Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Military The best infantry rifle

Ok military buffs, what gets your vote as the best military rifle and why?

Think of it this way�You�ll be going into combat tomorrow and you get to choose the weapon of your choice. Unfortunately, you don�t know where you�re going or what you�ll be doing, so your choice has to be versatile.

My vote goes to the Valmet M62/76 series in 7.62x39mm. The Valmet is the best quality AK ever made and the 7.63x39mm is still the military cartridge that all others are judged by.

It also gets my vote as the most homely (butt-ugly) rifle ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valmet_M76

So, what say you?

I'll bite.

First a point of definition: I consider a rifle is a shoulder fired firearm with a barrel length of at least 18 inches. Super SBR's are long pistols not rifles!

Make mine the Mark 14 Mod 0 EBR, an updated M14, the longest serving rifle in US military history.

See: link

I carried one of the original models and fell in love with it. So what if it was heavier then the M16, the weight was worth the punch. And now that the M16 varients have all gone to heavier barrels the weight difference is even less.

And BTW, the 7.62 x 51mm NATO is the military rifle cartridge that all others are judged by. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

FN/FAL.

Heavy, yes, but accurate as helll, just that dependable, too... and 7.62x51. Not much to dislike there.

The M14 variant picked by Bend is RIGHT there, too.

That said, if it's going to be used/abused/ by CLOSE range infantry, the AK is tough to knock. It ain't accurate past a couple hundred meters, but just try to get one to puke.

The M-14!!
My time with the M-21 has me somewhat opinioned for the M-14 variants!

Those FN/FAL's are all too much the rifle you find unless it's a AK when in a country that gets all it's aid from the Evil-Empire or the "good-guys".

A para or congo-type FAL would be a nice "jump status" rifle!
I've broke eight M-16A1 and four M-16A2 during static-line jumps!
Mike

I would pick an FN/FAL first closely followed by the M-14. I reckon I am big enough to carry a little extra weight in exchange for some extra horsepower.

I'm wondering why everyone feels they need the extra horsepower, when every military organization has determined that the 7.62 NATO is needlessly overpowered?

I'd take a well made M16A2 but with the original 1 in 14" twist and original 55 grain FMJ at 3200 fps muzzle velocity.

That slow twist failed to meet accuracy requirements for Arctic shooting at 500 meters, but it's what gave "the black rifle" it's reputation for ghastly wounds in the first place. A marginally stable bullet in air that tumbles when it hits flesh.

BTW, if I was assigned to Arctic fighting thereafter, I'd just confine my shots to 499 yards or less. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Edited to add: I don't know if it's the best military rifle as no one has explicitly defined the criteria for "best", but it's what I'd take. That and as many rounds of ammo and as many hand grenades as I could carry.

GG-

"...when every military organization has determined that the 7.62 NATO is needlessly overpowered?"

The bean counters in the organizations have opted to go the "bud light" route not the troops.

I like my gun and my auto/truck to have enough power to do the job. You are the one that set the parameter of not knowing where we would be going. So, as one member on this board loves to say; "use enough gun."

Well, so far its several against 1 for the 7.62 NATO. Do you drive a Yugo. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

GG;

Grunts, like myself, ALWAYS want more horsepower.

Ask any grunt back from Iraq what the .223 does up close, and then ask why the .308 is preferred.

First choice:M14
second choice:M1 Garand
third choice: Lee Enfield

GG,
If you had ever had to fire a shot at a soldier who was trying to do the same to you,then you would know why 5.56mm is a poor subsitute to the 7.62NATO!
Damn for firing past 400meters! I'll be calling for 11C(mortarman)or arty "danger-close"!
For dug-in or bunkers we use to carry the M67 90mm recoilless-rifle.
Oh yea,forget about the US manufactured 7.62NATO!
Give me the German Ammo!
That kraut 7.62NATO uses mild-steel jacket bullets that break apart better than any 5.56mm!
Urban combat with barriers has the 7.62NATO hands down better than any 5.56mm load can produce!
Mike

You just said we're going into combat, but you didn't say who was backing us up. I think most folks would assume some sort of small-unit scenario (correctly or not) and not a combined arms melee with tanks, artillery, and A-10s in support. Being allowed that assumption, I'll say FAL as well, because overkill may just save my ass.

Overkill???? I hate the word!

When it comes to hostile enemies, is there any such thing as "too dead?" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

The term "overkill" is used by someone who never has had someone try to inject him with rifle rounds!!
That old Bren or a BAR was perfect for chewing up "skinny's" in urban combat.
Then every rifleman had rounds for the rifles be it US(Garands)or Commonwealth(SMLE)and the Auto-gun had same ammo throughout.
Mike

Ya'll make good points, but I was never suggesting the .223, I was suggesting the 7.62x39... Now, maybe I've got my military history wrong or something, but I've never heard of it lacking in fight stopping power. I've treated 7.62x39mm wounds and I'm rather impressed...Most weren't in need of my services, but rather the services of the coroner.

The 7.62x39 is the only real assault rifle cartridge and it does exactly what it was intended to do. It stops a fight just as well as a 7.62 NATO and it recoils much less.

