which is the best combat weapon for the infantry man?
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Joined
·
6,150 Posts
i'll nominate one from Isreal---the galil
sort of an up-dated/acurized ak-47 with all the reliability plus improved accuracy and already offered in several formats and calibers from 5.56 to the 7.62 nato------only down side seems to be the weight but surely we can work on that..........
i may be in the minority, but i am not a fan of the m-16...............
sort of an up-dated/acurized ak-47 with all the reliability plus improved accuracy and already offered in several formats and calibers from 5.56 to the 7.62 nato------only down side seems to be the weight but surely we can work on that..........
i may be in the minority, but i am not a fan of the m-16...............
Joined
·
3,985 Posts
I am a fan of the M16/AR15, but I do not harbor any illusions about how effective the 5.56 cartridge is. Is it the BEST for combat? No way. Is it the best compromise? Quit possibly. And that is the only reason they went to the M16. Everybody that joins the Army are not shooters. As a matter of fact, a big chunk of them have never fired a gun at all. The M16 and its 5.56 round are pretty easy to train someone (man or woman) that have never shot a gun before, it is easy to hit with too. And, you can carry more ammo than you could with the .308 (M14) or 30/06 (M1 Garand). The gun itself is much lighter than it's predecessors. Now, I would prefer the good old M14 myself, IF you were in a conventional war, with two Armies facing each other across a battlefield. In some of the door to door house clearing our men are having to do in Iraq, I think the M4 with it's short barrel and rapid fire, easy to get on target and back on target after firing, may actually be the best weapon possible at this time. Yes, I think they should go to a more powerful cartridge (although I do love the .223/5.56, once again, I harbor no illusions about it being a great man stopper). And yes, they could "fix" the M16s direct impingement gas system to the AK, M14, M1 Garand type of gas system and eliminate many of the stoppages that happen in the dust bowl of Iraq. But, as slow as the government is about doing anything, I would say it is not high on their list of priorities. They would rather spend it on getting themselves re-elected.
Joined
·
6,063 Posts
I think it depends... 
The M-16 is really a fine weapon...yes the ak-47 platform will fire even when filled with sand, but can they hit anything at even a little longer distances. The M-16 takes the prizes for accuracy over every rifle except for maybe the Garand. And lets face it the .30-06 of the Garand is just to much for the avarge GI when your clearing houses and runnin through urban centers.
Now the 5.56 Nato as a cartridge...In todays style of warfare, terrible. The idea was that when two armies face off, if a soilder is shot with a 5.56 round he would we be wounded and not killed. This would require two of his buddies to carry him to medical attention. But in Iraq, do the suicide bombers have freinds who are going to carry the bits and pieces lefts to the hospital? NOPE...There are only two solutions to putting down the hardcore guarilla fighters our modern army is facing. One, change the damn bullet. Make the 55 grain JHP the round of choice and watch how leathal the the 5.56 can be. Shoot a woodchuck with a full metal jacketed round and see if it makes it back to its hole...Now shoot it with a hollow point and watch the pieces fall. Bullet design matters...The geneva convetion got it wrong on that one. The only other quick and dirty fix is to rechamer the M-16 to shoot the new 6.8SPC that works in the standard mag. It requires minium retooling and will do a better job putting the enemy down permamently.
And one last thing, the best battle rifle isn't a rifle, it's a shotgun...in every modern war we have fought, the weapon our soilders ask for the most is the good ole 12 gauge. Screw the geniva convention, if your going to do it, do it fast, do it dirty. Sure the distance isn't there, and your always going to need the ability to put ammo on target at 1-200 yards, but damn give them boys and girls some close up and personal firepower, and get the job over fast. JMHO.
The M-16 is really a fine weapon...yes the ak-47 platform will fire even when filled with sand, but can they hit anything at even a little longer distances. The M-16 takes the prizes for accuracy over every rifle except for maybe the Garand. And lets face it the .30-06 of the Garand is just to much for the avarge GI when your clearing houses and runnin through urban centers.
Now the 5.56 Nato as a cartridge...In todays style of warfare, terrible. The idea was that when two armies face off, if a soilder is shot with a 5.56 round he would we be wounded and not killed. This would require two of his buddies to carry him to medical attention. But in Iraq, do the suicide bombers have freinds who are going to carry the bits and pieces lefts to the hospital? NOPE...There are only two solutions to putting down the hardcore guarilla fighters our modern army is facing. One, change the damn bullet. Make the 55 grain JHP the round of choice and watch how leathal the the 5.56 can be. Shoot a woodchuck with a full metal jacketed round and see if it makes it back to its hole...Now shoot it with a hollow point and watch the pieces fall. Bullet design matters...The geneva convetion got it wrong on that one. The only other quick and dirty fix is to rechamer the M-16 to shoot the new 6.8SPC that works in the standard mag. It requires minium retooling and will do a better job putting the enemy down permamently.
