Best Assault Rifle

[Xendance]

Well, you'll forgive me if I don't trust your experiences or judgement at all: 0.3 MOA is great for a benchrest rifle.

Well I don't really care if you're so stubborn

So wait, one minute of angle is 4,36333166 cm at 150 meters? Goddamn use metrics
Well I was exaggerating about the thumb nail, but most officers can hit ten bullseyes.

Edit: I might add that hitting ten bullseyes is enough for a rifle in military use. In combat you aren't meant to fire perfect shots, it's just a waste of time. It's more like: quick aim, double tap the trigger and take cover.
So arguing that which bullet (bullet wtf, compare the rifles) groups inside one millradian is rather pointless, it only has to hit the enemy's chest.

 

[LemoN]

Well I don't really care if you're so stubborn

So wait, one minute of angle is 4,36333166 cm at 150 meters? Goddamn use metrics
Well I was exaggerating about the thumb nail, but most officers can hit ten bullseyes.

Edit: I might add that hitting ten bullseyes is enough for a rifle in military use. In combat you aren't meant to fire perfect shots, it's just a waste of time. It's more like: quick aim, double tap the trigger and take cover.

if you put a finger and your thumb togeather to form a circle then you get roughly the size of a bullseye, so a humbnail is a bit too small


oh and btw, i wouldnt actually give perfectly accurate rifles to untrained soldiers
as you cant expect them to hit anything anyways you can aswell have a little bit of spray, wich, with a bit of luck can actually score more hits in the hands of an untrained soldier than a sub MOA 1 rifle

one example that comes to my mind here are computergames (allthought they are a bad example)
aiming bad with a sub MOA 1 rifle = no hits, aiming bad with a unaccurate rifle = some hits with luck ^^

In the end all what matters in todays asymetrical warfare is voleume of fire to pin the enemy down and then get some big *** bomb on their position (wound capability and accuracy still play a vital role, but accuracy comes down to the soldier in 90%)

 

[Xendance]

Well I don't remember what size the bullseye was, I got out from the army like a month ago \/

(Sucked in the final shooting test btw)

 

[Zeptorem]

Well I don't really care if you're so stubborn

So wait, one minute of angle is 4,36333166 cm at 150 meters? Goddamn use metrics

[tan(1 MOA / 60)] * 150 m = 0.0436 m = 4.3 cm, 1 MOA at 150 m.

For the "thumbnail" thing:

0.5 inches = 0.0127 meters

tan^-1(0.0127 m / 150 m) * 60 = 0.29 MOA for a half-inch (IE, thumbnail) group at 150 m. Not bothering to use proper trigonometry regarding circles because a right-angle triangle approximates range well enough with angles that sharp.

Well I was exaggerating about the thumb nail, but most officers can hit ten bullseyes.

Edit: I might add that hitting ten bullseyes is enough for a rifle in military use.

"Bullseye" doesn't really mean anything to me without a range and the dimensions of the "bullseye".

In combat you aren't meant to fire perfect shots, it's just a waste of time. It's more like: quick aim, double tap the trigger and take cover.
So arguing that which bullet (bullet wtf, compare the rifles) groups inside one millradian is rather pointless, it only has to hit the enemy's chest.

Accuracy absolutely does matter. At 200m and beyond, one mil is the enemy's chest.

Even then, you're supposed to aim to the center of their exposed mass, which, if they're behind a lot of cover, or laying prone, or in a window, or whatever, could be far less than a torso in size. In which case, yes, I would like a rifle that can shoot under four and a half MOA.

oh and btw, i wouldnt actually give perfectly accurate rifles to untrained soldiers

Good thing virtually all industrialized countries train their soldiers.

 

[Xendance]

Well you gotta understand that one mil is enemy's chest from the enemy's point of view too, so the gun accuracy doesn't make all the difference. I'm just saying that there's more to the gun than the round velocity/penetration/accuray.

 

[Zeptorem]

Well you gotta understand that one mil is enemy's chest from the enemy's point of view too, so the gun accuracy doesn't make all the difference.

...

I don't understand this statement.