Every Valmet M62/76 I've handled would shoot circles around a FAL or M14 and do it in a lighter package with lighter ammunition.

The 7.62 NATO gives you about 200 yards more effective range, which is almost never needed. However, the 7.62x39mm is much lighter allowing you to carry more ammo...And that's needed very often. Personally, I'll take the extra ammunition.

The 7.62x39mm is a proven combat cartridge and has not been found wanting in any war.

The Valmet fires a cartridge that's a better combat cartridge. It's more accurate and more reliable than anything else...I'd be quite confident in my choice.

GG,
I have a scar on my right shoulder were I had a through and through from a 7.62X39 from October 1983.
Prefectly straight through,entered two inches from midline of my chest,exited through the ole "push-up muscle"(latisamis dorsi?).
In 1989 I took a single round in the left thigh (back to front) that missed femur and major blood lines but caused me to still limp from the "stretch cavity" that wreaked havoc on my quad! The rifle was a FAL that was recovered after the position took a 152mm round from a Sheridan! Go 3/73 82nd Airborne!
Thank the almighty for no 5.56mm to make it's way into me but the 7.62NATO was the fight stopper to me!

I concer that a M62 with its butt-ugly metal tube buttstock would be a damn sight better than any AK with it's improved sights and better gas system.
But the Finn's were using the premiss that they would have another "winter-war" and what better way to resupply ammo than take it from the dead commies body's!!
The M62 would be my first choice when loaded with Chinese type"PS" 7.62X39 ammo(mild steel jacket with iron-core)best AP available for the 7.62X39 anywhere!!
The 123grain .310 bullets are very stable and yield termendous penetration in soft tissue.
They seldom yaw(thank the almighty)or "break" at the canuler as is common with M193 and M855 ammo.
The German and Norwegion 7.62NATO has similar type results when they encounter large soft masses(thighs,pelvic girdle and lower bowels)they yaw and break at the crimp groove on the bullets.The end result is a wound that is horrific but stops the target quite well!
Mike

Sapper,

You sir are a lucky man to be walking this earth. Literally every last 7.62.39 wound I've treated or wittnessed showed signs of bullet yaw. Contrary to your opinion, the M43 does yaw and will do so quite predictably, but it doesn't yaw nearly as quick as the .223 or 5.45.39. According to US Army studdies, the M43 tends to yaw after an average of 6 inches of penetration, or if bone is struck. With your upper chest wound, you are a truely lucky man...Glad you're hear to disagree with me... And thank you for your service.

I have to put in another vote for the venerable FN FAL... They simply got it right with that rifle!! It is my favorite in my safe.

Thanks also to all of you who have served!!

Kevin,
My luck is that I sustained a hit that moved through chest-wall hitting no rib and not nicking/penetrating my lung and then exiting out my back just past my underarm!
I got pressure dressing's and kept firing.
When I was hit in my leg,different story all together!!
The round displaced/had torn-away muscle from my quad in my thigh when it exited.
No bone hit but it dropped me and took the fight out of me right now!
It was all I could do to kick and squirm to get to cover!
I went into shock while doc(spec-4 medic)tried to stop the bleeding.While I was getting worked on a Sheridan let loose with it's 152mm main gun and everyone cheered.
I woke up at Walter Reed one week later.
No major bones or blood vessels were hit but the bullet "became unstable" when it encountered the large muscle mass(I was back then 6'2"/265lbs with a 9% body-fat) and either tumbled or broke apart is what was explained to me as I started physical therapy to get use back of my leg.
Seventeen years this December and I still favor that leg.
Would I do it again?
Hell Yes!!!!!!!
I've shaken hands with Ronald Reagan(1983) and George Bush(1990) as they came to Walter-Reed to see troops that were injured in service to this country!!!
That is also why at 42-years old I'm retired already. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
I donate my time over at the VA with the "Wounded-Warriors" program.
Talking with and helping however with the young guys coming home with injuries that they will carry for the rest of their days so we all stay safe.
Mike
12B3V 11B2V

M-4 if I left today - I know how it works. With logistics and train-up, a 16 variant would be my LAST choice. M-14/FAL would be first. Sapper's last post pretty well lays out why.


Okie John

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.

Nimrod,
I have a model 1888 Mauser, made in 1890, with its orginal sling embossed in Arabic and Chinese markings, with its rear sight marked in Vietnamese, taken from an NVA in 1967, in perfect working order. How many different soldiers had carried that thing (not counting its last owner, a US GI ) ?

Same for those AK-47s you see the Afghanis using, picked up off dead USSR troops 25 years ago, cleaned with kerosene and lubed with a touch of motor oil.

'03 Spingfield or 98 Mauser. Reason: Reliability. Spray and pray doesn't get it. Thanks...Bill.

I think the Springfield and Mauser were awesome rifles for their time, but would you really want to do house to house searches in Falluja with a Springfield knowing the other side is armed with AK�s?

For that type of operation I would prefer a 12 gauge shotgun. Thanks...Bill.

Ok, now you�re just cheating.

gungeek,
Now just imagine it is sept 1917 and your clearing trenches.
1917enfield with it's 16" bayonette on the end would be just plain awful cumbersome!
That 1897 Winchester must have seemed like a godsend to the doughboy's!

