Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Military The best infantry rifle

Okie,
MOS?
Mike

AK-47 Tough and reliable.

This is a great question and something I've pondered from time to time. I was in the Army from 1967-1970, and for the first 2 years, I was in Armored Cavalry units and the M14 was my assigned weapon. I qualified Expert with it and truly loved that rifle.

In March of 1969, I was sent to the 9th Infantry Division which was headquartered in Dong Tam in the Mekong Delta, South Vietnam. I was then issued the M16 and had to qualify with that. From the outset, I didn't care for it, it seemed like a toy and I was now in the big game where it really mattered.

At the time, the ARVN's were carrying U.S. WWII weapons; the M1, M1 carbines, BARs, Browning 30 cal. machine guns, etc. Since I was a little kid, I had a romantic fascination with the BAR, probably from watching war movies while growing up, and traded an ARVN for a BAR. What a fantastic weapon! It seemed like you could hit almost anything you could see. The only problem was, we rarely ever encountered gooks out in the open where a long range weapon would have an advantage. When we came under fire, it was from the few scattered tree-lines or other concealed positions.

The usual response was not carefully aimed fire, it was lay down a base of fire with everything you had as quickly as you could and call for arty or an air strike. The unit could expend it's entire ammo load in mere minutes and when we were resupplied with ammo, they didn't bring out any of that 30-06 sh[i][/i]it for me, just the standard fare for M16's and M60's. I was now unarmed and carrying the dead weight of that BAR. I carried that sucker in the field twice and gave it up.

It was back to the M16 for me with one bandolier of magazines on my waist and usually one or two more bandoliers in my pack. That's what I carried until the end of my tour. I never developed any strong affection for the M16, but it was the right weapon under the circumstances even if it's not the best battle rifle in our arsenal. What it comes down to is battlefield conditions. In the heat and wet where I was, the difference in the weight of the ammo alone made the M16 the best choice. A better rifle in the wrong circumstances is not an asset, it's a liability.

WMacD,
As of 1986 the El-Salvadorian and Honduran had BAR's in inventory!
Got my hands on a BAR along the Rio Negro and the Rio Coco.
Even got to play with a M3 37mm and M1 57mm anti-tank guns! Stuff from WWII!!!!
Funny how all of our "use-to-be" equipment is still at work!
Mike

I would have to say the m14 as well, and any caliber bigger than the 5.56. I have flown out to pick up U.S. guys hit with 7.62x39 and they are always really bad off or dead. On the other hand, I have had to risk my life to fly out and pick up injured insurgents hit with 5.56 ammo, and they still have fight in them. A couple of months ago there was an insurgent that shot a marine and hit him with two rounds killing him. That marine's buddy responded shooting that guy once in the abdomen, twice in the chest, and once in the head. I still had to fly out and pick him up because he was still alive. He was even eyeballing my crew members m9's on the flight back. They say the 5.56 is lighter and such, but what good is it if you have to carry more ammo, shoot more bullets, and still don't kill the s.o.b.'s?????

Wmac,

Congratulations, you drew all the right conclusions about he M16 in Vietnam. It was the perfect weapon for Vietnam! Unfortunately, the US Army did everything in their power to make that weapon not work. Once things got straightened out (around 1968 IIRC), the M16 did remarkably well.

Unfortunately, the M16 is not necessarily optimal for conflicts around the rest of the globe. Obviously I�m a fan of the AK design (Valmet M62/76), but If I were a US soldier in the sandbox right now, I�d be hollerin for an M14.

The FN-FAL is a proven non-performer in the Middle East, but is otherwise excellent just about anywhere else on planet Earth.

I really like the 7.62x39 round, but if I had to suffer with something else, an M14 in .308 aint a bad way to go.

I have had a good number of friends and hunting companions who were Army surgeons and medics in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam and later.

Everyone who has been wounded by a 7.62x39 inside of 200 yards, seen the wounds, and operated on the wounded, will tell you that it simply hits way harder than the M-16.

In an operations theather where the ranges are beyond 150 yards, the M-14 has the advantage of engaging an advancing enemy long before they can muster effective return fire, because it is a true battle rifle. The AK-47 is an assault rifle, and most M-16s are a half-breed compromise of the two, and second-rate in both roles.

You ought to be able to carry 200 rounds of M-14 ammo, which is a lot of juice if you don't waste it.

Soldiers do not close with the enemy like the did in previous wars. Hence you don't see the bayonet used much other than as cooking utensil. And since no one rifle can do it all, so you slect for the mission at hand. The M-16 A2 3 and 4's are fine for the most part, when needed tricked out M-14's are issued, of course there are the M-40A3's M-21's and 50 BMG's in the sniper roll. The problem as I see it, is were dose the Army goes for the next rifle, if the 16 is comming to the end of service life. Say what you will about the 16 most can learn to shoot one and shoot one well in very little time. Something to consider when the current crop of recruits are not as exposed to shooting and the shooting sports as have previous generations. Maybe the mattel is the best infantry rifle ever made. Then again if it was a real problem, all they would have to do is issue 136 thousand M-1's to the troops. Uncle Sam still has a couple of million New ones in storage. Funny that they spend the kind of money keeping them, when the throw away just about everything else. Oh to be in the Armies Dept of Ordance these days.

