Anyone seen this? I know it will open alot of debate and I do not know exactly how they score each one but to say the M14 is ranked number 10 to the AK-47 being number 1, I was appauled. IMO I always thought the M14 was a supurb battle rifle.

I saw it last night.

Having battle rifles and assault rifles as
a mixed bag leads to confusion.

No one that knows anything would compare an
AK-47 to an M-14.

dxr

dunno, but the AK has been used as a battle rifle for over 50 years. It may not be everyone's idea of the perfect battle rifle but it's cheap, reliable and capable of killing people at most distances battles are fought at. It's extremely easy to field strip with few moving parts and operates when it's so nasty that it shouldn't. Parts are interchangeable even with guns made in different countries. Tolerances are intentionally left loose to insure reliability.

People say they aren't accurate, but the few that I've owned were more than accurate enough to make kill shots at 300yds.

Are they pretty? No, it's a damn tin can with a barrel attached to it. Would I rather have a M14? Well hell yes, It's a well made rifle, but it's heavy and hard to control in full-auto from what I've been told. Neither are good in a battle rifle.

If I was in the voting it would have been my #1 too. There are better made rifles, but you can't argue with success.

Terry

I really liked that show. I got it TiVo ed and I watch it again to irritate my aunt who is sick of me watching the military channel. I liked all the information. I agree that the battle rifles of the world wars can't really be compared to the modern assault rifles. I think they gave good specs and good commentaries. Then again if its on tv and has guns in it i'll watch it. Anything on tv talking about guns if good in my book.
Josh

Where was the FAL rated?

quote:

Originally posted by Tex21:
Where was the FAL rated?

curious about that myself.

Terry

Do not recall exactly but I think it was 6 or 7.

The FN FAL was rated 5th, and the M16 was rated 2nd. The FAL lost points because it was not very controllable in full auto mode. However, I'd take an FN FAL any day over the M16. I recently was trying to decide between getting an AR15 clone in 6.5 Grendel (have that caliber in a bolt gun) or an FN FAL clone (SA58 from DS Arms), and since I hated cleaning the M16 when I was in the US Army, I went with the SA58 Predator...

Just to show why the AK is so widely used and highly rated, we put on a little demo at the Canadian Historical Arms Society meeting in Edmonton one time in the '60s. Started by disassembling the rifle without tools (other than a loaded cartridge) and throwing the pieces on the concrete floor with gusto. Then reassembled the rifle without tools and it worked just fine.

I used to shoot the C-1 (FAL) in semi and full auto matches at the Sarcee Ranges in Calgary. Also have owned an Australian L1-A1 of my own and several other FALs made in various countries from Belgium to Brazil.

Which do I prefer? Well, when the chips were down in the real world, and I could carry whatever I wanted, I used a grease gun (M-3)!!

What do I own now? A Garand and an AR-15. I always found the FAL pretty difficult to shoot well in full-auto,and too heavy and too long to be really useful as a semi-auto battle rifle if you have to hump it around all the time.

What do I really like best? Me in a secure hole, and "spooky" up above in direct voice contact.

As you can tell, there is a lot more personal preference than good info in there, but everyone develops preferences depending on the circumstances they've experienced. The best one in combat I think is the one you have with you, loaded, and in working order.

The show rated the rifles on many different categories including length of service, widespread manufacture and distribution, as well as overall performance, ease of use, ease of maintenance, effectiveness of cartridge, etc.

When all of those things are considered it’s not hard to see how the AK’s could come out on top.

I love the M14, but they were only in service for a short period of time and the show rated them low mainly due to the difficulty of accurate fire when on full auto.

I won’t debate the validity of the testing and scoring, but the show was very interesting all the same.

What was the name of this show anyway? I'd like to look on History Channel online and figure out when it might come back on so I could record it.

I do not disagree that any of the rifles shown should be in the top ten. They must come up with some type of scoring criteria to rank them. I guess I disagree with the scoring system they used. I agree that the AK should be in the top five and all of us could come up with our own ranking of those rifles. I do disagree with the mixing of assault weapons with battle rifles. They are two distinct animals. IMO I would choose just about any of them over the M16 and I like M16's.

Well, it was their program so I guess they decided they could set any criteria they wanted.

Trust me, no matter which one came out as number one you would have no shortage of people thinking it was wrong and that their favorite rifle should have been number one.

I have never been a big fan of all this “better†or “best†or such-and-such vs. such-and-such rifle, scope or whatever. I thinks its all pretty silly, but it appears that I am in the minority in such thinking.

