Military Channel Top 10 Combat Rifle

M

Marquezj16

New member
I just watched the countdown. Here's their Top 10

10. M14
9. Sturmgewehr 44
8. 1903 Springfield
7. Steyr AUG
6. Mauser 98
5. FN FAL
4. M1 Garand
3. Lee Enfield SMLE
2. M16
1. AK47

I'm sure we all have our own Top 10 but from the list above what's your Top 5?
 
I'm not sure what they mean by Top 10? Of their era?

5 Brown Bess
4 Henry
3 '98 Mauser
2 Garand
1 AK106*

This list doesn't cover every time period but does cover a lot of time.

* Columbia is, as far as I know, the only place these are being used.
 
Funny mistake on the show, the graphic for the '03 lists it's effective range as 600 yards. The Mosin should have made the list and not the honorable mention segment, the M14 has no business on the list. Great rifle but hardly a top ten of the last 100 years.

5. M1 Garand
4. Lee-Enfield
3. M16
2. AK 47
1. Mauser 98
 
This has come up before, and there's no end of "discussion" on it. :)

I agree, the M14 has no business on that list at all. Its scores for innovation and service length should be non-existent.

I'm not even sure I'd put the 1903 Springfield on top 10. Service length was OK, but innovation was also pretty much non-existent.
 
What gets me, every time you have the top ten rifles, the AK always comes on top simply because there are more then them.

There is more of them because the russians and chinese gave them to any one who was commie, or hated the west.

How does giving something away make it better then everything else.

There are several on the list that beat out the AK in every catagory except pure numbers.
 
There is more of them because the russians and chinese gave them to any one who was commie, or hated the west.
Click to expand...
The US did the same with the M-16, what's your point?

It's not the AK's fault that the M-16 cannot be mass produced as inexpensively and with a more primitive industrial base than the AK and as such could not be produced in such quantities as the AK could be.
 
The US didn't give away M16's to the 65 nations currently using it. They bought them, and a plant to make them on their own.

No one forced them the way the AK came into use. No, the countries now using M16's CHOOSE to do so. That's the major difference. It was considered a better weapon than what was on the list, most of which are Curios and Relics by virtue of the 50 year rule of the BATF.

That's why the list is silly, professionals choose what's being used in countries right now, and those are the weapons that excel in Accuracy, Combat Effectiveness, Innovation, Handling, and Service Length. They have all that, and haven't been superceded yet.

"Top Ten?" Not if they're fifty years old.
 
To choose your best of the two:

Take both (AR & AK) and shoot them. Put them to your shoulder and see which sights line up the best.

See which has the easiest sights to adjust, both elevation and wind age.

Can you adjust the sights without taking the rifle from your shoulder?

While the rifle is to your shoulder, without loosing your sight picture, or grip, release the magazine with your right or shooting hand, let the mag fall as you reach for a second magazine and load it with out looking.

Now, again without changing your grip, release the safety. Shoot 100, 200, and 300 yards and see which one shoots the best.

Shoot a steel pot at 300 yards, see which one penetrates.

We wont even talk about going to 600 or 1000 yards.

Shoot as many rounds as you can afford to shoot out of each gun and compare the reliability.

List all of the above on a piece of paper and then check which one has the most checks.

Then tell yourself which you think would be number one.

Don't have to post the results, just be honest with your self.
 
"The US didn't give away M16's to the 65 nations currently using it. They bought them, and a plant to make them on their own."

I think you'll find that that is incorrect.

Small arms have been an extensive part of US military aid for decades, including the M16.

Everyone who is decrying the AK-47 simply because it's cheap and was given away in huge numbers is missing the very important point of the impact that it has had on modern history.

It is, quite literally, the people's rifle. Its learning and care curves are far less steep than the M-16.

If you're looking to arm a rag-tag bunch of dirt farmers and give them only the most rudimentary training (click this, pull this, press this) and not worry about care, cleaning, disassembly, etc., you want an AK. The AK is probably the single most perfect weapon ever created for unorganized warfare.