I'm just saying that there's more to the gun than the round velocity/penetration/accuray.

Of course.

I still hold that 7.62x39 is hugely inferior to 5.56x45, and I think the makers of 5.45x39 would agree with me.

 

[Reddog]

In terms of accuracy I believe the general desired standard for a mass produced infantry rifle is 2-4 MOA, at least in Western armies.

I too have trouble believing the thumbnail sized group at 150m story, sounds like complete fantasy to me. A group of that size is in the realm of highly accurized marksman rifles.

Back on calibers I agree with whoever said that 6.5 Grendel is a great option. I've been doing some reading on the tests that it has been put through and it looks like an excellent middle ground between intermediate cartridges and full power rifle cartridges. Fired out of a 14.5 inch carbine length barrel it produces far superior hitting power, penetration, fragmentation and wounding capability than 5.56 NATO at all ranges. All this while having only mildly increased recoil over 5.56 NATO and possessing a much better ballistic coefficient, which translates to excellent performance at longer than average combat ranges. There's even talk of it possibly being able to work as a standardized caliber between both assault rifles and GPMG's, eliminating the system our armies use now with one caliber for assault rifles and another for GPMG's.

It's not without drawbacks though, because it was designed to be of similar length to 5.56 NATO it is a fatter cartridge meaning that you can't get as many in a high capacity magazine. It's also 30% heavier than 5.56 NATO which means that the combat load becomes a bit heavier. Personally I think given it's superior performance this is a fair trade off. I also think they should forget trying to design it around the same dimensions as 5.56 NATO in an effort to try to cram it into current weapon systems and look at lengthening and streamlining the cartridge a bit and working it into some of the newer designs coming through.

 

[Zeptorem]

In terms of accuracy I believe the general desired standard for a mass produced infantry rifle is 2-4 MOA, at least in Western armies.

I too have trouble believing the thumbnail sized group at 150m story, sounds like complete fantasy to me. A group of that size is in the realm of highly accurized marksman rifles.

Back on calibers I agree with whoever said that 6.5 Grendel is a great option. I've been doing some reading on the tests that it has been put through and it looks like an excellent middle ground between intermediate cartridges and full power rifle cartridges. Fired out of a 14.5 inch carbine length barrel it produces far superior hitting power, penetration, fragmentation and wounding capability than 5.56 NATO at all ranges. All this while having only mildly increased recoil over 5.56 NATO and possessing a much better ballistic coefficient, which translates to excellent performance at longer than average combat ranges. There's even talk of it possibly being able to work as a standardized caliber between both assault rifles and GPMG's, eliminating the system our armies use now with one caliber for assault rifles and another for GPMG's.

It's not without drawbacks though, because it was designed to be of similar length to 5.56 NATO it is a fatter cartridge meaning that you can't get as many in a high capacity magazine. It's also 30% heavier than 5.56 NATO which means that the combat load becomes a bit heavier. Personally I think given it's superior performance this is a fair trade off. I also think they should forget trying to design it around the same dimensions as 5.56 NATO in an effort to try to cram it into current weapon systems and look at lengthening and streamlining the cartridge a bit and working it into some of the newer designs coming through.

I quite like the grendel too. I'm trying to get my hands on a 6.5mm AR, though for long-range target shooting strictly, because it's chambered in loonies.

 

[Tomcat_ha]

i think they should move up somewhat for gpmg in calibers/strength with the rise of body armor. For assault rifles and lmg's a uniform round would indeed be nice but that is already in place in most countries.

I personally really think that a gpmg should always be the heavy stick and with the rise of body armour i dont think having it decrease in strength would help.

Ofcourse a saw or a bren like thing in grendel would be great.

 

[Zeptorem]

i think they should move up somewhat for gpmg in calibers/strength with the rise of body armor. For assault rifles and lmg's a uniform round would indeed be nice but that is already in place in most countries.

GMPGs already use full-sized rifle rounds, anything bigger than that and the gun wouldn't be man-portable.

I personally really think that a gpmg should always be the heavy stick and with the rise of body armour i dont think having it decrease in strength would help.

Ofcourse a saw or a bren like thing in grendel would be great.