I did not see the list myself, but I've seen many such lists in gun magazines. I doubt the M16 should be even number 2. I know that a bunch of people will get on my case for saying that, but few other weapons in history have, as a result of their design, contributed to more deaths and captures of the troops that carried them. Over and over I read about m16s jamming in Iraq, and of course the disaster in Viet Nam, which contrary to popular propaganda was not cured by changing the powder. A good friend of mine who served in Afgahnistan told me that the damn things jammed constantly with out even being fired. The rifle was just not made for excessive field use in harsh conditions, unlike the FAL, or even G3, which has been used in many guerilla conflicts in Africa and Asia. The m16 makes a nice match rifle, but what good is being able to punch a hole in a paper target at 1000 yards when you are doing door to door, urban fighting? Hell, I saw a documentary about the so called "Zapatista" rebellion in southern Mexico, and they beat government troops using Stens and MP40s! Lots of M1 Carbines too. Anyway, I have said what I wanted to, and am now prepared for the flaming that will no doubt be the conscequence for my blasphemy.

quote:

Originally posted by Eduardo Morales:
I did not see the list myself, but I've seen many such lists in gun magazines. I doubt the M16 should be even number 2. I know that a bunch of people will get on my case for saying that, but few other weapons in history have, as a result of their design, contributed to more deaths and captures of the troops that carried them. Over and over I read about m16s jamming in Iraq, and of course the disaster in Viet Nam, which contrary to popular propaganda was not cured by changing the powder. A good friend of mine who served in Afgahnistan told me that the damn things jammed constantly with out even being fired. The rifle was just not made for excessive field use in harsh conditions, unlike the FAL, or even G3, which has been used in many guerilla conflicts in Africa and Asia. The m16 makes a nice match rifle, but what good is being able to punch a hole in a paper target at 1000 yards when you are doing door to door, urban fighting? Hell, I saw a documentary about the so called "Zapatista" rebellion in southern Mexico, and they beat government troops using Stens and MP40s! Lots of M1 Carbines too. Anyway, I have said what I wanted to, and am now prepared for the flaming that will no doubt be the conscequence for my blasphemy.

I haven't heard of many M16 problems lately.

Terry

I've never owned one, or rolled around in the sand with one, but I'm just repeating what friends have told me from their personal experience, as well as what I've been reading. Notice, I avoided saying what my list or opinion was on what should have been where on the list. I just think that the M16 is over rated. But certainly, the problems are much less now than they were in the 1960's. But then again, there are still problems that didn't go away, and our friends, brothers, and fathers have to trust their lives to something that could be a lot more perfected.

quote:

Originally posted by Eduardo Morales:
I've never owned one, or rolled around in the sand with one, but I'm just repeating what friends have told me from their personal experience, as well as what I've been reading. Notice, I avoided saying what my list or opinion was on what should have been where on the list. I just think that the M16 is over rated. But certainly, the problems are much less now than they were in the 1960's. But then again, there are still problems that didn't go away, and our friends, brothers, and fathers have to trust their lives to something that could be a lot more perfected.

That is exactly one of the reasons you are seeing more and more M14’s being brought out of moth-balls and issued to the troops.

M16’s can be great for certain situations, but they are not a fire and forget type of rifle. They need lots of care and cleaning to reliably function and the ammuntion/caliber has always been a source of bitter controversy among trigger pullers who want bad guys to stay down when they shoot them.

AK’s are incredibly simple machines, and they are manufactured with tolerances that allow for them to function when they are filthy dirty and clogged with dust, dirt, mud or whatever.

Tack drivers they are not, but at closer ranges they are pretty hard to beat and you seldom if ever need to worry about them jamming up on you.

AK-47 #1 ? Probably so, worldwide.

Most (but certainly not all) on this site know their way around a firearm considerably more than the average recruit. Going into combat involves a lot more than shooting tight groups from the bench or prone. Should you have 10,000 peasants you are trying to arm on a budget and get ~ready for combat, the M-16, M-14, HK, or FAL are probably low on the list.

In Africa I've seen a lot of illiterate types packing AK-47's. They probably couldn't flush a toilet or tell a Mauser from a Mossberg, but I suspect they would be quite formidable in a firefight.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Norman:
AK-47 #1 ? Probably so, worldwide.

Most (but certainly not all) on this site know their way around a firearm considerably more than the average recruit. Going into combat involves a lot more than shooting tight groups from the bench or prone. Should you have 10,000 peasants you are trying to arm on a budget and get ~ready for combat, the M-16, M-14, HK, or FAL are probably low on the list.

