Best modern Assault Rifle?

[Firefly]

Not an area i know much about. What is the 'best' modern Assault Rifle? By this i mean the best all-round, soldier-friendly piece of kit? We all know the problems with the British SA80 but i've heard this is one of the most accurate rifles. The Eastern Bloc stuff is obviously rugged and easy to maintain, but is it any good? Opinions please......

[Guest John Sukey]

I would say the russian AK is still leading the pack. You can take someone out of the rice paddy or off the farm and with some basic instruction, make him effective. Its not sensitive to dirt, dust or anything else. The new AN90 is supposed to be better, firing three rounds before the rifle can move in recoil, but haven't heard much use of it in the field as yet, primarily because the russians can't afford to equip everybody. These rifles probably recieved a poor reputation mainly because of their third world users who put the selector on full auto and simply empty the magazine rather than using the sights.

Topic edited by Moderator, please adhere to forum rules.

[John]

I think the only great thing about the AK series is its simplicity,a nd the ability to keep updating it.
If it was that great a weapon system, all the world's Special Forces would be using it, or at least a derivative of it, like the Galil or R4 etc.
You've only got to look at the H&K MP5, which is used by everyone's SF to prove this theory.

[Firefly]

I thought the M16 was a pretty good piece of kit in terms of 'all-round' useability? I've always read how rugged the AK was but was under the impression it wasn't very accurate and was just a bit too rugged. Not suprised you mention the German stuff, is anything they make bad?!!

[Guest John Sukey]

The M16 is'nt all that bad, even though during its initial use, the military made a bollix of it by changing the powder and not providing cleaning kits. Add to that, MacNamara's bean counters thought it would cost too much to chrome the chamber. All that has been corrected. Now we have the problem with the ammunition. They wanted long range capability and made the bullet more stable. What went wrong there is the bullet gained its effectiveness by being UNSTABLE if it hit anything! The new short barrel version may be designed for urban warfare, but you can't predict where you are going to fight next. In any case, killing the enemy is not the objective (but if that happens its a plus) The object is to sit him on his arse to stop him from doing what he wants to. Not much bloody good if the bugger still manages to get off a few rounds in return or manages to fire his RPG . That's why the M14 is resurfacing in Iraq and Afghanistan. I guess we should be grateful the government did'nt cut them all up.

anyone think they will ever get the SA-80 right? Oh yes, the SA-80 is accurate, but as one soldier said "What use is it having a rifle that will shoot the balls of a gnat at 100 metres if bits keep falling off?" One wonders why royal ordnance did'nt field test the thing. After 100 mods, the MOD said" we have determined there is a problem and have taken immediate action" 20 YEARS LATER! One odd bit, the SA-80 is heavier than the SLR, only the ammo is lighter. Plus you did'nt have to retrain soldiers every so often in how to install the sling on an SLR.
First rifle you have to flood with oil to get it to work in the SAND. At least the SLR was'nt bothered by sand.

At least we finaly have got rid of the M60. I think the only reason it was built was so the french could not have the dubious honour of designing the worst automatic weapon in history(chauchat).

Post edited by Moderator

Edited July 13, 2004 by Vice Chairman

[bigjarofwasps]

Hi,

I thought the 5.56 (SA80 to civvies and hats!, on offence!!!), was ok. I never had any problems with it, especially when they jazzed it up pre Afganistan. M16 was okay a lot lighter than the 5.56, it must be doing something right for the yanks to have used it for so long. SLR now theres a quality rifle, you know when you`ve been hit by one of those. AK, narrrrr, it uncontrolable on automatic, heavy, however, it takes a lot of punishment. The roll of the British Army has changed as has the ethos of the way we wage war, the 5.56, fits the bill, and I think we`ll keep it for a good few years yet.

[Guest John Sukey]

Keeping the L85A2. Well I guess you will have to keep it now, as scrapping the thing would result in a vote of no confidence for Tony!
Of course there were a lot of people who should have been made redundant over that bollix. I was particulary amused at the senior staff officer who stated you could'nt fire a full mgazine from an SLR without a stoppage, as justification for the SA-80. I do believe he had his rifles confused and forgot which one he was talking about!