When I get my dig cam back I'll post pic's of my last trade!!!
I traded a 6-year old mare,9-yeard old gelding(both quarterhorse's) and a piece of crap llama that my wife got 5 years back(for a pack animal,nasty thing almost made it to the mink ranch as chow) for a H&K 91A2,H&K 93A3 and a H&K 94A2!
Woman was liquidating her part of the husbands guns after he sold her horses(they were legally seperated,but now it's over!).
Bad thing to take another mans guns in such a way but his loss is my "pot-o-gold"!
Mike(the vulture) <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Kevin,

Although it's been 35 years since I served in the Army, I think the military still uses 12 gauge shotguns in Iraq, maybe I'm wrong?? Thanks...Bill.

m70man,
There are plenty of pow's(personally owned weapons);ie Mossberg 500's,over in the mix.
Neighbor boy went back there for his second tour with a M-590 in his duffle.
Back in the day that would get you a article-15!
But times are different with theator CO's giving the troops some lee-way.
Mike

Mike,

This is only my opinion but I would much rather have a 12 gauge with 00 buck than any assualt rifle for urban warfare. I think the US is learning it's mistakes all over again by using the M-16 against those maniacs in the middle east. They should have held on to the M-14 machinery instead of selling it to Tiawan back in '69. The .223 is not a good man stopper, especially when used on the turbans. Have you noticed some M-14s on the news lately. I have. It's kind of like the Phillipine Insurrection when the Colt .38 would not stop the Moros. The .223 worked pretty good on the small scantily clad Vietnamese but it's a different story in Iraq and Afghanistan where they clothe themselves with robes and turbans.

I think you have a much better chance of stopping someone with a shotgun than single round from a rifle. Too much spray and pray going on now. I've seen men on the news just holding up the rifle over their heads and shooting. What good is an unaimed shot?

I also think that each squad should have at least one shotgun and preferrably two.

Have you ever read about "Chesty Puller" when he was arming his battalion for duty in Korea. He ordered thousands of 12 fully brass cased rounds for his outfit. He knew the value of the shotgun. And...he knew the potential failure of paper cased shotgun shells. I would think the current plastic rounds would work fine in most any enviornment.

And...if it was up to me, the 9MM would go out the door and the .45 ACP would be the first line duty handgun.

Anyway, that's just a bunch of opinions from an old guy and I'm sure more of you are in the know than me.

No offense meant to anyone.

Thanks...Bill.

Bill,
I've put time behind the M-16A1 and put down what I hit.
I did also have the pleasure of being issued a M-21 and it was like stepping up to a real rifle!
Each platoon still had a M-67 90mm for anti-armor/bunker busting too.
But not a single shotgun.
I've taken hit's from 7.62x39 and 7.62nato.
That hit from the FAL got me a 100% medical discharge and a limp.
I too think that are troops should have access to at minimum of 2-shotguns per squad.
That and a Designated-Marksman Rifle(semi-auto 7.62)to accuire and destroy soft targets at ranges outside the capabilities of the 5.56mm.
With sidearms,if it has come to the point you need to draw a handgun(not some "sneak&peak")a better platform for the 9mm would be in order or better yet,just issue the 45acp(it aint broke so why was it fixed?)
With the world climate NATO is about as important as SEATO,so just make platforms in calibers like we did with the Garand.
If we make it,we issue it and then other countries will buy it and issue it.
Mike

First let me say - I have no combat time, my choices are at best arm chair suppositions based on reading.

So what I will list is FWIW:

Were I to fight an enemy and I had good logistics - that is re-supply available to me in the field, quality ammo and a qualified armorer to back me up. I think I would select the M14. I think it can fit the bill rather nicely. An M4 or M16 based weapon would also do ( I still prefer the m14) - provided I could select ammo. (IIRC I read a contractor's story in Iraq - seems contractors were allowed to select the ammo they wanted and not mil. issue - he chose the 223 with something I can not remember but got very authoritative kills with a simple double tap to CM. - he made the point that a 223 can be an efective killer with correct ammo. Was in "Soldier of Fortune" IIRC)

Were I to fight an enemy and didn't have logistics - say I had to live off whatever the guy I killed was carrying - I would select a high quality AK. Chances are the enemy I encounter is going to be carrying an AK variation so ammo would be available. Were he not for some really weird reason - I wouldtake his weapon and use it to fight on.

So for me in scenario 1 the best weapon is the M14, secenario 2 - an AK of some type.

Of course side arm considerations would go also #1 1911 in 45ACP, #2 Browning hi-power in 9mm.

teal,
Now if your "down south" be it Mexico or central America and for the most part South America,you will be seeing 7.62Nato and 5.56mm on the part of the national issue arms.
Major area's over in Africa too are noted for 7.62Nato arms!
SW and SE asia are more likely area's for 7.62x39!

Oh to have some 223rem with 55grain HPBT or V-MAX!
Ok better yet,for the 7.62Nato some 155grain A-MAX!
Mike

All,

While few could argue that house to house combat is THE place for a shotgun, the question at hand was, �what�s the best infantry RIFLE.� For some unknown reason (I figure it�s cost), the military has never used (that I know of) the best combat shotgun, Ithaca M37.