In Africa I've seen a lot of illiterate types packing AK-47's. They probably couldn't flush a toilet or tell a Mauser from a Mossberg, but I suspect they would be quite formidable in a firefight.

Very true, Matt.

The other plus for AK’s is that you can be in a firefight on Monday morning, bury the sucker in your back yard Monday night, dig it up on Saturday and start all over again, and do this month after month after month with no cleaning.

I'm in a bit of a quandry here - I've fired and used several of the weapons on the list and I cannot see how the M16, AK47 and the M14, FN FAL can be 'compared' - in fact, I don't think they should even be on the same list.
Talk about comparing apples with oranges, this is a classic case. I, for one, see a distinct difference between a battle rifle and an 'assualt weapon' even if I can't offer a concise description of an 'assualt weapon'
But you must understand, I'm an old fart - I never saw a full-auto version of the M14, only semi auto versions. A lot of talk about a heavy barreled version to be called the M15 as a replacement for the BAR, etc but I never saw one of these either. I have been told they did not perform as well as expected so they just went back and retrofitted the M14 with a selector - anyone know if this is the case?
A rifle with the weight and handling of the M14 firing a full power round such as the 7.62X51 makes absolutely no sense as it is going to be uncontrollable on full auto. The BAR was manageble on full auto but it weighed in at more than twice the weight of the M14, some 19LB vs 8.5LB for the M14. Burst fire may have been an option but I would wager not one person in 10 could have effectively used such a weapon in full auto mode.
As a semi-auto rifle, the M14 was superb. Equipped with a scope, etc it also made an excellent sniper weapon as witness the current usage as the XM21 or M21 - finally! And the Marines and SEAL's never gave up their M14's, or so I am told.
Just my take on the subject. I would very much like to own an M14 but doubt any will ever be sold through CMP or the like. Pity.

I consider a battle rifle a weapon that you
can count on for upper torso hits at 400
yards. The M-14 has the accuracy, sights,
and ballistics for this mission.

An AK-47 -- try it sometime.

But an AK-47 is a great (assault) rifle for inside of 200 yards. And especially inside of 100. And yes, it's cheap, simple, reliable, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by doctorxring:
I saw it last night.

Having battle rifles and assault rifles as
a mixed bag leads to confusion.

No one that knows anything would compare an
AK-47 to an M-14.

dxr

Given when I entered the service, I was issued the M1 rifle, the M14 and the M16 before I finished my 4+ year tour. My experience was that the M1 was heavy, recoiled like a bear, and was a terrific battle rifle. It could shoot 'em as far away as you could see 'em. It was pretty reliable and hard to stop. Its only real problem was the 8rd enbloc clip.

The M14 was a refined version of the M1. It used the smaller 7.62x51 cartridge, had less recoil, and could still reach way out there. It was not as reliable as the operating rod handle would jump of the bold if you let it get really dirty. The 20rd magazines were pretty large and bulky and the basic load was four plus one. I am certain that in the field the number of rounds carried went up, but basically you started your war with 100 rounds. On full auto, and only the two designated "automatic riflemen" were equiped with select fire weapons, it would put the third round of a three round burst in the sky every time. If you stiff-armed it in walking assault fire, it was a noise maker at best.

The M16 was an initial disaster that over a large number of years was perfected into a fairly reasonable battle rifle with the heavy bullet and long barrel, although it is sensitive to dirt. With the new M-4 carbine and heavy bullets, the velocities are too low for real long range shooting and the bullets are too small for close in work. However, the M16 and its follow-alongs have been in service longer as the primary standard issue rifle (40 years) than any rifle we have every adopted!

The AK-47 was and is a very capable assault rifle. The 7.62x39 cartridge is a more versatile round (about like a 30-30) than the .223, and the AK was a rugged piece of machinery. It was always more difficult to build (required more machine work), than rifles like the M16 and H&K which were made mostly from stampings and castings. AK's have been made by the millions, and can be found all over the world.

Strategically, the US seen a shift from potential warfare on the norther European plains in fairly built up areas, to urban combat and combat on desert plains and mountains. In both instances, the troops are armor/mechanized in most instances, which favors compact rifles. Urban combat calls for heavier, more lethal bullets where as mountains and deserts call for longer range weapons. Logistically supporting two different kinds of weapons is always a problem. Converting right now when we need more people and new equipment doesn't seem likely. Some special units may get heavier caliber versions like the 6.8mm or 6.5mm cartridges floating around, but we will probably issue the M-4 in .223 to most of the troops for at least 5-10 more years.