The M14 was my ass saver many times. I learned very quickly that blacktip ammo was the way to go. At shorter ranges it penetrated palm logs pretty well which made life short and miserable for the Gooks. My experience was that if you survived the first burst of fire in a fight you were probably going to survive because since nearly all the gooks and GI's used their rifles like bullet hoses, only the first shot out was really deadly. I got more mileage out of semi-auto with the M-14 and AP. The 14 is plenty reliable and easy to keep in clean enuff shooting trim. As I watch vids of Iraqi combat action showing the OTHER SIDE, I see the enemy there isn't much better at aiming a rifle either. The modern day assault rifle is round for round probably the most humane weapon to ever hit the battlefield. Something to keep in mind is that the DEADLIEST rifle ever fielded had to be the '03 Springfield and the US .30 Enfield as the mean rounds per kill was 25,000 :1 . It has to be up around a million per kill by now. I'll take a killer any day.

I know you wanted a chosen "rifle" but under today's fighting conditions, I'll take a remington 870 12 ga. Point and shoot - through mud walls!

My 1966 production Chinese Type 56 (SKS).She groups ( unmodified) sub 4 inches at 200 yards, is absolutely reliable and has a bayonet .Not too useful but quite visually impressive.Noted on a previous post the comparison between M-43 /PS and M-67.The M-43/PS is a steel core boattail that has poor wounding charastics as it starts its pitch/yaw cycle after 8-12 inches of penetration.The M-67 is a lead core flat base an it begins its pitch/yaw cycle after only 4 inches of penetration making it a much more lethal load.The SKS is one of the easiest rifles to shoot,clean ,maintain and repair.By weight you can carry more rounds per pound than you can with say an AK because the magazines weigh a ton compared to a 10 round stripper clip,the fixed 10 rounder cant be lost an is very difficult to damage and most importantly allows a very low prone firing position (Hooray for cover)I would bet my life on my '56 getting the job done...

Double30,

You reasons are good, but one should note that when offered the AK, not a single nation decided to stick with the SKS. The SKS is needlessly complex (trigger group is a nightmare), it�s heavy and has limited firepower�However, it works and works very well. The SKS has become one of the mainstay�s of insurgent fighters for the past 40 years.

Although you may find the SKS a good rifle and one you could count on, I don�t think it is a real contender for �Best Infantry Rifle Ever.� Although if I had to fight and that was my only option, I wouldn�t feel too horribly undergunned. Again, it�s the Indian, not the arrows.

Gungeek,
I concur wholeheartedly about the SKS!
It is a "ok" secondary issue for "local-militia" where it would be not be pressed into extended firefights.
Myself,I'd rather use a #4MKI Enfield or a PPS-43 over a SKS!

I do agree(firsthand experience)though about the PS-type ammuniton and it's wound charactoristic's!
It is a great penetrator but a poor "on target" performer,primarally on chest wounds!
It went through(measuring from the point it entered on my chest to where it exited out my back just past my armpit)diagonally left-to-right at about 16".
A 55grain M193 5.56mm would have tumbled and no me!
A M62tracer or M80 ball 7.62nato hit would have terminated me too.
I was hit with the most lucky wound that anyone who had been shot could hope to receive!

But in a pair of short pants my thigh still gets stares and people still ask why I limp!
That was one round entering the back of my thigh exiting the front displacing most of my quad.
The round was a 7.62nato,the rifle was a FAL.
The rat-baztird got his position interduced with a 152mm round from the 3/73rd Airborne-Armor Sheridan!
In a built-up area (ie:urban)the 5.56mm when used with a twist rate of 1/12" is preferred over 1/7".
Mike

AK's rule in situations where dumping alot of ammo is... desireable?However undisciplined fire is not a good thing.Witness the 3 rnd burst on the M-16A2...The trigger on an SKS may be more complex than an AR or AK but it can be easily dismounted and disassembled in the field for repair.Not so easy with the AR or AK.Most SKS triggers suffer from poor assembly techniques which can be easily corrected.On a sillier note , to most folks the SKS is less threatening in appearance than the AK or AR and there are times when that can be an advantage.I have long felt that aimed disciplined fire is superior to putting alot of lead in the air with few hits to show for it.As for countries dropping the SKS in favor of the AK, I'll bet its because thats what the PRC or Mother Russia decided to send them.I've talked to a few 'Nam vets ( God bless you all and thank you for your service), who related that in ambushes you knew you were in for it when through the hammering of the AK's and RPK's you could hear the POP POP POP of someone covering a reload with an SKS.BTW my second choice would be an early production No4 Mk1 or 2 with the milled rear sight.