For best infantry rifle, I still hold to the Valmet M62/76. They�re better in the house to house scenario than the M16 and they�ll reach out a touch beyond 500 yards with better accuracy than an M14�Just don�t see anything not to like about them (except they�re uglier than the leading lineup at the LPGA)

I do have combat time a long time ago, and the M 16 would be my choice. After humping an M 14 for two years in training, I don't think I'd enjoy humping it any more in combat.

You can't carry enough ammo in 7.62 NATO to satisfy me.

I've owned a M 1A supermatch, and the accuracy was good for the time, but not good by today's standards. You pay a lot to get a little, accuracy wise, and a AR 15 with a minimum of work on it will outshoot a Supermatch. They no longer use them much in matches, except the M 14 matches.

I also trained with the M 21 before it was the M 21...it was XMsomething. This was in Counter Sniper School at Ft. Benning. I liked the rifle and it was accurate aplenty...I think the standard was 1.5 MOA for the rifles. It's still about that now, ifyou ever watch those sniper shows. I don't mean 100 yards, I mean at three hundred. Snipers don't shoot much at 100 yards if they want to live long.

The G 3 is a good rifle, but again, really heavy. The FAL is great looking, but it was not considered accurate enough to build a sniper version. I have one of those civilian versions, as well as a CETME, and the CETME outshoots it consistently, although the trigger is awful. That's the best buy, IMO, in a battle rifle for the individual.

As someone else mentioned it depends where you are. If your enemy is shooting a 7.62 x 39, he's limiting himself to about 150 yards, for all practical purposes. Less if he's shooting it out of an AK...the accuracy isn't there. If you get hit beyond that range, it's either bad luck or a sniper shooting at you.

As far as not being enough firepower, I have to disagree. I've seen bad guys shot with M 60s and M 16s, and if the bullet hit the right place, it didn't matter. If it didn't it was roughly the same result. Shot placement rules. The Marines did a study after things calmed down in Iraq, and the report said essentially the same thing. It's shot placement. The report also criticized the SAWs and the 9mm pistols. Age on the SAWs, and failures on the pistols.

GIs, like everyone else, watch movies and in the heat of combat you want someone to drop like a stone. Especially close up, you want a magic wand that stops them in their tracks or blows the back ten feet because you're scared. (I was scared, anyway.) That don't happen more times that it does.

One reason is with an M 16 and a 3 round burst, you're putting three rounds into a guy's chest in about 1/3 of a second. The human body just can't react fast enough to drop like a stone in a lot of instances....if he's running toward you, it takes more than 1/3 of a second for his critical bodily functions to shut down. So, rather than a lack of firepower, it's unrealistic expectations. He's as dead as he'll ever be, he just hasn't had time to realize it yet.

You don't want to know my opinions of the rack-grade M 14. :>)

gungeek,
The M37 was in use by the War Department in WWII!
They ordered 25,000 shotguns.
They were also in use in Viet-nam by the Navy(brown-water).
www.olive-drab.com/od_other_firearms_shotgun_ithaca37.php
Mike

We used the Ithaca shotguns in Viet Nam. We alos had one of those old Winchester shotguns with the hammer on the outside and a bayonet lug and barrel shroud.

I don't know how we got it, proabably brought it over from the states when the unit was formed, but a guy in my platoon wouldn't carry anything else.

Sapper,

That makes more sense now�The US used just about every other pump action shotgun between WWII and Vietnam�It�s been a long time since I�ve studied up on military shotguns, but I just couldn�t recall ever seeing the M37. Thanks.

Gene L,
A Mossberg 500 with the cruiser grip on fits inside a Large Alice ruck! The buttstock is put inside too, for assembly at the rally-point!
On non-jump missions where dufflebags are included for deployment,the 18.5" Mossberg's and 20" Mossbergs fit just fine! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Plenty of POW's(personally owned weapons)would find their way along be it 870's or 500's.
Remington Express 2.75" buckshot was favored as it was available in 25-round boxes for a reasonable price(you gotta love them gunshops who were frequented by deer-hunters who used buckshot!
#4 buck worked great on door hinges but the platoon sergeant(173rd Airborne Viet-nam vet)insisted that we load 00-buck for LBD's(little-brown-dudes).
You gotta respect those who "been there and SHOT that"!
Mike

While the Russian 5.45 x 39 AN-94 has not been proven in battle, the Russians have tested it pretty thoroughly. Lack of money is the only reason that I've read or heard for the Russians' failure to mass-produce their new assault rifle and make it general issue. So at least one significant set of armed forces has decided what its future rifle is (some have been issued) and what it will be (lots of troops are still carrying the AK-74). I've read very little about the new Chinese assault rifle and its new small bore, high velocity round. Does anybody know enough to comment on these weapons? Russia and China are serious players, so I assume each has made a reasonable choice for a wide range of applications.

The chinese are rearming their forces(main-line,not reserve) with "5.8mm X 42mm DBP87" for their QBZ-95 weapon family.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as39-e.htm

That is a show in table form of different platforms in use around the globe.
Mike

"It�s been a long time since I�ve studied up on military shotguns..."

FYI, the Marines also used the 12GA Browning A5 in VN.

