Now We Know:The Top Ten Greatest Ever Weapons

OK, here's my take. 5.56x45 came up with some good points, so I'll take the time to... well... educate the misguided young lad!!!http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif

5.56x45 stated: Number three should be replaced with the Mauser.

I tend to agree, except that the Moisin Nagant had such a great reputation as an accurate rifle right out of the box. The Finns, in particular, made the Moisin Nagant into one of the most feared weapons of the time. While the Mauser design was and is a classic rifle design, I do not see the Mauser as having the same feared reputation as the M-N.

Hell, the H&K G3 is nothing but a copy of the Spanish CETME, which was a design by Mauser employees during WWII.

You are right, and thanks, because very few people know that. But it was HK, not CETME, who made the battle rifle that was adopted by about 50 countries. Another record that speaks for itself.

Lee Enfield SMLE Mark 4 was not a major improvement. It was nothing but is simplified Lee Enfield SMLE rifle, also it's action has not been adopted by any other weapon system.

Yes, but the Mark 4 was the weapon adopted in 1917, and it remained the British Commonwealth rifle of choice right into the 1950's, when it was replaced by the FN-FAL. Very few rifles can claim that kind of longevity, and that is why it is on the list. In addition, it was exceedingly accurate.

In this discussion, I have not talked about pistols or submachineguns as I did not want to make the same mistake as Discovery Channel in comparing different types of weapons. Later on, if this goes on, I may start other threads along the same lines, but that is a "we'll see" at the moment.

Dean.
 
G3 battle rifle, used in more than 50 countries around the world, and is still being used today. even though it is slowly being replaced by g36, c8, etc, it still has a position in marksman rifle.

Would anyone say that the c8 is T3H best?

Can i run c8 over with a semi and still have it fire?
 
I put the M-16 as number 7 simply because so many countries adopted it. Many of it's design characteristics were ahead of thier time. But in the beginning, it was not a good rifle, in fact, the earliest versions rank right up there with the Chauchat machinegun. I have read versions of US units coming in from the field with their new M-16s, and many of them no longer worked. Hell, even the Viet Cong, who were noted for using any weapon that came to hand were under orders not to pick up the M-16. The reasons:
1. The action is worked by bleeding off gas and sending it back into the bolt carrier directly behind the bolt itself. This, on paper, is an elegant solution; the bolt carrier begins to move immediately, but the bolt remains closed until the pressure in the barrel is lowered to a level that is safe for the shooter, and there is no weight penalty of a piston and piston return spring. Unfortunately, this system is very sensitive to ammunition that gives off lots of smoke and residue. The more there is, the more fouling there is IN the action itself. Not a good thing in the middle of a firefight.
2. The rifle was originally issued as a rifle that did not need cleaning, and as a result, they were issued without cleaning kits. (Yes, you read that correctly) Some weapons got so fouled up that the only way to cycle the action was to use a belatedly issued cleaning rod to push the fired casing out of the chamber.
3. The original barrels and chambers were not chromed: The problem was that a fired casing would expand against the chamber walls, and the metal would stretch itself into the microscopic nooks and crannies in the metal of the wall. This would have the effect of welding (almost) the casing into the chamber, and in an automatic weapon, this is a bad thing.
4. There was no way to push the bolt forward in the event that the chamber did not close properly. So, here we have a weapon that fouls easily due to smoke and carbon build up in the bolt carrier, and the only way to try to close the bolt is to work the entire action, thus ejecting a good bullet, only to have the same result: the bolt is still partially open.
5. The rate of fire on automatic was so high that the rifle was very difficult to control, and runaway rifles occurred quite often.
6. The original twist of the rifling in the barrel was not right, resulting in rounds that started tumbling immediately after leaving the barrel. This meant a major loss in both accuracy and lethality beyond 100 metres, and in many cases, even closer.

The original M-16 weighed less than 7 pounds, but with the chroming of the barrel, the modification to the buffer, the addition of the bolt closing handle, the changing and thickening of the barrel, etc, etc, the rifle ended up closer to 9 pounds. The current M-16 is a good rifle, but I do not think it is the equivalent of the other 5.56 mm rifles, including the HK roller locked 5.56 rifles, the HK-36, the FAMAS, and the Steyer AUG or any of the newer offerings out there. Nonetheless, it has been adopted by many countries simply because it is acceptable and the price is good. Nonetheless, the SAS, who are noted for picking only the best, picked the Canadian Diemaco variant as their rifle, so it definitely has some qualities. But there are many better ones out there.

Dean.
 
Dean said:
I put the M-16 as number 7 simply because so many countries adopted it. Many of it's design characteristics were ahead of thier time. But in the beginning, it was not a good rifle, in fact, the earliest versions rank right up there with the Chauchat machinegun. I have read versions of US units coming in from the field with their new M-16s, and many of them no longer worked. Hell, even the Viet Cong, who were noted for using any weapon that came to hand were under orders not to pick up the M-16. The reasons:
1. The action is worked by bleeding off gas and sending it back into the bolt carrier directly behind the bolt itself. This, on paper, is an elegant solution; the bolt carrier begins to move immediately, but the bolt remains closed until the pressure in the barrel is lowered to a level that is safe for the shooter, and there is no weight penalty of a piston and piston return spring. Unfortunately, this system is very sensitive to ammunition that gives off lots of smoke and residue. The more there is, the more fouling there is IN the action itself. Not a good t
hing in the middle of a firefight.
2. The rifle was originally issued as a rifle that did not need cleaning, and as a result, they were issued without cleaning kits. (Yes, you read that correctly) Some weapons got so fouled up that the only way to cycle the action was to use a belatedly issued cleaning rod to push the fired casing out of the chamber.
3. The original barrels and chambers were not chromed: The problem was that a fired casing would expand against the chamber walls, and the metal would stretch itself into the microscopic nooks and crannies in the metal of the wall. This would have the effect of welding (almost) the casing into the chamber, and in an automatic weapon, this is a bad thing.
4. There was no way to push the bolt forward in the event that the chamber did not close properly. So, here we have a weapon that fouls easily due to smoke and carbon build up in the bolt carrier, and the only way to try to close the bolt is to work the entire action, thus ejecting a good bullet, only to have the same result: the bolt is still partially open.
5. The rate of fire on automatic was so high that the rifle was very difficult to control, and runaway rifles occurred quite often.
6. The original twist of the rifling in the barrel was not right, resulting in rounds that started tumbling immediately after leaving the barrel. This meant a major loss in both accuracy and lethality beyond 100 metres, and in many cases, even closer.

The original M-16 weighed less than 7 pounds, but with the chroming of the barrel, the modification to the buffer, the addition of the bolt closing handle, the changing and thickening of the barrel, etc, etc, the rifle ended up closer to 9 pounds. The current M-16 is a good rifle, but I do not think it is the equivalent of the other 5.56 mm rifles, including the HK roller locked 5.56 rifles, the HK-36, the FAMAS, and the Steyer AUG or any of the newer offerings out there. Nonetheless, it has been adopted by many countries simply because it is acceptable and the price is good. Nonetheless, the SAS, who are noted for picking only the best, picked the Canadian Diemaco variant as their rifle, so it definitely has some qualities. But there are many better ones out there.

Dean.
Click to expand...

I hate the A15/M16, but the A1 was pretty good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top