[bigjarofwasps]

Yes I think your just about hit the nail on the head, with all you comments there!! wub.gif :violent-smiley-007: :violent-smiley-017:

[Guest John Sukey]

Just curious, the SLR or L1A1 uncontrollable on full auto? But in the commonwealth it NEVER had the capability of doing that! There was a heavy barrel version that was select fire. The Canadian C1A1 later modified to the C2A1, but it was'nt very successful.

to answer Firefly's question about the AK being any good, Unfortunately I can only mention a black wall in Washington D.C. with over 50,000 names on it. The AK being responsible for a large percentage of them.
It's not as accurate as an M16A2 or a L85A2, but it certainly does well enough. I don't even want to speculate how many hundreds of thousands of people it has done away with worldwide and it is still doing it.

[John]

Interesting about what you were sajing abot the AK series. I personally don't rate it too highly in comparison to other assault rifles on an individual basis.
If you could choose any assault rifle to defend you home with, would it really be the AK?
However.....! Look at this Soviet export site , and look up the individual weapons and specialist....
You certainly can't fault them for adaptability....


http://www.rusarm.ru/main.htm

[Firefly]

Just spent an hour looking at that site, it's very very interesting. I particularly like the 'Underwater Assault Rifle', described as being for 'protection from sea predators'!!!!!!! Got to start saving up for that T90 now...........

[VonLuger]

I think any gun pointed at me in anger is an assault weapon-and what it can do it at the moment is the best weapon of choice....

though I do like my M-17......with red dot scope

[Eric K.]

I'm pretty happy with the M-4 it's very versitile,light weight and very reliable. Shooting at long range targets 400 meters+ is difficult but very possible with a little "Kentucky windage".

We're heading to Iraq in Nov. and we're getting some M-14's and believe it or not the Army is scrapping the 9mm and going back to the 45!!! We'll be getting those in 2-3 months.

Eric

[Bob Hunter]

Eric! Did you just say the ole' 1911A1 is coming home? HOOO YAH!

[Eric K.]

not sure if it will be a 1911 model but it WILL be a .45

Eric

[Guest Rob Field]

Not an area i know much about. What is the 'best' modern Assault Rifle? By this i mean the best all-round, soldier-friendly piece of kit? We all know the problems with the British SA80 but i've heard this is one of the most accurate rifles. The Eastern Bloc stuff is obviously rugged and easy to maintain, but is it any good? Opinions please......

←

Basically, there are two approaches to modern rifle design. One we will call the Western approach, and one we will term the Eastern. When used by field-manual standards, the Western rifle is more capable in the tactical situations it was designed to operate in. The problem is that the Western rifle requires advanced metallurgy, better cartridge design and testing to fit, improved soldier training and the everyday sort of low-key discipline necessary to compel soldiers to clean and maintain their weapons daily.

The iconic example of the western-style rifle worldwide is the M-16 series. Designed by Eugene Stoner, this lightweight weapon used an entirely new cartridge that boasted the highest muzzle velocity of any personal weapon in history. This combination of light weight and small, high-velocity ammunition allowed trained soldiers to reliably put rounds on target and to operate longer in the field because lighter ammo means more ammo. In short, the weapon can put rounds on target at longer ranges than its rival, the AK-47.

The AK-47 was designed by Mikhail Kalishnikov at the end of the Second World War. An early assault rifle, the AK had two criteria: ruggedness and automatic fire. The former was accomplished by making the weapon heavy and sturdy and by keeping the tolerances huge, up to a full millimeter! The latter was resolved by cutting the standard 7.62 mm round down to 39 mm in cartride length, producing the "7.62 Russian." This produced a lower recoil that reduced muzzle climb when firing the weapon on full auto.

During Vietnam, the AK performed well under difficult conditions but the M-16 was plagued with serious reliability issues. The fact that these problems were largely tracable to non-spec ammo issued with the weapons upon introduction did little to alleviate the derision that accrued to the weapon as a result.

Toward the end of the Cold War, the Soviets introduced the AK-74 series with their own 5.56 mm cartridge and tighter tolerances, representing a significant move toward the western school of design.