Yeah, our Sheriff's Office uses the Mossberg shotguns. They're also a little cheaper than the 870s.

I've never been a fan of the shotgun, but in Nam I carried one that had been given me by my former CO...it was a sawed-off Ithica, trimmed on both ends. It was lighter than a .45 (or so I remember) and I carried it strapped to my pack as a secondary weapon.

The M-14 and M1 were good rifles but they were heavy and the ammo was heavy. After firing one for 75-100 rounds in a few hours, shooters (soldiers) often started flinching. I've read that prarie dog hunters often shoot several hundred 22-250 rounds in a few hours and that they develop a flinch, even with 10+ pound rifles. I've been told this by WW2 vets, so I accept it as true, Jeff Cooper not withstanding.

The M-16 rifle weighs less and recoil is less, so I guess I'll vote for the M-16 as a more effective firearm. You can't hurt what you don't hit!

djs,
After a few hours?
For any engagement we had while I was carrying a M-21(operation Urgent Fury) their were no extended hour-upon-hour firefights!
When you engage or are engaged you had best have a accurate grid location as doctrine teaches when you are able to,you destroy the AO with ARTY,CAS or Navy 5"(too bad no more 16",sin loi to all those unlucky basstruds who had those fall on em)
If you had the 82nd with you then you could ask for the 3/73rd for support with their M-551 airborne assualt vehicle and it's 152mm main-gun.
If all else failed you had 81mm or for sure 60mm motar's for indirect fire.
Nope no more "trench-warfare were your stuck firing "static-position" for hours!
Unless you want a 60mm/81mm/120mm motar,105mm/155mm howitzer or plain old BLU-84's to rain hell on you.

If your on a shoot-an-scoot and your resupply is days away,well then whatever the local-troop is issued would be a prevelant choice.
Easier too to sound like the bad-guys and resupply is somewhat better.
Most troops have mission that dictate that they carry a resupply in their alice/molle but others have to carry other mission-critical equipment.
My ruck was never able to carry the amount of ammo that others did as my task was "area-denial".
You need a road or trail closed!
You want to funnel troops into a ambush.
You want to make any unit pay who is following.
Buildings opened,bridges closed.
My job was the engineer tasked to the 75th Regiment!
I started out as a 11B1V,made E-5,went to "Lost-in-the-Woods" and got my 12B.
Carrying demo and mines does not lend a large alice much room for much else!
Mike

Roger that! This is me, way back then...

Damn Hoss what the flock were you humping? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Is that by "The Plain of Reeds" or FSB Moore or Cai Lay?
Damn the 2nd Regiment got a crappy AO!
My older cousin served in the 9th ID, 2nd Regiment, echo company-75th Infantry from 1966-1970.(they went from LRRP to Ranger in 1969?).You probaly have shared the same grid-square on more than one night!
Mike

I don't remember this exact location, but it's probably the Plain of Reeds. I'm carrying an anti-personnel listening device called an Aquaboy, it's out of the protective tube in the last photo.











I have fond memories of those very same rangers. Those sonsabitches saved my butt many times and almost got me killed a couple of more times.

I was not told much from Wayne about his time over there till I got home on leave after Grenada.
I envy not any soul who served in that riverine crap!
You all have my unwavering respect!
Mike

The terrain varied quite a bit in the Mekong Delta where the 9th served, but one thing was a constant; everything was wet:

I remember the wet! We moved from the delta to hard ground about half way through my tour. The delta sucks big-time. I've seen mud so bad we had to pull people out with a rope.

Since we're posting pictures, here one of me in 1969

Well between Mac and Gene we got us a pair who have some very important time on different weapon platforms!
Good thing to have those who "been there and Survived That"!
Thank You!
Mike

Consider the case of some of the WW2 battles in the hedgerows and across Eurpope. I was told by a WW2 vet (82 Airborne) that he'd fire as many as 30+ M1 clips (8 rounds each) in a few hours and his shoulder was so brused that he could not hit a standing man at 100 yards.

I hate to be among the minority here, but for me it's a M 16 or M 4. I know what they do to people.

The 7.62 x 39 is a good round for short range combat. The 30-06 was a great round as well, but hardly anyone mentioned it. It's superior to the &.62 NATO, for knockdown power. But military strategy has passed it by. It takes a lot of transport to move ammo, and resupply is something you can never count on. Sometimes, as in Somolia, they just can't get the ammo to the troops.

While the 7.62 x 39 is a good round, only 3rd World countries use it. The armies of every one of the major powers rejected it. I suppose its long-range potential is not good. And it's the same with the 7.62 NATO...it's yesterday's news.

The best thing going for the FAL is that it looks cool. The rear sight isn't protected, and it's useless on full automatic. It's also not nearly as accurate as an M 14....the British tried to make it into a sniper rifle and finally abandoned it for a bolt gun.

In Viet Nam in 1969 and 1970, I led a recon platoon. We could carry anything we wanted, from grease guns to M 14s to shotguns. We had all these in our weapons room to choose from. Not a single one of my soldiers carried an M 14, except the sniper. This was their choice. The basic load we had to carry was 440 rounnds, which is just about the same amount of LC Match that fits into an ammo can, which is how the sniper carried his ammo. And it's heavy!

