Military Channel Top 10 Combat Rifle

I am only fortunate enough to have shot 4 of the 10 on the list and three of them were brief familiarization.

Of the four, I would rank them

1. M16
2. M1 Garand
3. AK47
4. M14

I think the list they compiled is based on how effective and innovative they were at the time they were introduced into combat. Their accuracy, handling, and service length were determined by the armies that were equipped by them.
 
a friend wanted me to shoot his AK, at first i declined, i finally gave in and fired one full mag from it and i was convinced of my beliefs of that gun.., i hated it before, then and now.

It is, quite literally, the people's (read: COMMIE) rifle...
Click to expand...

just my OPINION but way too many friends were killed by that gun, and just for that reason alone i despise that hunk of junk.

give me American made guns, M16/M4 are my choices for a Military weapon.
 
'the answer to this actually lies in the tactics of the day, not the fighting man's ablity or his arms."

Actually, the answer to that lies in the tactics of EVERY day since the introduction of the rifle as a fighting implement.

The inherent accuracy of one firearm vs another doesn't win battles.

It didn't win battles during the American revolution when American riflemen were picking off British officers.

An accurate rifle, in the hands of a good shot, can influence the outcome of a battle, or even an entire war, by cutting down an enemy commander.

As often as not, though, and proven time and time again during the Revolution and Civil War (and later) killing the enemy's command structure isn't a sure thing when your enemy is highly trained and battle hardened and already has a defined set of goals and expectations to be accomplished.
 
Oh, and I definitely don't agree with the AUG being on that list.

Good gun, interesting gun, but when compared to, say, the Moisin-Nagant for impact and longevity?

Cut me a break.
 
"It is, quite literally, the people's (read: COMMIE) rifle... "

Well, your opinion would have an element of factual incorrectness in it.

While primarily used by communist forces, it is true, the AK-47 and variants have been used by MANY non-Communist nations, as well.

Peru, Egypt, Finland, Turkey, and Iraq pop immediately to mind.

Hell, even the Greeks have used the AK-47 for their counterterrorism forces, and the Isralies put may AKs into frontline use because the captured so many of them at various times from their Arab, but non-communist, neighbors.
 
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.
Click to expand...

All of those above things require greatly on accuracy. Artillery, armor, air power is useless without accuracy.

If a tank can't hit its target, it can be taken out much easier.

Thats why carpet bombing was key in WWII because dumb bombs are inaccurate weapons that needed mass volume to make up for its lack of accuracy.

Artillery was used as a psycological and seige weapon until Napolean revolutionized the use of cannons. If accuracy wasn't important we wouldnt have a Fire Direction Control Center with every arty battery that calculates exactly where that round is going to strike to within a meter.

If you can't hit it, you cant kill it or suppress it. That is one of the reasons why the Marines are getting away from the SAW because the new IAR (I think is called) proved more rapid sustained accurate fire which is more effective than mass volleys of rounds. If the enemy doesnt think you can hit him with your suppression, then they fail to be suppressed.

Anyway, I think this list was used to show the impact that the rifle had on armies. Obviously the AK, M16, Enfield, and Mauser were revolutionary for their time of their development. Same to say with the STG 44. But I think the AUG is on there because it was the first widely popularized bullpup design and many countries now use that design, Britain, China, Australia come to mind.

My 2 cents...
 
"All of those above things require greatly on accuracy. Artillery, armor, air power is useless without accuracy."

Yes, accuracy is required to deliver either artillery or bombs to the target AREA.

Please don't for a moment, however, try to claim that the exact same standards of accuracy either apply, or should apply, to a 500 pound iron bomb or a 155mm howitzer shell as for, say, a Doughboy wielding an M1903.

And, given the unbelievably high number of friendly fire incidents that occurred during many of our wars, it's not in the best interests of the discussion to really try.

The salient point remains, however, that the inherent accuracy of a rifle will not win a battle.

On the point of smart weapons...

The accuracy of smart weapons won't win a battle, either.

Despite what CNN and Charles Hoerner would have you believe, smart bombs did not win Gulf War I.



Then, we have the entire discussion of what truly constitutes accuracy?

Is an AK 47 accurate because you can hit man-sized targets -- consistently -- at 400 meters?

Or is the AK 47 inaccurate because an M-16 will put its bullets into the same man-sized target -- consistently -- at 750 meters?

Or, does it really matter when A) few encounters take place at more than 250 meters, and B) when long-range encounters do take place, AIMED rifle fire is rarely employed as opposed to area suppression fire while heavier assets (Air or Artillery) are called in?

The guy who wrote "The Gun" goes into great lengths about the American military obsession with standard duty weapons that are accurate up to 1,000 meters, or more, and the myth that Americans are naturally crack shots who can be expected to hit and kill consistently at those ranges.

He also goes into some detail how those concepts of "every man a sniper" greatly hampered weapons development and adoption and how, in the face of a changing battlefield in Vietnam, it's a concept that started getting Americans killed.
 
When looking at the criteria that the show bases their decisions off of, I can see their reasoning behind the weapon choices. That being said, I do agree that there are other weapons that need to be included in the list. i.e. the Mosin Nagant

I have direct experience with some of these weapons and my top four would be these:

1. M1 Garand
2. M16
3. 1903
4. Ak47
 
My top rifles would likely be...