The major development in western weapons in recent years has been the "bullpup" design. Placing the magazine housing behind the action allows the barrel to begin farther back in the rifle, reducing weapon length without sacrificing accuracy and range. The SA-80 you mentioned is one of the outstanding examples of the type. The Austrian Steyr AUG has a somewhat better international reputation. Depending on the allowable length, one of these weapons will score kills at tactical ranges about as reliably as anything on Earth.

The original AK-47 and AKM, while fine for untrained civilians, offer no advantage to trained soldiers. The weapon sacrifices accuracy and therefore effective range for dubious reliablity advantages that apply solely to untrained personnel incapable of properly maintaining weapons.

Hope this helps.

[Craig Goodwin]

Hi what about the 5.56mm F88 Austeyr rifle ? from www.adi-limited.com :

The Steyr assault rifle is manufactured under licence to Steyr Mannlicher AG by ADI and supplied to the armed forces of Australia and New Zealand as well as other overseas countries. This state-of-the-art weapon is in service in over 30 countries. This military weapon meets today's challenging and unpredictable combat situations with the following features:

Very high accuracy

Fully operational in the most severe climates and field conditions for lengthy periods

Easy maintenance under adverse conditions: stripping for field cleaning, maintenance or storage is possible without requiring any tools.

Lightweight but delivering heavy fire power: the rifle is made from state-of-the-art materials including high impact glass fibre reinforced polymers.

A long service life

Ability to convert into any of four different weapon configurations:

Commando

Light support

Assault rifle

Carbine

Operational in low light conditions

Accepts various aiming devices mounted on a Picatinny Rail

The Steyr can also be fitted with a 40mm grenade launcher

To they don't look like a "traditional" weapon & I much preferred the look of the SLR but I guess looks are secondary to firepower

[PKeating]

Just curious, the SLR or L1A1 uncontrollable on full auto? But in the commonwealth it NEVER had the capability of doing that! There was a heavy barrel version that was select fire. The Canadian C1A1 later modified to the C2A1, but it was'nt very successful.

Performing "an illegal strip" and inserting a small object at a strategic point turned the British-issue SLR into a fully automatic weapon. I tried it once and it was fairly controllable but there was a risk of warping the barrel by subjecting it to sustained automatic fire. I never saw this happen but it is believable. We experimented with LMG magazines too but the springs weren't powerful enough to feed the rounds.

I was interested in the remark that the SA80 was heavier than the SLR. I'll take the man's word for it but I never noticed it myself. My limited experience with the SA80 before I turned my kit in was enough to convince me that it was a liability. I had one come apart during a jump and, no, it wasn't because I had my weapon sleeve on the wrong side of the container! The plastic bits came away from the metal bits and I had to tape the thing together for the rest of the exercise. I remember that the sight would de-zero itself if bumped even slightly during a tab or debussing.

I would say that the AK74 has to be one of the best all-round assault rifles from the viewpoint of being soldierproof and relatively simple to operate and maintain in the field. This is why so many armies and paramilitary groups, particularly in the Third World, favour the AK74 and, of course, the AK47. In terms of man-stopping power, it is as effective as the FN (SLR), the G3 and the old M14. Hit someone anywhere with a round from one of these weapons and they will go down. That can't be said of the SA80, M16 and all the other small calibre NATO spec weapons.

I heard that the reasoning behind the lighter rounds is that a wounded soldier ties up enemy resources. If true, this is typical backroom woolly thinking, courtesy of minds that cannot understand that "the enemy" today does not value human life very highly, beginning with his own soldiers. They won't stop to tend to their wounded in a battle. As one Chinese general famously remarked: "A hundred Chinese die for one American soldier...soon no American soldiers!". Or something like that...

PK

[Stogieman]

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the HK or the MP? Have these fallen out of favor? Used to be pretty reliable and accurate weapons. Or do we counter this with the rather high upkeep? I'd agree on the AK.... bury it in the mud for a month.. clean and clear it and it will still fire.