And one last thing, the best battle rifle isn't a rifle, it's a shotgun...in every modern war we have fought, the weapon our soilders ask for the most is the good ole 12 gauge. Screw the geniva convention, if your going to do it, do it fast, do it dirty. Sure the distance isn't there, and your always going to need the ability to put ammo on target at 1-200 yards, but damn give them boys and girls some close up and personal firepower, and get the job over fast. JMHO.
Joined
·
22,098 Posts
M14....power, range, reliability....If I went to a store and was told I could have any I wanted...I'd come home with some version of the Springfield M1A, the semi-only civilian model....I like their shortened Scout model...better for urban warfare...
Johngoboom makes an excellent point...60-75 yards, give 'em 12 ga. Benellis with #1 buck/slugs...mess it up and put it down...and on to the next.....have a coupla M14s in the squad....also a light machine gunner and a grenade launcher...and someone to carry the cold drinks......
Johngoboom makes an excellent point...60-75 yards, give 'em 12 ga. Benellis with #1 buck/slugs...mess it up and put it down...and on to the next.....have a coupla M14s in the squad....also a light machine gunner and a grenade launcher...and someone to carry the cold drinks......
Everything has to be consider as the infrantry man has to carry everything with him. Of course the weapon also has to be able to funchion weather its been in sand mud snow water, true battle field conditions for an extended period of time.
Joined
·
22,098 Posts
Marines are taught to clean their rifles often...one can clean while the rest watch out...and so keep the battle rifle ready to fight...no rifle out there will keep shooting if it stays filthy...the discipline to maintain the rifle and magazines becomes second nature if it's your ticket home....
I would guess the 7.62 weighs twice what the 5.56 round is....I'd still pick the heavier bullet...20-30 loaded mags would be heavy but it's part of the game...and I'd rather tote 'em than run out...I believe that to shoot one round with accuracy is better than the 3-shot burst that misses....not having any statistics, I'll bet round-for -round results was 3 or 4 times better with the M14....
I would guess the 7.62 weighs twice what the 5.56 round is....I'd still pick the heavier bullet...20-30 loaded mags would be heavy but it's part of the game...and I'd rather tote 'em than run out...I believe that to shoot one round with accuracy is better than the 3-shot burst that misses....not having any statistics, I'll bet round-for -round results was 3 or 4 times better with the M14....
Joined
·
6,150 Posts
I also believe that the 5.56 is not suitble as a combat round in today's world. As pointed out, the wounding capability is no longer desirable in a jihad type world where there is no value on life.
To make the 5.56 work would require a change in bullet type to something along the order of the nosler partition or trophy bonded bear claw for expansion, damage, and penetration.
someone here while back made a post about the failure rate of the m16 with jam issues in iraq and it was along the lines of what 15 to 20% ??? Believe it was a study of the m-4 in combat and that high of a failure rate can not be strictly attributed to maintance. If there is a problem with the m-4 shorty---go back to the m16 full size as the Marines don't seem to be having near as muc trouble with theirs as the Army is having with the m-4 shorties............and i don't think it is a maintaince issue....
They can not improve the basic m16 format unless they make major revisions.
they have already changed the 5.56 round to a heavier weight----big whoopie.........
it's time to change the bullet type and to he** with the geneva convention as our enemies don't folow the rules or respect life.
If they are goin' to stay with the m16 format, then every soldier had best be issued a quality handgun with quality ammo and quality magazines. The beretta pistol has ben a nighmare from what i've heard------not really the gun tself---it's the after-market magazines "cheapest bid" that are failing. Our troops deserive the best.............but the military seems to have been always resistant to change as unfortunately body bags are cheaper than new rifles.............
the cost of changing out all m-16's to a new upper in a different caliber or a new rifle entirely would cover what---billions?????
Change the dang bullet style if you are not going to change weapons------
To make the 5.56 work would require a change in bullet type to something along the order of the nosler partition or trophy bonded bear claw for expansion, damage, and penetration.
someone here while back made a post about the failure rate of the m16 with jam issues in iraq and it was along the lines of what 15 to 20% ??? Believe it was a study of the m-4 in combat and that high of a failure rate can not be strictly attributed to maintance. If there is a problem with the m-4 shorty---go back to the m16 full size as the Marines don't seem to be having near as muc trouble with theirs as the Army is having with the m-4 shorties............and i don't think it is a maintaince issue....
They can not improve the basic m16 format unless they make major revisions.
they have already changed the 5.56 round to a heavier weight----big whoopie.........
it's time to change the bullet type and to he** with the geneva convention as our enemies don't folow the rules or respect life.
If they are goin' to stay with the m16 format, then every soldier had best be issued a quality handgun with quality ammo and quality magazines. The beretta pistol has ben a nighmare from what i've heard------not really the gun tself---it's the after-market magazines "cheapest bid" that are failing. Our troops deserive the best.............but the military seems to have been always resistant to change as unfortunately body bags are cheaper than new rifles.............
the cost of changing out all m-16's to a new upper in a different caliber or a new rifle entirely would cover what---billions?????
