If you were to carry any one rifle to all concievable theatres of war, which one would it be? Would you go for superb handling and accuracy (a tricked up M-16 variant?) or the AK's reliability and availability of spare parts/ammo?

I'll stay loyal to my old service iron, the G3A3. A good specimen is very accurate, it fires a powerful round, and I have never seen one misfire. Its only vice is that it is a tad heavy, but I can live with that.

~Snake

the G3 series is nice as with all HK guns. i would go with the HK91 or the BM59 phor most applications.(out side of CQB that is) otherwise, HK makes some very nice sub guns like the HK-MP5 or the HK-MP45.

i personally an a fan of the larger round.

i am also drunk and typing like shit so understand that i have to type check this.

anyway, an HK91 would be my choice.

I have to agree, the G3/91 design is by far a good all around weapon. 308 is a prety good battle rifle round.

I think a M14 would be in that same group of ultimate battle rifles. They are un weildley bitches in full auto though.

A close second would be a BAR just because of it's balistic advantage over everybody on today's battlefield.

The fact is that big heavy bullets are better at killing things than these pussy .22 rounds everybody is using. If one wants to kill an enemy he needs to start the bleeding, stop the breathing, and induce shock. Large bullets do this well at all ranges, not just 50 yards like a .223.

If I were to need an assault rifle, I would use the Ruger k-Mini-14 20GB becase of its light weight, reliability (much better than the M-16), and handling characteristics.

If I were to select any rifle, I would use a G3/SG1 system, FN FAL, or XM-25.

For me, the SAR21, it has same more power
than the M16S1, but much shorter. with built-
in scope, laser and flashlight. It is much
lighter than the M16S1...

M16S1: singapore version of M16, shorter
and lighter than M16A1/M16A2.

SAR21: Singapore Assault Rifle, looks a little like the Steyr AUG, it's body is
plated with kevlar, if im not wrong, it
has a 5x scope.Shorter, lighter than
M16S1...

NOTE: M16A1/A2/S1, and SAR21 all uses
5.56mm ammo

i just have a hard time condoning a 55 grain bullet as opposed to a 165 grain. why would you want a .223 over a .308? is it because of the recoil? or is it because thats all youve really had experience with.

everyone will tell you that a 9mm will kill and as much as i hate that little pussy round, i would have to agree. but only in the sence that a rock could kill a person. i feel the same way about the .223.
yes it can kill, but its not as effective a round as the 7.62-51 nato or the 7.62-54 russian. the only reason i could think of for choosing such a menial round would be your carrying capasity.
when i think of "assult" rifles, i think of being capable of engaging multiple targets at ranges phrom 50 meters to 800 meters accuratly. what 5.56 round and platform could acheive that range?
the best 5.56 platform in my opinion is the HK-PSG1 and it wont even appear on the paper at 800 meters.(and if it does, its keyholin like a bitch) i just cant understand the mentality of choosing the .223 over the .308.

im rambling again huh........damned vehemence

I've used both rounds extensively, and I'll admit that the 5.56 has some very nice things going for it. First off, it makes some nasty damage where it hits, regardless of its size (it takes a persons head off almost as bad as a 7.62). An M-16 is also controllable in full auto, and it has a 30 rd magazine that isn't too long to prevent effective firing from the prone position. You can forget about controlling the G3 on full auto (I've even been issued a single auto only conversion once), and even though I've never used the M14, I'd guess the same applies to it.

The controllable 7.62 alternative, namely the 7.62x39, fails in my opinion due to its extremely undesirable ballistic properties. There are some high quality AR-15 type weapons in that calibre (The PCR-6 springs to mind), but even though they are capable of 1.5 MOA gropus at 100 m with good ammo, their useful range stops at about 300 m. Add to that the fact that the rounds weigh almost as much as the 7.62x51, and it drops pretty far down my wish list.