Given that you cannot take a personal weapon into a combat zone, I'd see if I could not "liberate" a Russian SVU sniper rifle in 7.62x54 as a personal weapon. It is a bull pup design, has a barrel length of 20", OAL of 34", handles 20 & 30 rds mags, and is semi automatic (there is a full auto version called the SVUA, but I don't see much need for that). I'd settle for an SVD, the predecessor to the SVU.

I figure on any battle field I'm likely to be on the 7.62x54 ammo is going to be plentiful, and I might even get lucky and find some Russian sniper ammo. Reasonably the range would be 400-500yds, which is about as far as my old eye can see. The fact that it has a scope appeals to me too. Kudude

If a country chooses to arm it's solder's with a certain type of rifle to fight battles with, that rifle is a battle rifle plain and simple. Be it a M14, Mauser, AK, M16 etc.

If that paticular weapon is more versitile it's only a plus.

To say a rifle has to be able to engage at a set distance to be a battle rifle is folly.

Terry

If I was going into combat I would take my FN FAL thats the rifle I was trainded on and the rifle I know.

So far, I'd have to agree with most of what KUDude says above.

I think it is very important to emphasize that there are battlegrounds where a long range rifle is important, but there are just as many areas in the world where the additional size, recoil, and power (and especially ammo weight) of the long range rounds and their rifles just get in the way.

As long as one is fighting in areas like the Near East, Af'stan, etc., a loaded, proper-functioning M-14, FAL, even one of the longish Russian sniper rigs will do just fine.

BUT, in many parts of Afrika, Russia, Europe, North America, and certainly SE Asia, there are still lots of forests, and there are better rigs to be had for application there. Ditto for urban warfare anywhere.

In most of WWII (except in the Near East and north Africa), the average range of a fire-fight was usually under 200 yards. Certainly also true in "the 'Nam". Personally for longer ranges, I prefer artillery or air support.

So, guess I'd say any ranking of rifles, whether "Assault Rifles", "Battle Rifles", or any other sort, is a bit of a sham if it doesn't differentiate what might be best in one environment from what would be best in another.

Truth is, any "battle rifle" which has to be used anywhere the troops may be sent is a compromise. And what may be the best compromise for a person in one MOS may very well NOT be the best for everyone in the rest of his Company, even if it is generally good for that particular terrain.

That's likely why in many U.S."special" units, team members are allowed to select their own "mission-specific" small arms.

As usual, my OPINION, not God's word. YMMV

I'd rather have a mauser than any of the others. But that's just me.

This cartridge would turn the M16 into a
battle rifle. 6.5 Grendel

http://www.defensereview.com/article600.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/6-5-grendel

I saw the History Channel show too, twice in fact. I have to agree with the AK-47 being on top, because of it's 50 year service life and still going strong, plus its serviceability in the hands of essentially illiterate troops, even in forces that cannot speak to each other like the old USSR Army. Should they have mixed Assault weapons and Battle Rifles? NO! There the Garand would have finished the story too easily, and what about the G-3 and it's fabulous ability to digest any and all ammo in the nastiest conditions? The folks that make TV shows are in it for the $$$, you have to remember that. They want controversy, which they get from people like me who become irate at the site or sound of an AK-47, and who still believe the M-16 is a "mouse gun" unable to compete with "real rifles" like the M-14, G-3, or FAL. (The only "mouse gun" I really respect is the Steyr_AUG, which did make the top 10 list as a ray gun)

Hey guys, it's only television.

LLS

I have about every battle rifle I can think of, and the AR15 is the best, usually.

At close range in the sand, the AK may be better, but if any aiming or range is required, the AR comes back.

My FALs, M1s, SKSs, bolt guns, etc are all obsolete.

The big deal with the AR15:
1) Soldier carries 400 rounds, not 200
2) Average soldier with training can shoot an AR15 better than anything else.
3) The AR15 has more range than needed for squad type engagement

MyNameIsEarl:

Yesterday I was reading a blog site that was quoting from military.com (a website I don't know) but it was a Marine oficer currently serving in Iraq. He said that the guys had constant trouble with the M16 on two counts. First, it seems that Iraq has a very fine powdery sand, almost like talcum powder that fouls up the action. Second, it seems that the 5.56 (.223) is not too popular. It doesn't have much impact on structures in Iraq (I guess he means in shooting at doors and windows) and that it lacks stopping power (I didn't say "killing" power) The problem, it seems is that in clearing rooms and at close quarters, the cartridge doesn't stop the bad guy always -and apparently many of these types are really hopped up -whether from fanaticism or actual drugs doesn't matter. They do try to keep coming. The same article highly praised the Mossberg 12 ga. - for obvious reasons) I was interested to read that the M14 and its heavier 7.62mm cartridge were considered superior to the M16. (Apparently the M14 is being used by some Special Forces, Ranger and paramilitary CIA people) Along the same lines, the Beretta service pistol is considered "average" - as a pistol - but there is an underground effort by everyone to get ahold of a 1911,A1,(45 ACP)because the 45 is trusted as a real stopper. There is high praise for the Barrett 50 cal. as a sniper rifle and for the Rem. 700 (worked up as a sniper rifle and using the 7.62mm) I'm just quoting from the article but all of this rings true to me. (Not looking for a fight, just my thoughts)