Change the dang bullet style if you are not going to change weapons------
Joined
·
22,098 Posts
All my life, I've felt the warrior should have been armed with a handgun....44 or .45....because if the enemy is close, or the rifle has jammed...a bayonet just doesn't compare with a gun....the Colt 1911A1 was wrong for leftys, and safer with hammer down on an empty chamber...but a modern pistol, like the Ruger P90 or a Sig P220-...would be highly effective...6 mags and the man has a good chance of a win in a long firefight, until he can acquire another rifle...
If we'd spend half what we give away to countries that hate us, our soldiers would have the best equipment in the world....f.....g politics....that's our sons and daughters out there....in Nam, many soldiers got a box of cookies that weren't cookies...everyone knew it...noone cared....families sent over a Python or Colt .45-now they won't let that happen...so the responsibility is on the gov't...why am I not confident that they'll take care of them???!!!!
If we'd spend half what we give away to countries that hate us, our soldiers would have the best equipment in the world....f.....g politics....that's our sons and daughters out there....in Nam, many soldiers got a box of cookies that weren't cookies...everyone knew it...noone cared....families sent over a Python or Colt .45-now they won't let that happen...so the responsibility is on the gov't...why am I not confident that they'll take care of them???!!!!
The reason I started this thread was that on the Miltary Channel they compared the best combat rifles in THEIR Opinion They gave all the facts they had at hand. I must say that I was sorta hurt that the M14 scored so low #9 I felt some better that the M1 Garand scored #4 what really got me on my hock'll's was when the came up with the AK 47 and 74 being the best all around combat rifle. Sorta sucks but facts are facts. Its what ya can carry and what ya can shoot. Nope they weren't asking me or anyone else just puttin the facts out there. But facts as they are they are the best combat rifle, do I like it nope but facts are facts. The ease of cleaning when it actually needs the supplies to clean it and so forth. Very little maintance for them and a dirty rag a boot lace and some sorta of motor oil clean or used works and the gun will shoot. Now remember we are not talking about pin point accuracy. Its what the adverage dog face can fire in combat in the worsed condition ya can come up with.
Joined
·
6,150 Posts
i've seen that show------could not believe they did not list the russian mosin nagant with as many as they issued and all the years that rifle was in service............
with all due respect, it needed to make an appearance instead of the styer aug or the venerable m14............
with all due respect, it needed to make an appearance instead of the styer aug or the venerable m14............
I agree with Sheepdog....every single member of the armed forces should be issued a Sig P220 or a comparable HK or an XD45. I guess you could limit this to "war zone" deployment, but heck, it's dangerous anywhere, if you're in the U.S. Military....
As far as combat weapons, I was always partial to Terrier missile launchers, myself, with plenty of air support...... :lol: :lol: :lol:
As far as combat weapons, I was always partial to Terrier missile launchers, myself, with plenty of air support...... :lol: :lol: :lol:
Those were 16" guns, and fired a 2,700lb projectile aprox 24 miles.....iirc, the japanese had some 20" guns. They were some serious firepower.....On both ships I served on, I was a gun mount captain during general quarters....my first ship: twin mount, rapid fire, 3" 50 cal....nice for slow moving aircraft and small ships.....my second ship (commissioned in 1948), single mount, manually operated breach, 3" 50cal...nice for large bugs and flying insects....if they were not flying too fast.....
Shortly after I left my first ship, they went into drydock, and the gun mounts were removed and replaced by one Sea Sparrow launcher, and two Phalanx CIWS.....I might would have stayed if they would have let me push the buttons..... :lol: :lol: :lol:......I love things that get launched and go BOOOOMMMMMM..... :lol: :lol: :lol:
Shortly after I left my first ship, they went into drydock, and the gun mounts were removed and replaced by one Sea Sparrow launcher, and two Phalanx CIWS.....I might would have stayed if they would have let me push the buttons..... :lol: :lol: :lol:......I love things that get launched and go BOOOOMMMMMM..... :lol: :lol: :lol:
splash out splash over Moutain gone, next misson. Aw yes the Navy does have away of clearing their throat lol. The ar 47 and 74 are better weapons for the worsed condition simple as that they will hit a target out to 200 meters and most soldier aren't going to shoot that far to start with. The 30 caliber is the superior has much better knock down than the 5.56. Air cover or air strikes are not always avilbe to the ground troops. The Navy can only reach out ever in the old days 20 to 30 miles. So if your forty mile inland then your out of luck.
The ak 47 in the mud and blood with no beer is the weapon of choice by me. I don't care who makes its what it looks like but if it shoot first time every time no matter what I want it in combat.
The ak 47 in the mud and blood with no beer is the weapon of choice by me. I don't care who makes its what it looks like but if it shoot first time every time no matter what I want it in combat.
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Join the discussion