I lugged one of those heavy bastagies up Greasy Mountain in Ranger School, and carried two of them about halfway on the 40 km forced march, as one of the guys in the platoon was a wimp and couldn't carry his own.

The M 14 was issued as a second-line weapon in Viet Nam for folks who shoot or do other things, like artillerymen and (I believe) engineers, in certain areas. I also believe it was used in those tall observation platforms we had back at our main base, along with M 60s.

We respected the AK, or anything else that can kil you, and lots of weapons can. But I've never wanted a Commie weapon in my safe....had an SKS, but got rid of it. Sights are awful on an AK and the ergonomics are terrible. The sound of that safety clicking off has saved many a GI's life.

Any bullet that hits a bone is going to do some real ugly damage, as one guy said. If it doesn't, good chance of it boring a hole.

I strongly dislike the steel-cored bullets they're using now, and I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't re-evaluate that bullet after this mess is over with. I was told by "someone in the know" that they weren't accurate at all. I don't see how they could be when they're made en mass with no way of assuring the core is aligned. (SS 110, is it?)

So, I'll stick with what I know works. Second choice would be a Commie AKM, I guess. Or one of those FAL rifles, which I know nothing about. I dono't know how fearful it is to run out of ammo, but I dream about it all the time. Give me something where I can pack a lot of heat.

Gene, I agree with much of what you said. Our basic load for the M16 was also the same, 22 magazines, but we usually stripped out 1 or 2 rounds from each magazine to avoid feeding problems. I also know what it's like to run out of ammo and words cannot describe the feeling of total helplessness. Usually, when our unit came under fire, only about half of us could move into position to return fire, so there was ammo available from others who were not so engaged. There were occasions when the entire unit was down to virtually nothing and the adrenalin rush of being in a firefight was replaced with sheer terror.

I remember as if it happened yesterday, a Huey pilot with balls as big as basketballs, hovering over us while the doorgunner kicked off cases of ammo to resupply us when we were under heavy fire. We watched him taking hits that were sure to bring him down right on top of us, but he was able to get out of there.

It's funny, I can no longer remember the specific details regarding the birth of my kids, but some of my experiences from Vietnam pop back into my consciousness after putting them out of my mind long ago. Recalling the incident that I just related caused more than a lump in my throat too.

Yeah, we loaded 18 rounds in a mag, as I recall. I don't know if this was strictly necessary, knowing what I know now about springs, but I took it for gratned and did it. The mag lips may have been the concern.

We had reserves of loaded magazines back in our base camp, and when the chopper came over the dropped them in a footlocker (or unloaded them more often.)

I was in a small unit and almost everyone was engaged when we had contact. The units not initially engaged would move up to provide more fire.

I'm sure there have been wound analysis studies done on both the 5.56 and the 7.62 X 39. I haven't read them, however.

I know if you hit someone in the sweet spot with a 5.56, he's going down If you don't, he's not. This seems to apply to 7.62 NATO, from the after-action reports of the Marines I read after the opening of the current gulf war.

Shot placement has always been the real thing. Most of my actual fire-fight time was spent looking at grass close up, and firing at flashes.

Ever since I got out of the army, I have never been without an AR for more than six months (Sometimes, bills had to be paid.) I now have three, and am seriously considering buying a CMP upper for the Colt I have. If I can find a good one.

Problem is, no one I can find has all the things I want. I don't want a cyrogenic barrel, (or don't want to have to pay for it) and I want to know who makes the barrel. Some are pretty sad.

I don't have a nostalgic desire for any of the military weapons that I have handled or used, but it would be fun to play around with a M79 grenade launcher again. Might be a real boon for Turkey hunting.

I don't have ARs for their nostalgic value. I like to shoot them as well.

They're very accurate, or can be....even the Colts with the NATO chambers.

After reading all these replies, it seems there are three camps. .308 M-14, AK-47 7.62x39 and M-16 .223. All have merit. Rifles seem to be divided into Valmet/AK verses M-14/Fn-Fal verses M-16 .223.
I have seen no mention of the rifle that takes the Valmet/AK action and the .223 or .308 caliber, The Israeli Galil. Excellent rifle. I played with a couple while I was in the Marine Corps. Shot as well as my M-14 out to 500 yards and was as reliable as an AK. It certainly has been battle tested. Any thoughts?

Apparently, the Galil has been discontinued for production. I heard it was a good rifle, but heavy.

Israelis are now armed with the M 16, for the most part. Except for artillery and relatively stationary units.

I didn't know this until I researched it, after being told on another site that was the case.

Odd that nobody has talked , except in passing, of the Garand. Best all around caliber most would agree, coupled with a time tested design. (Being a left-handed former Marine, I prefer the Johnson, but few have even seen one.)

The round in military form is about the same ballistically as the .308. Wouldn't agree it's the best caliber by a long shot.

Also, the Garand was the finest rifle of its day, but not necessarily of today. Low mag capacity. Long operating rod, which was easily bent, and somewhat (like the M 14) ammo sensitive.

A great rifle in WW II. In 2006, it's an honored vet, deserving its retirement.