I believe the ak47 is one of the best but ITSNT A RUSSIAN DESIGN its an copy of the german stg44 .I love the fal rifle but its too heavy in cqb combat and after running with it a lot you will began to consider a more ligth rifle.I used an m4 but i have had some problems with it ,besides that i dont like the 5.56 for an animal of more than 70kgs .Juan

quote:

That is exactly one of the reasons you are seeing more and more M14’s being brought out of moth-balls and issued to the troops.

A lot has to do with who's using it. No doubt for an ignorant peasant to whom no-one has bothered to teach marksmanship, a contraption like the M16, or better yet, the AK, makes sense. Especially the AK, because they are harder to ruin! The M16 aluminum magazine dents too easily!

For a person with some marksmanship ability, especially in situations where point targets must be engaged at ranges measured in yards rather than feet, the M14 is superb.

On at least two instances in the Mekong Delta area where long shots across rice paddies were sometimes necessary, I was able to "suppress" VC in trees who were armed with AK's by using an M14, semi-auto.

I agree that the M14 is pretty useless in full-auto fire, but so are AK's, M2 carbines, and M16's as well. If you fire ANY of them full auto, the third or fourth and all subsequent rounds thereafter are going over the backstop.......

quote:

Originally posted by El Deguello:

quote:

That is exactly one of the reasons you are seeing more and more M14’s being brought out of moth-balls and issued to the troops.

A lot has to do with who's using it. No doubt for an ignorant peasant to whom no-one has bothered to teach marksmanship, a contraption like the M16, or better yet, the AK, makes sense. Especially the AK, because they are harder to ruin! The M16 aluminum magazine dents too easily!

For a person with some marksmanship ability, especially in situations where point targets must be engaged at ranges measured in yards rather than feet, the M14 is superb.

That's why the M14s are being brought back as Designated Marksmen Rifles.

The M14 may have had a short life as the standard issue infantry weapon, but it was never mothballed entireley. It was the rifle in most shipboard armories, it was used by EOD to destroy ordnance, and was used by special forces. It also makes a far better line-throwing device than an M16 ever will, but that's incidental.

The M14 is also used by a few other countries. Not nearly as many as the AK, but this sort of points to the fact that what is best needs to by qualified by the questions "for whom" and "to do what."

The Taiwanese built their own as the Type 57 rifle. The Philippines uses M14s mixed with M16s. They use the M14s to drive insurgents out of cover (what's cover against the 5.56 NATO round isn't necessarily cover against the 7.62).

Also remember that a military like the U.S. can back up the infantry with all kinds of air, armor, and artillery support. So the weaknesses of a round like the 5.56 aren't necessarily fatal because the infantryman is one component of a whole system. But in a lot of other countries the infantry is usually on its own. The Philippines has few flyable aircraft or ships that can get underway. Other than the Navy and Marines they really don't practice "jointness." Countries that are more worried about a military coup than an external threat like to keep the services as jealous and divided as possible. And it's not like the Navy could support the Marines because the craft that can get underway aren't exactly equipped to provide NGFS. So if you can't get it done with the M16, you'd better hope the guy with the M14 can get it done because you're almost out of options.

The Filipinos use the M16 because they get military assistance from the U.S. Their feelings toward it are that it may be a fine rifle for a first world country with a reliable supply system and plenty of money to spend on things like cleaner and lubricant, but not so much for a third world country with fewer resources.

So its natural that an AK47 is the most popular assault rifle. Your average Filipino who goes out and buys an illegal gun would much rather have an AK than an M16 because than he doesn't have to choose between eating and buying gun cleaning supplies. Buying gun cleaning supplies might also raise a little suspicion, I suppose, if you aren't supposed to have a gun in the first place.

But with all due respect to the Military channel that doesn't make the AK the best rifle for me.

Can someone please post the top 10 in the correct order.

China Fleet Sailor!! Excellent post! Your points are well taken, especially the idea of logistic support, lack of which certainly favors the AK!

Thank you for the kind words, sir.