StarDestroyer.Net BBS

which is better personally i like the m-4 the reason no m-203 combos is because those would win hands down

Of the listed rifles I would prefer the AK-74 due to its simplicity and reliability.

If I had to choose a particular rifle though I would go with the AK-74's venerable sire, the AK-47, in the 7.62x54mm round. Hands down the best assault rifle ever. Rugged, reliable and completly idiot and murphy proof.

M16A2 has all the others outclassed easily except for the M4A1, and that's debateable. The M16 is a bit more accurate than the M4, but the M4 is more compact, easier to use in CQB, and the -A1 is full-auto.

Sokar wrote:If I had to choose a particular rifle though I would go with the AK-74's venerable sire, the AK-47, in the 7.62x54mm round. Hands down the best assault rifle ever. Rugged, reliable and completly idiot and murphy proof.

Gotta disagree with you there... -47 had shitacular range as well as a very exposed gas chamber...

yes but the AK-74 is in my opipion not that great of a rifle i would go with the M-21 for its stoping power

The best time to have the 203 is on the defense. Other than that, a straight rifle will do just nicely.

BTW, you should have put the FN FAL up there in the list.

EmperorMing wrote:The best time to have the 203 is on the defense. Other than that, a straight rifle willd o just nicely.

I've heard it is good for taking out vehicles and fixed postions

JediNeophyte wrote:M16A2 has all the others outclassed easily except for the M4A1, and that's debateable. The M16 is a bit more accurate than the M4, but the M4 is more compact, easier to use in CQB, and the -A1 is full-auto.

Actually, I was under the impression that the M-16 had a sizable recoil, at least compared to the M-4.

Exonerate wrote:

JediNeophyte wrote:M16A2 has all the others outclassed easily except for the M4A1, and that's debateable. The M16 is a bit more accurate than the M4, but the M4 is more compact, easier to use in CQB, and the -A1 is full-auto.

Actually, I was under the impression that the M-16 had a sizable recoil, at least compared to the M-4.

Youcould put the M16 on your face and squeeze the trigger and not get knocked back. Nice buffer spring in there...

Exonerate wrote:

JediNeophyte wrote:M16A2 has all the others outclassed easily except for the M4A1, and that's debateable. The M16 is a bit more accurate than the M4, but the M4 is more compact, easier to use in CQB, and the -A1 is full-auto.

Actually, I was under the impression that the M-16 had a sizable recoil, at least compared to the M-4.

The M-4, being smaller and lighter, yet using the same action and ammunition as the M-16, has a greater kick, but still not much. A M-16 has a bit of recoil, but nothing hard.

As for my vote, I am debating between the M-14 and M-16. The M-14 is ultra accurate and is a proven and rugged action with greater power than the M-16. The M-16 is also accurate, but is lighter, and has a smaller cartridge, so a soldier can carry more ammunition than an M-14. It sacrifices range and power for logistics and weight. Not necessarily a bad tradeoff in the .223(5.56mm) vs. the .308 (7.62mm), as the 5.56 can take down pretty much anyone through most body armor.

I notice a disturbing lack of the G36.

You shall pay for this....

Hotfoot wrote:I notice a disturbing lack of the G36.

You shall pay for this....

There's a ton of modern rifles missing...

M16 with some hesitation. The M4 is novel but only has limited uses. The 14 is all kinds of sweet, she is durable and reliable. But I perfer a higher volume of fire that what the 14 can dish out (I am a machinegunner at heart). The AK series I think are over rated. Yes you can drag them through hell and back and they will still fire, but they are a spray and pray weapon. Very little in the way of finesse and heavy on spitting out a wall of lead.

Actually, I was under the impression that the M-16 had a sizable recoil, at least compared to the M-4.

The recoil on the M16 (either A1 or A2) is too small to matter much for the shooter, atleast at short range.

I've heard it is good for taking out vehicles and fixed postions

Only if those vehicles are standing still. Engaging targets with HE with the 203 is a bitch. More direct fire loads, such as the flechett round, are easier to engage targets with.

JediNeophyte wrote:There's a ton of modern rifles missing...

Being the resident H&K whore, however, the lack of the G36 from this poll is disturbing. Rest assured, measures have been taken to...correct this gross oversight.

It would depend upon the intended purpose.

If I wanted an all around battle rifle with range, accuracy, and reliability, I'd probably choose a HK G3 or FN FAL over anything listed. And I wouldn't use full auto except for extreme emergency due to the recoil generated by the full power 7.62x51 NATO round.

