Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Military The best infantry rifle

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.