[byf]

The AK is a true work horse. Some time back I traded for an AKMS. It was the Egyptian model. It shot real fast and was a real blast with the 75 round drum. But, when trying to hit a head sized target off hand at 200 meters I could not do it. With any other rifle I can.(Its' not bragging if you can do it.) One time with my Kar 98k off a bench rest I hit a Stanley thermous at 400 meters. So I got rid of the AKMS. The bore looked good, so I don't know what it's problem was. They sure do look cool. Anyway that is my 2 Pfennigs.

byf

[Chris Boonzaier]

My thoughts on this have always been.....

whatever you are more comfortable with... possibly your first.

My first issue rifle was a FAMAS, noone would think of mentioning that here because it is not widely known or used, but I liked everything about it.

Its size, the perfect balance, the balance, the rate of fire on full auto, the single-3 round-unlimited burst possibility, etc. etc.

In the legion you had a very different mix of guys... many of them had served in other armies, I had not. For me the FAMAS was the rifle I "grew up" with. It became a total extension of my arm in the resect that I could carry it, sleep with it, move with it... and not even notice it was there.

Now, you would hear the other guys with previous experiance all arguing about what the best rifle was... what I always noticed was that the vast majority were always arguing for the rifle... they had first been issued.

The brits usually for the FN, the Russians for the AK, South Africans for the R4, Germans for the G3, etc. etc.

Carrying and shooting the FAMAS for me was like slipping into a pair of old comfortable slippers, I liked shooting other rifles as well, but there was never that feeling of comfort. It was fun, but you noticed that you held something in your hand, whereas the FAMAS was for me a freddy Kr?ger like extension.

The AKs may be mud proof and idiot proof and any untrained man can use it, but usually we are within a group of people with a certain amount of training and Flanders and Ypres were some time ago, any rifle will block with enough mud and I always learned to check and clean as often as possible.

AK s and M16s have the advantage that coke and heineken have, they are so widely exported that they are "the brands". Its like Hennessy Cognac, availible all over and a good, solid bit of tipple, whereas Otard Cognac is just as good... but throw the word "Cognac" into a roon and an almost automatic "Hennessy" will echo back.

There are many way of choosing the best rifle

1) Which has proved itself the most in action---- could simply stack up to "which has been marketed and sold the most"

2) Experts tested rifles a, b and c. --- very subjective, sometimes you have experts testing WW1 rifles and the Mauser leaves the Lee Enfield in the dust, with the next testers the Lee enfield wins hands down. Dont forget, every piece of cr2p an army adopts was tested by experts somewhere down the line.

for me the best rifles is the one I feel most comfortable with, thats the FAMAS. Sure, I can carry more mud around in the barrel of a AK47, or attach more gadgets to a M16, or beat someones skull in better with a G3, and the Galil has a built in bottle opener (ah! most bottles have twist off caps nowdays!), but I never had a problem with the FAMAS and it is .... well... just "right" for me.

[Guest Rob Field]

The AK is a true work horse. Some time back I traded for an AKMS. It was the Egyptian model. It shot real fast and was a real blast with the 75 round drum. But, when trying to hit a head sized target off hand at 200 meters I could not do it. With any other rifle I can.(Its' not bragging if you can do it.) One time with my Kar 98k off a bench rest I hit a Stanley thermous at 400 meters. So I got rid of the AKMS. The bore looked good, so I don't know what it's problem was. They sure do look cool. Anyway that is my 2 Pfennigs.

byf

←

The problem with the AK series is its tolerances. The pieces fit so loosely that the weapon flexes and arches when fired. Since the barrel moves during firing, it throws the bullet off course.

Added to that is the fact that, while the Kar 98K fires a full-size, high-velocity 7.92 mm round, the AK uses the 7.62mm "Russian" which is a cut-down, low-velocity round. This further decreases range and accuracy.

The high tolerances are the reason the weapon can fire when dirty (and is easy to mass-produce and field-service), and the cut-down round is a copy of the technique the Germans used to make the MP-44 more stable at full auto.

All of this means that the AK is not designed for accurate shooting by trained personnel. It was a Russian weapon, designed for Russian needs. It enabled a half-trained conscript force to put a large number of rifle bullets in the air to support a close-quarters assault and repel an invader. When you give the weapon a western-style mission, like hitting a small target with a single round, it is like commuting to work on a unicycle. It's the wrong tool for the job.