The reason I still stick with the 7.62x51 is its superior range, and you won't always find yourself in the jungle, where contacts chiefly consist of sending a lot of shit flying in the general direction of the enemy and getting the fuck out. Its good penetration properties also come in handy at times, even in CQB. If you don't always have to aim at the enemy, but just the things he is hiding behind, it makes things a lot easier.

~Snake

Engage at 800meters with an assault rifle accurately? Not hardly. 800m is not a easy shot to do for trained snipers with a weapon made to shoot those distances. You may be able to produce shots hitting the ball park with some luck, providing some kinda cover fire, but scoring kills is highly unlikely. If your darn good you may be able to keep an enemy from moving easily. If you need cover fire when you are 800 meters from your enemy, consider yourself fucked and get the hell out of your position in a hurry.

If you are reffering to sniping you need a different plat form.

I think the 5.56 round is a good round, it does what it's supposed to and does it just fine. Yes it makes a smaller hole and yet a bigger hole is better than a small one, it still does the job. The M-16 is a great assault rifel, there were reasons that when it was first introduced that it suffered from many malfunctions. Those problems have been cleared away for several years now and the M-16 family of rifles are a fine design. I've shot Colts and Bushmasters both only to find I think both are great rifles.

The AK families of rifles would be my choice. Simply because of their renound reliability and avaliabitily of parts and ammo. I agree that the 7.62x39mm is not the best of ammo to have, but it to does the jobs superbly from 400m or less, which is typical assault distance. What it won't do at 400m is penetrate a kevlar helmet, where as steel core .223 will.

No bullets will take a head off, I've shot enough critters with enough guns to know better. Unless the human skull is just so much more fragile than any other animal's, I could be wrong. Unless of course we're talking very heavy calibers, perhaps a .50BMG and up. Make a neat hole sure, take a head off, no. I witnessed a cow being shot in the head 3 days ago. Brad, a guy I work with, shot the cow with a 2.75" 12ga Winchester Foster type slug (aka pumpkins, just normal slugs) from, I'd say 2 feet from gun muzzle to head. The cows head stopped the slug, to my surprise. I figured there'd be blood, bones, and brain all over the barn wall with a hole nicely in the center. Nope, no blood, no bone, no brains, no hole. I'm sure a high powered rifle caliber would've penetrated completely, yet I know it wouldn't have removed the head. Ball ammo which is full metal jacket doesn't expand for crap anyways, it's just make a hole, if it doesn't tumble, pretty close the same size of the bullet diameter.

If you want a firearm that can be used well at close range and still reach out there a ways I'd say first choose a heavy caliber. 7.62Nato or 7.62Russian to be the minimum calibers. Your system should also have a high mounted optical site, giving you the ability to use iron sites as well as you scope. For reliability use a fixed power scope, perhaps 6x, giving you a good combination of zoom as well as field of view. Also use a slim bodied scope so it doesn't snag much, 32mm is a good tube size for that, but they don't perform well in low light conditions. And keep the scope short, no longer than prolly 6-8" for the same reason as diamter constrictions. The rifle itself would be semi-auto (full auto is a waste anyways) and reliable. Carry parts with you that are prone to failure.

Some reasons the US adopted the .223 over the .30-06 or .308 make sense. The ability to make 1000yd shots for one, was not needed. World War 2 changed tactics, people were up close and moving fast. A heavier rifle that used heavier ammo slowed people down. Why deal with the extra weight and size if you didn't need it? The light weight of the .223 ammo made it possible for soldiers to carry more ammo without increasing fatigue. The M1-Carbine was designed for this purpose. It uses an intermediate powered round (though less powerful than the .223), is light in weight and held more ammo than it's M1 brother. In war there are two tactics to look at. If you kill a person you only stop one gun. If you just mortally wound a person you stop 3. The first is the wounded person, the other 2 are the people carrying him away. Wounding people also uses up precioius, few, and expensive med supplies. These people not being able to fight still use up food and water as well, wasting more necessities and making the war more expensive for the enemy. These were also thoughts going through the people's minds who chose the .223 caliber.

