Poll - Favorite Assault Rifle

[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).

[Raellus]

The fact remains that 7.62mm is too heavy and too high power to be practical for the engagement ranges that most soldiers will find themselves fighting at. Folks have known this since WWII (at the latest) and that's why 7.62 x 39mm and other "intermediate" rounds were developed.

Yes, if most engagements were at 300m +, then 7.62mm L would be the way to go, no question. But for fights at less than 200m- and that's most fights nowadays- it's just too much round for the job. And if you want to have the full auto fire option, forget about 7.62mm L.

I'm not saying that 5.56mm (or 5.45mm) is a particularly good round- there are probably better- but the 7.62mm L is not the be-all, end-all of assault rifle bullets.

There's a reason why a lot folks insist on the distinction between "battle" and "assault" rifles. They're different classes of firearms, due, for the most part, to the size and power of the cartridge they fire. Nearly everything that I've heard and/or read states that accurate full-auto fire is almost impossible with a 7.62mm L rifle. I mean, nearly every Western GPMG uses the same round and they all have bi-pods/tri-pods.

I'm just getting kind of tired of the 7.62mm L love-fest going on here. If it was so ideal, why isn't more widely used in modern assault rifles? And don't get going on politics or the evil U.S.A. military-industrial complex.

I'll put it in the non-fiction recommendations thread but if this sort of thing interests you, you should read The Gun (by Chivers). It's a history of the AK-47 series with a good long preface (the first third of the book) on the history and development of the fully automatic gun. There's also a lot about the development of the M-16 rifle and, although the author tries to avoid getting drawn into the whole 7.62mm S vs. 5.56mm round debate, there is some interesting stuff about that as well (including top-secret comparison testing on cadavers surreptitiously imported from India).

[HorseSoldier]

For a service rifle round, 7.62x51 represented an absolute refusal to learn anything about small arms and combat from World War 2 on the part of the US military (and to ignore our own pre-war R&D, such as the Pedersen 276 round).

Had the people making decisions back in the late 40s/early 50s about such things had a shred of sense we'd have wound up with NATO using the British 280/7mm round that improved on the 7.92 Kurz concept rather than adopting a round that was just 30-06 reinvented with more modern powder and a consequently shortened case.

It's what if's and such, but had US forces with FALs (or M14s or even EM-2s) chambered in 280 Brit gone head to head with the AK-47 in Southeast Asia, I doubt 5.56mm would have ever turned up as a military cartridge. It's appearance had a lot to do with the hardware guys dropping the ball so utterly with the 7.62x51/M14 combo that it opened the way for advocates of pure theory to jump into the game, from which we got the SCHV idea and the resultant 5.56x45 round (and 5.45x39, eventually).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Unfortunately the military is just as much a victim of "what's fashionable" as anybody else.
When all the scientists gushed about the wonderous effects of lightweight, small calibre, high velocity rounds, they were telling the military exactly what the military wanted to hear at that point in time - the rifle would be the most effective force multiplier on the battlefield because these new bullets will make it so.

That is to say, the concept was that the new SCHV rounds would cause hydrostatic shock which would completely incapacitate the enemy soldier, not kill him. Then his comrades would be out of the fight as they carried him away from the area. In this way you removed not just one soldier but possibly another two to four and you created a greater drain on rear area resources as they tended the wounded.

The reality is that the individual soldier's rifle is way down on the list for causing enemy casualties. On a conventional battlefield, artillery & aerial bombing and explosives/fragmentation such as grenades cause the greatest number of casualties. In irregular warfare the enemy often ignores their casualties and continues to fight rather than tend the wounded.

When you get to low level conflict such as urban fighting, then the individual soldier/rifle* combo can really come into its own and I think what it really needs is a round that will injure the enemy to a point where the enemy stops fighting or it kills him outright. * rifle, carbine, smg or whatever individual weapon.

7.62mmN works, 7.62mmS works, 5.56mm works but it does seem that the projectile weight and cartridge length of the 7.62mmS suit that role better than the other rounds I mentioned. I'm not saying it's the best, just that the intermediate cartridge is probably better served by having a heavier projectile than 5.56mm or 5.45mm offer.
It's interesting to note that the Soviets/Russians developed the 9x39mm round to provide a heavier projectile for the close range combat of urban warfare because they weren't satisfied with the 5.45mm nor the 7.62x39mm cartridge for that role.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

For a service rifle round, 7.62x51 represented an absolute refusal to learn anything about small arms and combat from World War 2 on the part of the US military (and to ignore our own pre-war R&D, such as the Pedersen 276 round).

Had the people making decisions back in the late 40s/early 50s about such things had a shred of sense we'd have wound up with NATO using the British 280/7mm round that improved on the 7.92 Kurz concept rather than adopting a round that was just 30-06 reinvented with more modern powder and a consequently shortened case.

It's what if's and such, but had US forces with FALs (or M14s or even EM-2s) chambered in 280 Brit gone head to head with the AK-47 in Southeast Asia, I doubt 5.56mm would have ever turned up as a military cartridge. It's appearance had a lot to do with the hardware guys dropping the ball so utterly with the 7.62x51/M14 combo that it opened the way for advocates of pure theory to jump into the game, from which we got the SCHV idea and the resultant 5.56x45 round (and 5.45x39, eventually).

Exactly.

The 7.62N is a great round for a GPMG, and even Sharpshooting, but as a battlefield round, its a bit much. Where as the SCHV is perhaps a little bit on the not enough. The 7.62S is a great round in theory, and even in practice to a degree, but the handicaps of the AK47 lets it down.