I will admit that after the fog of 36 or 37 years, my memory ain't what it used to be, but when in the heat of a firefight, I don't recall ever thinking or saying, "thank God those little fu[/i]ckers are shooting at me with AK's instead of those dam[i]ned SKS's." <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

If you like the SKS, there's nothing wrong with that. As a rule, most anyone will do better with something they're trained on and know how to use effectively. You dance with what you brung.

Double30,

Maybe you missed it�I was talking about the best military rifle, not the best military rifle for civilian use.

This is true in the case of the AK, but not the M16. A cartridge tip is all that is needed in the way of tools to completely disassemble the M16 trigger group, which is way easier than the SKS. If you break a part in the fire control unit of an AK, you�re SOL.

Again, military service� Where militaries are concerned, I doubt this is a feature that ever enters anyone�s mind. Actually, if I�m �walking in the valley of the shadow of death� I want to look like the baddest assed SOB on the planet.

In most situations, I�d have to agree with this. However, at times laying down a carpet of lead is needed to ever get to the point to where you can employ your aimed fire discipline. That�s called fire suppression�Once you have suppressed the enemy, you own his @$$!

You�re right, but you�re drawing the wrong conclusion. Russia really did force the AK on most Warsaw Pact nations whether they liked it or not. Most would have been happy to take the AK because it�s superior to the SKS in most every way. The problem is, many of the Warsaw Pact nations either just bought their SKS�s or just set-up manufacturing to make them�Either way, they had some serious skin in the game when Mother Russia told them to adopt the AK.

And adopt they did�Few professional military men would ever choose the SKS over the AK, but we�re talking economics here. (I�m not picking on your beloved SKS, because I happen to think it�s a good weapon�But I also think there are better weapons.) It�s interesting to note that in 1974 when the Sov�s went to the AK-74, not one nation followed them. This was based primarily on economics again, and to a lesser degree that many didn�t buy into the SBHV (small bore, high velocity) school of thought. Now, many did eventually adopt the 5.45 cartridge, but it took decades. Regardless, literally no one stuck with the SKS when the AK was another option.

As for your comments about the AK�s in Vietnam. Yes, there are many untrained troops that used the AK to hose down the entire zip code. In talks with a veteran friend of mine, there were times where very professional soldiers used the AK with disciplined fire to great effect. He related several stories of his unit being pinned down by the enemy to the point that air support was their only hope. After a run from a Specter or some other gunship, they would then do a mop up.

Now, keep in mind, that my buddy carried an average of 28 twenty round magazines when he went on patrol. He was a walking ammo store! When they did their mop up, often they would find dead NVA�s with an AK and 4 magazines. Proving once again, it�s the Indian, not the arrow.

My favorite is the HK G3. Rugged, reliable, short enough to handle in vehicles and buildings, accurate, good sights, and plenty of power.

Lee,

The G3 had some virtues (few, but some)�But the delayed roller locking system could only be a good idea to a German engineer. In my experience, they were one of the least reliable and most ammunition sensitive military rifles I�ve ever encountered.

The sights can�t be adjusted unless you have one of their handy little tools (handy because they�re quickly lost in the field). When my firefight suddenly becomes a long range affair, what I really want to do is fumble around my rucksack for a �sight adjustment tool.�

Making the receiver out of a steel stamping was a good idea�Unfortunately, it was an idea that was implemented by a German engineer, and it�s the most complex and complicated steel stamping ever contrived. It neither saved money on the manufacturing, nor weight, so I�m left wondering what the virtue is.

Having pins that actually come out of a military weapon during cleaning is a bad idea.

The trigger group is needlessly complex in design and manufacture.

So, there�s what I don�t like. What I do like is the modularity of the weapon system and the fact that many parts are interchangeable between rifles. I love the design of the front sight (but hate the rear sight). Ergonomically, I think they did well.

I think the most telling thing you can say about the G3 system is that H&K finally acknowledged that a gas operated rifle is a better idea, and their later designs reflect this.

The G3 sights are so rugged, I never needed to adjust them, once set. They have a notch for 100m, and three apertures for 200, 300, and 400. With any sort of rest or sitting, a soda can at 100 or a gallon jug at 400 is a cake shot.

The modularity, stock swaps, forend swaps, snap on folding bipod, QD telescopic sights are all great.

The best feature is easy of maintenance. No small parts to lose, no looking for a clean cloth to lay out the weapon. Just pop two pins, pull off the buttstock, remove the entire boltcarrier with bolt, spray it off or slosh it around in gasoline or kerosene, wipe it off, oil it, scrub the barrel, and snap it back together.

The proof is those TV shots of warfare in the Sudan and other parts of Africa. You see some old rifles being used, made in the 1970s, no spare parts, no gun cleaning supplies.... CETME, G3 and AR-10.

Exactly.

Give me something that's proven it will work even with a semi-trained monkey at the trigger for 20 years of it's life AND STILL have it perform in combat situations.

THAT's what I want.

And that ain't a joke.

Which is why the AK, FN/FAL, and the M14 are still at the head of the list.