The downfalls of the .223 and the M-16 were mostly human. Troops were told the rifles were self cleaning. They weren't even given the supplies to clean their rifles. In repeated heavy use in an especially not so nice environment most any weapon will fail. The reason behind this were out great leaders who did not like Eugene Stoner (the designer) and his plastic gun. They wanted it to perform horribly so they did things to make it look bad, all in the name of their uneducated opinion about ballistics and what a gun should be.

The major design failure was that the M-16 barrel was at first not chrome lined. Another design flaw was in the action. The appearance of the M-16A2 was everything the M-16 was, without the flaws. Also every peron was eventually issued a cleaning kit and was taught how to clean their rifle. Since then, Stoner's rifle has had a pretty much perfect service record. Most of his rifles are little known about, but have influenced much of the world's gun designs. You can see his influence in Daweoo, Israel Arms, Uzi-Galil, and yes even in H&K. Take a peek at the Stoner 63A, especially it's internals. The man was ahead of his times and pushed the gun industry far ahead.

Sorry so long, I'm done now.

High mounted scopes are a half assed idea. Any time you mount a scope any higher off the plane of the bore you lose a level of precision. An adjustable apature or a removable scope is a much better idea. While people bitch about quick detach scopes not holding their zero, I have never experienced such problems.

HK G11
or M20

i think i would go with a steyr aug. it is comfortable to me, not incredibly heavy, and has a long barrel for its length(bullpup design). its not the best long range weapon but i wouldnt bother engaging a target at long range. size is a big issue since im a small guy.

when i say engaging targets at 800 meters, i mean being able to lay down supression fire or hit vehicles. the human body, at 600 meters, looks the size of a pin tip without using any glass.
if we were looking for the choise sws, i would have gone with the remington m-21 system. but this is an assult rifel thread and so sniping is kinda a mute point. still, my m-44 had adjustable sights out to 1200 meters and combat ranges of out to 800 were not unheard of when it was in service. even at that range, the 165 grainers would still go clean through cars and sometimes even into poory built buildings.
i dont doubt that the 223 has some vertue but ill stick with my good old 7.62s

Engaging targets at 800m ?
you need a scope mounted, and plus
natural factor like wind direction,
you really need some good aiming...

i would go with the ones i own m1 garand my dads old rifle my mini 14 and mini 30 there easy to take down dont even need a screw driver i love them ammo is soooo cheap for the 7.62+39 mm like $10 for a pack of 20 thats nz dollers tho and i can shoot the shit outta any thing aye i shot this goats front legs off one time thats when i knew i needed a new barrel cos i was worn out after bout 40,000 rounds i got it second hand for $400 new zealand its a beast cost $70 for the new barreldamn cheap and good used to have a scoped sks 7.62+39mm that was good nailed a few deer with it sold it years ago when i was bout 13 all my rifles are scoped except my mini 30

i would have to go with a AC-556 w/ a folding stock nickel plated barrel off axis mounted red-dot scope. can hit man sized targets out to about 500 yrds easy and got that nice full auto for anyone up close and personal.

"Two shots rang out. The muslim commander tensed. (...) Through my binos I could make out a figure lying prone on the hillside, motionless. He'd been shot from the forward trench by a Croat with a G3. The shooter explained to his leader that the Muslim had been venturing forward into no man's land to take up a sniper position on the hill. (...) As we reached him, I noticed a collection of dead wood around him. One round had taken away the side of his head, another had driven an airway through his chest. (...) I took an accurate grid with the Rockwell Collins. It was 700 metres between the shooter and the body. The guy had been hit with both rounds; in any soldier's language that's fucking amazing shooting."

From Mike Curtis' autobiography, "CQB", ISBN 0-552-14465-7.

The shot was made with the standard iron sights (he mentions secifically that the Muslims didn't have optical sights in another part of the book). I guess that kinda answers the question about engaging at 800 metres.