Is it as accurate as the M-16? No. But accuracy doesn't win battles (no matter what the Marines think).

But, if I needed a rifle that absolutely, positively had to work, and work no matter what kind of abuse I heaped on it, and how little care I gave it, I'd leave my AR-15 in my gunsafe and take an AK-47.
 
the M-16 in the piston operated configuration would have the AK beat otherwise they are a close tie for first my biggest argument was the place of the Garand. 4th? under the Enfield, not likely bolt action over a semi auto? :confused: Please. I think they got into the cat littler box before the got to the Enfield. I would have to agree with chuckles on the rankings of the Garand 3rd. Would be a good solid spot for it.
 
I would have to argue that the Garand for innovation reliability and accuracy had the AK beat. Innovation due the fact that the piston operation came from the Garand. As for the accuracy part on not winning the a battle tell that to the Marines that were taking head shots in western Iraq and in in history Belleau wood, And Chateau Thierry in WW1 because that is all they had to shoot at.

Volume of fire has something to say but if you cant hit what your aiming at it does you no good. For what the AK is it did very well it was rugged, reliable, and very user friendly to the illiterate. But give two forces that are equally equipped and trained that those with accuracy will win every. Not saying Mike that volume has its place because it does. But is it everything no. when you have a rag tag force that is limited in logistics they lack the volume to sustain a fight. Here I would beg to differ.

To each our own would I carry a M16 or a AR no not it its current configuration, piston operated only and only in desperation in its old form, but given the choice for me IMO the Garand is the only thing I would need.
 
Enfield beats Garand on length of service, it's up there, or better, in terms of overall firepower, it can hold its own accuracy wise, and its impact on world history was absolutely immense, so yeah, I can buy the Lee-Enfield beating the Garand.


"As for the accuracy part on not winning the a battle tell that to the Marines that were taking head shots in western Iraq and in in history Belleau wood, And Chateau Thierry in WW1 because that is all they had to shoot at."

I suspect that even the Marines would agree that accuracy doesn't win battles.

If accuracy did win battles, the US wouldn't have had to have invested such enormous sums of money into things like armor, artillery, and air power.

Accuracy can win ENCOUNTERS, but that is considerably different than winning a battle.

If accuracy truly won the battle of Belleau Wood, why did the 6th Machine Gun Battalion figure so prominently and critically in the battle?

If 1 Marine + 1 Accurate Rifle = Crushing, unstoppable, battle winning dominance, why was Belleau Wood essentially another in an endless litany of battles of attrition that lasted nearly a month, saw numerous Marine attacks repulsed by German machine guns, and numerous times dissolved into exceptionally vicious bayonette and hand-to-hand fighting?
 
Yep.

But everytime lists like these come up it seems that a significant number of people rank them as "Anything American, even the worst piece of crap, is NUMBER ONE AND I'LL KILL ANYONE WHO DISAGREES!!!!!!!"

In the past there's also been a signficant element of making stuff up to "prove" the point that anything American is numero uno.

I hope that doesnt' start happening here.
 
i would have to argue that the Garand for innovation reliability and accuracy had the AK beat.
Click to expand...

what about the issues with them freezing up in korea?
there are other guns that have the ak beat in certain areas, but no other gun is as even across the board as the ak.
the ak is not inaccurate, it's just not a easy to shoot accuratly as the m16.

the largest difference between the ak and the m16 is the type of fighting forces that field them.
one is well trained and organised, the other rag tag....it's hard to shoot well when holding the gun sideways and over your head......
 
If 1 Marine + 1 Accurate Rifle = Crushing, unstoppable, battle winning dominance, why was Belleau Wood essentially another in an endless litany of battles of attrition that lasted nearly a month, saw numerous Marine attacks repulsed by German machine guns, and numerous times dissolved into exceptionally vicious bayonette and hand-to-hand fighting?
Click to expand...

the answer to this actually lies in the tactics of the day, not the fighting man's ablity or his arms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top