[Guest Rob Field]

My thoughts on this have always been.....

whatever you are more comfortable with... possibly your first.

My first issue rifle was a FAMAS, noone would think of mentioning that here because it is not widely known or used, but I liked everything about it.

Its size, the perfect balance, the balance, the rate of fire on full auto, the single-3 round-unlimited burst possibility, etc. etc.

In the legion you had a very different mix of guys... many of them had served in other armies, I had not. For me the FAMAS was the rifle I "grew up" with. It became a total extension of my arm in the resect that I could carry it, sleep with it, move with it... and not even notice it was there.

Now, you would hear the other guys with previous experiance all arguing about what the best rifle was... what I always noticed was that the vast majority were always arguing for the rifle... they had first been issued.

The brits usually for the FN, the Russians for the AK, South Africans for the R4, Germans for the G3, etc. etc.

Carrying and shooting the FAMAS for me was like slipping into a pair of old comfortable slippers, I liked shooting other rifles as well, but there was never that feeling of comfort. It was fun, but you noticed that you held something in your hand, whereas the FAMAS was for me a freddy Kr?ger like extension.

The AKs may be mud proof and idiot proof and any untrained man can use it, but usually we are within a group of people with a certain amount of training and Flanders and Ypres were some time ago, any rifle will block with enough mud and I always learned to check and clean as often as possible.

AK s and M16s have the advantage that coke and heineken have, they are so widely exported that they are "the brands". Its like Hennessy Cognac, availible all over and a good, solid bit of tipple, whereas Otard Cognac is just as good... but throw the word "Cognac" into a roon and an almost automatic "Hennessy" will echo back.

There are many way of choosing the best rifle

1) Which has proved itself the most in action---- could simply stack up to "which has been marketed and sold the most"

2) Experts tested rifles a, b and c. --- very subjective, sometimes you have experts testing WW1 rifles and the Mauser leaves the Lee Enfield in the dust, with the next testers the Lee enfield wins hands down. Dont forget, every piece of cr2p an army adopts was tested by experts somewhere down the line.

for me the best rifles is the one I feel most comfortable with, thats the FAMAS. Sure, I can carry more mud around in the barrel of a AK47, or attach more gadgets to a M16, or beat someones skull in better with a G3, and the Galil has a built in bottle opener (ah! most bottles have twist off caps nowdays!), but I never had a problem with the FAMAS and it is .... well... just "right" for me.

←

In the modern environment, the most widely-used weapons are those cheapest to manufacture. You would not hear an automotive enthusiast use the most-used argument as a proof of quality in a car.

A subjective approach to this issue makes little sense because a rifle is a machine whose performance can be measured. Obviously people have emotional attachments to their issued weapon because your first issued weapon is like the loss of virginity to a fighting man, but that should not affect your judgement.

My first issued weapon was the M-16A2, but its muzzle velocity, quality of manufacture, and resultant accuracy justify my attachment. However, bullpup is a direction I wish my country would move in, and the Steyr is possibly a superior weapon. I haven't fired the FAMAS, but it's a Western weapon along the same lines, and I think I know what to expect.

Muzzle velocity, quality of materials, low tolerances, and lightweight ammunition produce kills and prevent casualties on the battlefield. These are objective factors that produce objective, proven results. They are not a matter of opinion.

[Paul R]

I feel that the best all around Assualt Rifle is the M16 for it's accuracy, lack of recoil, the three round bust(for controlled bursts of auto), and weight.

We in the Coast Guard are getting away from the Beretta as well. We are moving toward the Sig .40(I thought that all of the branches were going to that as well)

Best regards

Paul

[Hun Helmet]

Hands down it is a new Russian designed rifle that I am sorry to say I forget what it's called. It is not an AK47 or a variant but looks a bit line one. Production started early 90's and it sports a variable automatic feed rate and starts off at one speed and I think decreases. The hit probability factor is increased this way.

Sorry all I got on it at the moment.

Mike