As for a bullet taking someone's head off, it rather depends upon what you mean by 'off'. Even a big round like the .50 BMG will leave the jaw and the lower part of the skull, but most high velocity will do some extremely nasty damage, especially if it hits glancingly. The following photo is the exit wound from a M1 Carabine, taken from "Pathology - a manual for medical personell" by Jon Lundevall, 4th ed., Universitetsforlaget, ISBN 82-00-02433-4. Since the .30 Carabine is not a very powerful round, wounds caused by higher power rifles will be correspondingly worse.
http://www.geocities.com/snakeeye_hvu/Grusomt.jpg

Although of questionable veracity, rotten.com also has some interesting case studies on show.

~Snake

bad link. it sounds interesting, can you fix it?

Oops, sorry 'bout that. It's bitch ass Geocities acting up on me. If you wanna see the picture, just copy the shortcut and paste it into your navigation bar. BTW, does anyone know of an effective way to remove moire when you scan pictures from books? Wrong forum, I know, but the image quality sucks

~Snake

I don't care for hi mounted scopes on rifles either, but in my experience it would be the best combination of quick aiming up close and making somewhat decent shots far off. A quick detach scope is just one more loose piece of equipment to screw with when it's off and I have had problems with losing zero as well. It's also not as quick as just raising your head.

My 98 Mauser in .308 carried sites that were adjustable up to 2000m. At 100m I could pull off a 3" group on a good day with target ammo. Using surplus ammo I gained an inch. So at 2000m I could expect a minimum group size of 80". Enter the conditions of battle and weather (good day for me = no wind) that group could easily double. That would put me at about 64" shooting 800m. Not impressive, but I guess if the shooter were lucky he could hit a car. No other weapon I have owned had such sites, but many WW2 era firearms I have shot did. If you have the ammo supply and proper support it doesn't hurt to take shots that far. However chances are that you don't have the ammo to waste from lead lobbing.

Back to hi mounted scopes, the one thing I do believe they work very well for is shotgunning. Shotguns aren't near as precise of rifles and losing that margin, doesn't make much difference. If you only were to have a shotgun and were in a woodland area with fields in the perimeter, it wouldn't be a bad set up. Again, only if you possess no other weapon than a shotgun.

I can't to that pic, it would be very interesting to take a look. I haven't been to rotten.com for a while, perhaps a visit is due. The last time I was there most gunshot wounds were from shotguns and point blank range.

I have seen footage of people being shot by an AK from 10ft or so, in the head. It took several shots before the head even looked disfigured. FMJ ammo just sucks in making in big holes. The same effect is seen on critters (ground hogs, coyotes) as well when hit with 7.62x39mm FMJ as well. The bullet goes in and out, making a nice neat hole. Throw in a soft point or hollow point and we get a mess.

3" at 100m real? thats a sad weapon. my M44 would do under an inch at at the 100 yard range, and thats about right for an unscoped high power rifle. modern tatical rifles are done out to pull 1/4 MOA out to like 200m or so. a MOA is about 1" per 100 yards and ive had .22s that sat sub MOA at 100. therefor, i expect my assult rifle to go at least sub MOA out to 400m (slightly more than 4" groups) gimme a .308 and a free floating barrel and i bet i could pull off hitting a vehicle at 800m with no problem.

i dunno, thats just my opinion.

sorry about usin both metric and standard.

Ok, since nobody seemed to be able to see the pic, I've put it up on a private server. Here ya go:
http://www.anathema.dynu.com/grusomt.jpg

And BTW, its the entrance wound, not the exit wound as previously stated. Sorry.

~Snake

if it wasnt for the weight ide go for an M60. unfortunatly im small and skinny and my little woman arms would break. so ide have to pick something a bit lighter and more tactical. Possibly an MP5KA4 PDW, or a, FAMAS F1! thats right, french military all the way. i could always go US Navy Seals and carry my ass an M4 but M16 variants can blow me! (the seals Do carry M4s dont they?)

nope, seals carry mp5a3s, but some marines have switched to the m4s now, think all recons marines use m4s, but im not sure...n how bout a stoner? the thing can double over as a fair sniper rifle n also a good machine gun

[This message has been edited by Nitestryker (edited 02-02-2002).]