Recent issue M16A2. Very very accurate, light to carry, easy on the shoulder. Serving the US longer than any other.

Depends on the enviroment, if I am doing building clearing, I am going to want a good Hi-cap shotgun with 00 buck, Mossberg 500 comes to mind, cheap and reliable. If there will be distance firing, I'll take an M-4 or an AK-74, weight and reliablity. I am a firm believer in not chancing running out of ammo, Back-up of course will be a good douoble action 45 ACP or a 1911. Of course all I did was clear bunkers the first time in the gulf, but I used my Bradley to do it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Les

AMEN!

BMT

Best "bunker-buster" M-551A1 sheridan 152mm or CEV with its 165mm!
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Mike

To the original question and with unlimited logistics:
#1 M-1 Garand in the tanker configuration as envisioned by G S Patton only in 7.62 NATO.
#2 Standared Garand rechambered in 7.62 NATO.
These to me are the ultimate MBR for INFANTRY, tough as nails and accurate to 600 yards with iron sights.

A side arm would be the 1911A1 in .45ACP.

No logistics to speak of would have me armed with the most common weapons of the enemy.

What is the advantage of having an 8-round clip-fed magazine as opposed to a 20 round magazine? Or a 30 round magazine, for that matter?

I never heard that George Patton envision a tanker M-1. Tankers don't in fact need a rifle...a subgun (the M 3) and the M 1 carbine were made for them. You don't have muchroom to shoot an M 1 inside a tank. I think the Tanker M 1 was the product of rebuilt M-1s with faulty barrels.

Accuracy at 600 yards is laudable for target shooters, but most combat occurs at far less range...something like 150 yards and closer. SLA Marshall determined this after WW II in a study of combat casualties. In fact, in combat conditions, WW II snipers were encouraged not to shoot at targets farther than 400 yards as under field conditions they were wasting their time and using up their barrels.

Current combat conditions are at ranges of 70 yards (bypically) and eat up a lot of ammo. Given the current trend toward house-to-house combat, which isn't likely to change since the world's population continues to grow, any one armed with an M 1 today in an Infantry unit would have a low life expectancy.

+1 on that Gene!

At a encounter of 600meters,I'd be calling in arty,60mm,81mm and 4.2" mortars(now it would be 120mm instead of 4.2) to deal with that range!

I have to find it quite laughable when someone talks of a "tanker-style" rifle.
In 1944 the M1E5 with it's short barrel and folding metal stock.
It was abandoned due to it large report and huge muzzle flash,during the summer of 1944.
During the 1950's(after Patton's death)Robert E Penny jr acquired Garand scrap receivers and had between ten and twenty thousand receivers welded back together.
This is where the "tanker Garand" came about as Mr. Penny envisioned a shorter model rifle to fit inside the turret,the model T26.
The short Garands tested for the Army during WWII were not for tank crews but for airborne and jungle-fighting troops!

During WWII the M3(stuart not grant/lee) and M5 tanks were given for crew personal weapons the M1928A1,M1,M1A1,M3 45cal submachineguns.

No Garands on Shermans either just Thompsons and "grease-guns".
Mike

This has been a very enjoyable thread to read.

In my opinion a shortened (20 in barrel) synthetic stocked M14 would be the ideal military rifle.

Oh, and before I forget:

MANY THANKS TO ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE SERVED IN THE MILITARY. WITHOUT YOUR SERVICE AND SACRIFICE THERE WOULD BE NO UNITED STATES.

HBB

Have you spoken with any Korean War Vets?
I heard that they did put some holes in helmets every once in awhile at some pretty long distances firing in the mountains.

I've spoke with a lot of them, in fact. Grew up around a bunch of Korean vets.

They fought bravely, were underappreciated, and were overwhelmed by firepower. Manpower = firepower when the manpower is armed.

Most Chinese didn't wear helmets, but your point is well taken. I doubt the average GI could hit a helmet at 300 yards, though, or likely not 200 with iron sights. The rifle just wasn't that accurate, although it was as or more accurate as any of its time. That's why they teach you to shoot center of mass.

Artillery and mortars and airplanes accounted for most of the enemy. They accounted for a lot of Americans, too. I would think very, very few casualties were inflicted by rifle fire at 600 yards by either side. That's artillery range.

The object of a sniper is to get close.

The Galil was one of the greatest infantry rifles ever fielded. It was not phased out because anyone felt the M16 is better, but for economic reasons.

See, Israel gets about 2.6 billion dollars a year in military aid (that number is a couple of years old, could be more now). The string that comes attached to that particular handout is that they are required to spend that money on US made equipment (corporate military contractor welfare). So as to be a better steward of their finances, Israel has actually passed rules (I�m not sure they are actual laws) that they cannot buy certain weapons systems domestically if there is a US made equivalent�And thus came the death of the Galil.

The Galil was an extension of the Valmet. When they setup their factory to manufacture the Galil, they had it setup by the Finns and the fist production run of Galil�s were actually made on Valmet M62 receivers. The Galil was in excellent rifle in most every way, but I still choose the Valmet because of the 7.62x39mm chambering. I just think that if I don�t know where in the world I�m going to fight, or what kind of fight I�m going to, the Valmet M62/76 in 7.62x39mm is the best go-anywhere, do-anything rifle.