If I wanted something suitable for CQB, the M4 is the obvious choice.

If I were arming an indigenous militia with little training, the AK series wins hands down due to low cost, ease of maintenance, and reliablity under extreme conditions of neglect and abuse.

If I wanted an Assault Rifle (fires an intermediate power cartridge that's controllable in offhand full auto fire), I'd probably go with either the M16A2 as issued by the Canadian Forces or the Israeli Galil.

Sokar wrote:
If I had to choose a particular rifle though I would go with the AK-74's venerable sire, the AK-47, in the 7.62x54mm round. Hands down the best assault rifle ever. Rugged, reliable and completly idiot and murphy proof.

The AK-47s round is 7.62x39mm. The Russian 7.62x54R is actually the oldest round in service anywhere, being introduced into service in the Imperial Russian Army in 1891, IIRC, perhaps earlier. It is currently taken by the SVD sniper rifle and PKM medium machine gun.

I'd take the AK-101, which is an AK-74 in 5.56x45mm, personally. Best of both worlds.

Quite frankly, while the G36 is very sexy, it's not exactly combat proven. The M14, M16, M4, and AK series, are.

Vympel wrote:Quite frankly, while the G36 is very sexy, it's not exactly combat proven. The M14, M16, M4, and AK series, are.

Are you certain that it's never been used in combat?

The M-21 is nice for sniping but isn't even an assault rifle. What the best assault rifle is would be dependant on your army. I'd probably go for either AK-101's, or an M-16/M-4 mix.

Hotfoot wrote:

Vympel wrote:Quite frankly, while the G36 is very sexy, it's not exactly combat proven. The M14, M16, M4, and AK series, are.

Are you certain that it's never been used in combat?

Its possibul Thailand has used them, they bought a bunch of the carbine version IIRC to replace P-90's for MPs, and their army sees a lot of action against drug runners. US Police also have likely shot there at least a few times, but that's not the same.

Anget Fisher wrote: the reason no m-203 combos is because those would win hands down

There's nothing special about the M-203, and the AK series along with just about every assault rifle has under slung grenade launchers available.

Vympel wrote: The Russian 7.62x54R is actually the oldest round in service anywhere, being introduced into service in the Imperial Russian Army in 1891, IIRC, perhaps earlier.

The original round dates to 1891, however the design was updated in 1908 and that’s what's currently used.

Hotfoot wrote:

Vympel wrote:Quite frankly, while the G36 is very sexy, it's not exactly combat proven. The M14, M16, M4, and AK series, are.

Are you certain that it's never been used in combat?

The german troops in Afghanistan may have had to use theirs a couple of times, but I would not exactly call that 'combat proven'.
Unless some other military has used them in extended conflicts elsewhere?
Personally, I think it quite simply hasn't been around long enough to prove itself one way or the other.

Sokar wrote:Of the listed rifles I would prefer the AK-74 due to its simplicity and reliability.

If I had to choose a particular rifle though I would go with the AK-74's venerable sire, the AK-47, in the 7.62x54mm round. Hands down the best assault rifle ever. Rugged, reliable and completly idiot and murphy proof.

And also just a glorified sub machine gun in combat.

Bah, if there isn't a H&K model in there then it isn't worth my time.

Batman wrote:The german troops in Afghanistan may have had to use theirs a couple of times, but I would not exactly call that 'combat proven'.

Yup, it's quite hard to tell how much the KSK was engaged in combat against Taliban/Al-Qaeda forces.

Knife wrote:The 14 is all kinds of sweet, she is durable and reliable. But I perfer a higher volume of fire that what the 14 can dish out (I am a machinegunner at heart).

Yay, another 14 fan. w00t

Only if those vehicles are standing still. Engaging targets with HE with the 203 is a bitch. More direct fire loads, such as the flechett round, are easier to engage targets with.

Flechette round for the 203? Hmm...haven't heard of that one. I'll have to check up on that, as it sounds interesting.

Sea Skimmer wrote:
And also just a glorified sub machine gun in combat.

It's range is far longer than any SMG, and it's bullets are much more powerful. Well over 55,000,000 copies made, they did something right

I wonder at the 'lack of accuracy' cliche whenever a discussion like this comes up. It is after all, more about the volume of fire you can produce than any shooting range accuracy characteristics. Case in point- the M1 carbine was popular in WW2 not because it was accurate, but because of the volume of fire you could produce with it. Same with the Stg 44, I'm sure German troops weren't gushing about how accurate it was, they were raving about how they had a 30-round mag and full auto fire in a rifle.