked to give it a try. Though its kinda hard getting a hold of one.
|
|
#82
10-11-2011, 09:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#83
10-11-2011, 10:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Still, it's a shit rifle in my experience compared to others I've handled.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem
|
|
#84
10-11-2011, 10:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#85
10-11-2011, 10:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I've always felt, and seen firsthand, that the 5.56 lacked in the hitting power department. Much like the old saying of don't get into a pistol fight with something that doesn't begin with a .4 ("Yes Top, Honest to god, I did find that Kimber over here, its just a pure coincidence that it happens to be the same model as my personal one back in the Springs..."). Yes, even a .22 can kill if you aim well enough, but face it, running and gunning isn't conductive to precision shooting. When I was over the sand box, and we went dismounted once the invasion phase was done, one of the first things I did was do a swap with another joe: I gave him my M16A2 Upper for his M4 Upper. Having a fixed stock on the M4 was pure win: It balanced perfectly with a 203, wasn't wobbly, still compact, and just flat out worked - within the limitations of the Short 14.5" barrel granted. On another thread, I put it like this when comparing the various "Intermediate Rifle Cartridges" that people are talking up lately: The 5.56 (AKA .223) was designed to snipe varmits. Dogs, cats, prairie dogs, stuff of that ilk by varmint shooters. The 6.5 Grendel was designed by Long Range Shooters to snipe large targets from an AR platform. The 6.8 was designed by troops to kill troops. The 7.62S was designed by weapons designers to be cheap and reasonably effective at killing most any medium sized target. In short, the 7.62S is a round that has really great potential: I seen some handloads with top flight brass and sierra bullets fired from bolt guns that would knock your socks off. Though the rounds are a bit hot for even an AK. If an AK was built to stand those loads, and built to tighter tolerances, that would be a world beater. Of course, those tighter tolerances would degrade the ruggedness of the design... (And funny enough, since the introduction of centrefire ammo, the 6.8 size has been dancing in and out of vogue: always on the verge of being accepted, yet never being so.)
__________________
Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon. Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series.
|
|
#86
10-11-2011, 10:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 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..."
__________________
"The use of force is always an answer to problems. Whether or not it's a satisfactory answer depends on a number of things, not least the personality of the person making the determination. Force isn't an attractive answer, though. I would not be true to myself or to the people I served with in 1970 if I did not make that realization clear." — David Drake
|
|
#87
10-12-2011, 03:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
 "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
|
|
#88
10-12-2011, 06:42 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem
|
|
#89
10-12-2011, 11:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 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.
__________________
I'm from Germany ... PM me, if I was not correct. I don't want to upset anyone! "IT'S A FREAKIN GAME, PEOPLE!"; Weswood, 5-12-2012
|
|
#90
10-12-2011, 01:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
| Tags |
| polls, weapons |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