Actually, quite the opposite. The sniper uses the extended range capability of his weapon to his advantage every time he has the option. The object of the sniper is to get close enough to ensure a hit, and not an inch closer.

Snipers are poorly equipped to handle anything up close and personal.

Snipers are poorly equipped to handle to handle anything up close?

When a sniper "team" is deployed to "hunt for" a specific objective/target,stealth & concealment are of the most important.
But when used as a "force-multiplier" to infantry platoons or squads,the spotter's are armed as a grenadier's with 203 equipped M-16/M-4.
Two-man teams are norm but have worked on three man teams while serving as a 11B3V!
M21 and a 1911A1
M24 and a M9
M82A1 and a MP-5SD

Mike

"Close" is a relative term. The closer you get, the better your chances of hitting are. It's the same with hunting; why take a 600 yards shot when you can take a 400 yard shot with a little woodcraft.

They do, in fact, operate in teams, and are as well equipped to handle VERY close combat as any other two-man team.

The typical sniper team (and I'm under the assumption that was what we were talking about) is armed with a bolt action rifle, M203, an average of 4 grenades and a couple of handguns.

Even if they were armed with twice the firepower, the fact still remains that it's two guys, and that was my point. That's why cover, concealment and distance is their ally. Snipers do everything in their power to keep the distances beyond the capabilities of the average solider.

Gene,

I sorta figured you were speaking in relative terms. You're right in that most sniper engagements are at ranges between 400-600 yards.

Kevin,
Lest not forget that a sniper-teams is also a Forward-observer,target designator and Forward air controller in addition to the fire-team mission.

When we set-up,we became more than just a "bolt-gun,sidearm,grenades equipped",we would cause entire units to "hunker-down" from the accurate fire instead of spraying about with a 30 round AK/M-62!
We had are escape routes planned and were also equipped with M14,M16 and M18 landmines.

Why do you think that we are known as "force-multipliers"?

One team can harass and harry a unit(squad,platoon,company)and delay or alter their progress.
By causing them to have to alter their main orders and go to "plan-B" is a win for us!

In a urban zone a team is as or more effective as heavy weapons are not as effective and most commanders do not want armor in a urban setting as they are easier to kill with their main guns not as effective.

Mike

They're building ARs now in the 7.62 NATO, accurized, for secondary weapons for the Sniper teams. Heard this from the horse's mouth. It's replacing the designated marksman 5.56 they formerlly carried. Ammo and shooting to the point of aim is the issue, I was led to believe.

Back in the day, I went to a US Army Counter-sniper Instructor Course. We shot the M-14 (I think they were called M 24 in Sniper configuration.) This was at the USAMTU at Benning. I was a cop and a SWAT sniper then. They no longer offer the course to civilians because of PC (either politically correct or posse commatatus, you choose) reasons.

It's relatively easy to get hits on a steel targt (steel so you can see the hit with a spotting scope) at 900 yards. This is from a foxhole, sling supported, with no danger of some skag spotting you first from a concealed position at 300 yards and drilling you. And, were I a sniper, and there was no wind and I had a clear targt, I'd probably take one. But not at the risk of revealing my position, because the chances are pretty dang low of getting a combat hit at that range.

It would require an environment without dust, dirt, and after a good night's sleep. While longer shots have certainly been made, one phenominal shot of something like 1200 meters, they depend on everything being perfect, plus a lot of luck. And that's why you hear about them.

On a good day, a proficient sniper could probably get hits all day long at 600 yards, but there are a lot of things that keep it from being a good day.

Also, from the same source of info on the AR 10-types, who was head of the Army Marksmanship Unit, a designated marksman with an M 16 (built) had confiremed 67 kills. This was two years ago. You don't hear about him, probably because most of his shots were from 150 yards or less.

Gene,
Those were M-21's!
They were replaced as primary sniper rifle in the Ranger Regiment with the M-24(bolt-action,Remington action).
The M-21's are still issued in the Regiment as mission dictates.
The 82nd also still has them available as mission requires.
Mike

They're not a bad rifle, but the stock is configured for peep sights, not a scope. We had to tape our shooting gloves to make a temporary cheek rest on the stock to keep from gettting fatigued.

I don't know why the Army never replaced the stocks.

I have no doubts the newer bolt guns are superior. At the time, the AMU built the sniper rifles individually, and I mean replaced just about every part on the rifle.

I'm not a M 14 fan, but the M 21 was a good rifle. Afterward, I bought a M 1A Supermatch, and it would shoot OK. But not like an AR that's been built, plus it was a lot more expensive.

I have a couple of years with the M21 while on jump-status.
Would rather a M16 when jumping static-line!

Myself,I would like the AR-10 as a base for the 7.62NATO sniper-platform.
The boy down the way from us just got home from the army, ETS!
He bought a DPMS LR-308(24"HB,flat-top,free-float)and was shooting at the 400yard target yesterday with 155grain A-Max handloads.
The wife after firing a magazine at targets from 100,200,350,400 and 600yards asked why didn't we use those in the Army?
She figured since every soldier for the past 40years has trained with the M-16,that the scaled-up 308 model made sense.
Mike