And yes, the .276 Pederson was a fantastic round, and to be fair, the .280 British was perhaps the best round to come out in the post war period. Its a shame it didn't take - and the US deserves the blame for that. But then, yet again, after a major war, Small Arms Designers returned to the .270-.280 size, only to lose out to something else. Seeing the same thing now - 6.8mm is .270. Sometimes I don't think we will ever learn...

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm just getting kind of tired of the 7.62mm L love-fest going on here. If it was so ideal, why isn't more widely used in modern assault rifles?

Because its not just real men that need to shoot in wars. A smaller round is needed for the women and girly-men.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Drifting off a little but still somewhat on topic - this is one for people who put their hate on the SA80/L85.
This news article is over a year old but it seemed to have been missed outside the UK. For anyone who still thinks the L85A2 is junk because of the problems suffered by the L85A1, the following story shows that it is one tough piece of kit.



Soldier reunited with gun that saved his life
Wednesday 16th December 2009, 11:30AM GMT. Express & Star news website

Hero Black Country soldier Luke Cole has been reunited with the rifle that saved his life in battle.

The SA 80 rifle took three bullets that otherwise would have killed the 24-year-old West Midland Territorial Army Private in a battle that claimed the lives of two comrades and won him the Military Cross.

The first 7.62 mm Kalashnikov round hit the weapon head on, narrowly missing the barrel and tearing apart the bodywork, while the second blew the sight off and the third smashed into the side, ripping through the inside of the gun and blasting out of the pistol grip.

Miraculously none struck Pte Cole, already wounded twice in the battle, and last night he saw the remains of the weapon for the first time since it saved his life in the Taliban ambush two years ago.

The rifle still worked and Pte Cole, from Bradmore, continued to shoot with it for a further hour as he lay trapped in the killing field. And the rifle that fired 360 rounds during the fire fight will now serve as a constant reminder of the bravery shown by Pte Cole in the battle near Garmsir in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.

It has pride of place at the HQ of the 4th Battalion The Mercian Regiment in Fallings Park, Wolverhampton where he was based and will hang on the wall of the bar that last night was renamed The Cole in his honour.

Former forklift truck engineer Pt Cole said: “It is a shock to see the state it is in. It makes you realise how heavy the firing was. It saved my life. Any of those three bullets would have killed me instantly if it had not taken the blows.

“When you remember that I had the rifle braced on my shoulder at the time and was sitting up you realise those rounds would have hit me in the head or throat.”

Pte Cole was on a six-month tour of duty with the regular army 2 Mercian Regiment when he was hit in the stomach and leg, losing five inches of thigh bone, during the attack in September 2007.

The former Smestow School pupil was on his last mission before redeployment.

Original post http://www.expressandstar.com/latest...aved-his-life/ but I've pretty much just copied and pasted it all here.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Drifting off a little but still somewhat on topic - this is one for people who put their hate on the SA80/L85.
This news article is over a year old but it seemed to have been missed outside the UK. For anyone who still thinks the L85A2 is junk because of the problems suffered by the L85A1, the following story shows that it is one tough piece of kit.



Soldier reunited with gun that saved his life
Wednesday 16th December 2009, 11:30AM GMT. Express & Star news website

Hero Black Country soldier Luke Cole has been reunited with the rifle that saved his life in battle.

The SA 80 rifle took three bullets that otherwise would have killed the 24-year-old West Midland Territorial Army Private in a battle that claimed the lives of two comrades and won him the Military Cross.

The first 7.62 mm Kalashnikov round hit the weapon head on, narrowly missing the barrel and tearing apart the bodywork, while the second blew the sight off and the third smashed into the side, ripping through the inside of the gun and blasting out of the pistol grip.

Miraculously none struck Pte Cole, already wounded twice in the battle, and last night he saw the remains of the weapon for the first time since it saved his life in the Taliban ambush two years ago.

The rifle still worked and Pte Cole, from Bradmore, continued to shoot with it for a further hour as he lay trapped in the killing field. And the rifle that fired 360 rounds during the fire fight will now serve as a constant reminder of the bravery shown by Pte Cole in the battle near Garmsir in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.

It has pride of place at the HQ of the 4th Battalion The Mercian Regiment in Fallings Park, Wolverhampton where he was based and will hang on the wall of the bar that last night was renamed The Cole in his honour.

Former forklift truck engineer Pt Cole said: “It is a shock to see the state it is in. It makes you realise how heavy the firing was. It saved my life. Any of those three bullets would have killed me instantly if it had not taken the blows.

“When you remember that I had the rifle braced on my shoulder at the time and was sitting up you realise those rounds would have hit me in the head or throat.”

Pte Cole was on a six-month tour of duty with the regular army 2 Mercian Regiment when he was hit in the stomach and leg, losing five inches of thigh bone, during the attack in September 2007.

The former Smestow School pupil was on his last mission before redeployment.

Original post http://www.expressandstar.com/latest...aved-his-life/ but I've pretty much just copied and pasted it all here.

Now that is just plain awesome. If ever has to pick up a tab at that bar I would be sorely disapointed in his mates...

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Drifting off a little but still somewhat on topic - this is one for people who put their hate on the SA80/L85.
This news article is over a year old but it seemed to have been missed outside the UK. For anyone who still thinks the L85A2 is junk because of the problems suffered by the L85A1, the following story shows that it is one tough piece of kit.

So what your saying is that the L85 is much like the M16. Took until the A2 model to carry it with pride, and not have to keep putting bits back on with super glue.