1. Lee Enfield

2. AK-47

3. K98

4. Moisin-Nagant

5. M1 Garand (could easily go higher)

M16 would be way down the list, M14 wouldn't even be on the list, FN-FAL... not sure... Steyr AUG, bottom of the list, if on it at all. M1903 bottom of the list, if at all. Japanese Arisaka should probably get at least an honorable mention.
 
It don't have to be incredibly accurate to hit a man sized Target. If accuracy won over firepower then all u would need is an army of marksmen armed with bolt actions.....heck, i just helped balance the budget.
 
"If accuracy won over firepower then all u would need is an army of marksmen armed with bolt actions"

That is exactly what drove US military procurement for decades.

All weapons MUST have accuracy potential of some ridiculously small number at some ridiculously longe range so as to allow our natural deadeye dicks to shine!

Additionally, all weapons MUST come with a magazine cutoff so that the responsible officers can control the venial urges of the untrainable (but highly accurate) louts who will just waste huge amounts of ammunition by firing without aiming.

During World War II those two concepts came into direct competition in a BIG way...

New troops to Europe and the Pacific were doing their very best to only shoot at targets at which they could see, and were doing their very best to take careful aim before pulling the trigger.

Why?

Because that's how the old hands were teaching them.

The first thing combat troops taught when they got to their new units is that following the drill instructors would only get you killed.

You fire in the general area of the enemy, you fire until your magazine is empty, you reload and you fire again. IF you actually see an enemy soldier, aim at him then, but don't wait to shoot. If you're shooting first, the other bastard is keeping his head down, as the old saying went.

Suppression fire and area fire is what allowed the American concept of fire and maneuver to actually work.

Sparse, ammo conserving, aimed shots at visible targets would simply have gotten the fire teams killed. "Well, that didn't work, so everyone start digging trenches!"

Last time anyone I checked, in order to provide area and suppression fire, you don't need a gun capable of cutting 1 inch groups at 10 parsecs.
 
It don't have to be incredibly accurate to hit a man sized Target
Click to expand...

The average man is 19 inches shoulder to shoulder, hence the dimensions of the E style military target. A 2 MOA gun is good for 950 yards, a 4 MOA target is good for 450 yards



Problem is, soldiers don't tend to stand up when being shot at. So if you only have a head poking out of a fox hole, lets say 8 inches then its
400 yards for the 2 MOA gun and 200 yards for the 4 MOA guns.

Now look at the battle field in Afghan. where more then half the been beyond 500 meters.

Ergonomics or ease of use has to come in. There really isn't that much difference in reliability.

Now which one would you really pick? As to cost, the army's buying the rifles.

Personally I don't think a 300 yard rifle cuts it any more.

In reality, if I had a vote (which I don't) I'd keep what we got and spend more money on training. Can you imagine how much things would be different if the army spent 1/3 of the time they spend on PT on marksmanship training.

Another way to look at it, in todays PC world, "total war" doesn't exist. Today rules of engagement call for preventing innocents from being injured, precision rifle fire is the answer. Sure "combined arms" is better, but we don't get that option now days.
 
Last edited:
Please don't for a moment, however, try to claim that the exact same standards of accuracy either apply, or should apply, to a 500 pound iron bomb or a 155mm howitzer shell as for, say, a Doughboy wielding an M1903.
Click to expand...

I only said it because you brought up investing in armor, air power, and artillery. All I'm saying is even area weapons have to be accurate. Not comparing them to a rifle...

There was a Gulf War I? I thought that was made up for George Clooney's movie "Three Kings".... sorry
 
Yes the marksmenship training when I was in the army was halfw##ed to say the least, like you said most of the focus was on pt or NBC training the guys that were good marksmen came like that already for the most part. I agree also with your assessment of the man sized Target. Many soldiers, of many armies, are not capable of 2 moa even if the rifle exceeds that.
 
I am sure that Kalashnikov could of made the AK47 more accurate if he had wanted to. Both the Germans and russians through experience of world war 2 decided that firepower won battles the AK was designed with this in mind firepower and reliability with adequate range and accuracy.
 
I've seen this segment a couple times and I always disagree with it.

5. M1 Garand
4. M16
3. Mauser 98
2. Ak-47
1. FN-FAL

And whoever said that the Marines believe in accuracy to win battles. Sorry, not really. When it comes down to it we just care about getting lead into the target and moving forward. Firepower superiority, proper positioning and reliable brothers win battles, not the headshot counter. If accuracy was a huge winner, the MG-42 wouldn't have put out 12-1500 rpm. Snipers can turn the tide, but not win the war.
 
It is for entertainment and if it seems like I came off on the accuracy part as arrogant I apologize (it was never intended that way) could be the Marine in me we thrived on quality over quantity. Accuracy over Volume. so that is why I begged to differ as for the Rifles I am particular to the Garand been raised around it since I was 8yrs old. So if anyone took offense to it I do aploligize. But I am not giving up my Garand:cool:
 
My comment regarding Marines and accuracy was tongue in cheek based on working with a significant number of Marines over my career.
 
All these type of lists do is to make people PO'd.

As someone else has mentioned the Brown Bess was possibly the most important shoulder arm in history. It served for well over a century in various armies. It conquered the world, or a sizable piece of it for the British Empire. And so on and so forth.

The Charleville muskets could have been swapped for the Bess and the British Empire would have done as well.

It was the highly trained army, more than the weapons used which made the empire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top