Brens are pretty much obsolete these days. Has the same magazine capacity as an assault rifle while being as heavy and cumbersome as a machine gun.

Also, for the OMG M16 JAM-O-MATIC guys, pics of an AR-15 with nearly 6000 rounds through it, zero malfunctions, two oilings, and zero cleanings:

1.

2.

Two more pics of an AR15 with 15000 rounds of Wolf through it and no cleaning, not sure if there were any jams though:

1.

2.

 

[Tomcat_ha]

im not talking about the bren as a gun but the bren as an idea: a lmg

its a direct ancestor of stuff like the rpk and the saw.

Its true that a much heavier bullet than full sized rifle will hamper portability but body armour already at times is strong enough to withstand 7.62 nato from almost pointblank. While for now most of the time the people whom nato will fight against wont have good body armour, you should be prepared for if say the **** hits the fan and we get another major war vs a country which does have modern body armour. When that happens the 5.56 round certainly is screwed and 7.62x39 also is starting to look inadequate.

Besides 7.62 nato is an old round, maybe they can design a modern rifle bullet that is more powerfull but doesnt have that much sacrifices in portability.

7.62 nato then again isnt also that powerful. Its actually less powerfull than the rounds of most rifles during ww2 see stuff like 7.92 or 30-06.

 

[LemoN]

7.62 isnt THAT less powerfull than lets say a .30-06 or a 7.92x57
but that also has a reason, wich is significantly smaller dimensions

.30-06 = 7.62x63 (a way underpowered round compared to the size of the casing imo)
8mm Mauser = 7.92x57
7.62nato = 7.62x51

compared to the .30-06 the nato round is just a tad less powerfull but is a great deal smaller

 

[KrazyKraut]

Also, for the OMG M16 JAM-O-MATIC guys, pics of an AR-15 with nearly 6000 rounds through it, zero malfunctions, two oilings, and zero cleanings:

1.

2.

Two more pics of an AR15 with 15000 rounds of Wolf through it and no cleaning, not sure if there were any jams though:

1.

2.

Pictures of someguy's M16 going through xxxxx rounds of (civilian) ammo don't show for squat.

The army's own tests showed that the M16's is significantly below average.

 

[Flogger23m]

Then again, from everything that I have heard, the dust test does not represent real life conditions very well.



In the end, I think a gas piston rifle is better suited for the assault rifle role. Since a lot of the time you're using it, you're tried and have been running around a lot. You likely won't be able to use the accuracy advantage to its fullest extent. Where as a cleaner rifle will help when you are in poor conditions. I am thinking of WWII conditions, which were more harsh than they are in Iraq/Afang.


The AR-15 makes a great basis for a semi auto marksmen and sniper rifle, though.

 

[Zeptorem]

Pictures of someguy's M16 going through xxxxx rounds of (civilian) ammo don't show for squat.

Dude... Wolf is far dirtier than Army ammo. Hell, a lot of civilian ammo is.

The army's own tests showed that the M16's is significantly below average.

What, you mean that one where they put a ridiculous amount of rounds through it (60000), and compared M4s to SCARs, HK416s, and XM8s, and concluded in the end that not only would occasional heavy oiling cut down jams to near the level of the other ARs (307 as opposed to 882), but that the vast majority of the jams came from crappy extractors/extractor springs (fixed with simply replacing the spring with a harder one) and the horrible design of STANAG magazines (something that could be fixed with a new follower and a spring, or just buying some PMAGs)?

You mean that one?

I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement, but the extent to which the DI system is involved, it's hugely exaggerated. Performance with M4s and M16s could be vastly improved with just some new magazines and a harder extractor spring.

 

[Tomcat_ha]

From what i know about M16 reliability

South Vietnamese commandos said it works fine, the problem has been mostly people not having enough instructions of cleaning it.

 

[myzko]

I'ma vote for the RK 62.
Why? Good assault-rifle.


And my grandfather worked for Valmet Paper Machinery (designing paper-mills)



Here is the beauty
http://bayimg.com/mAdFNaACC

 

[KrazyKraut]

Dude... Wolf is far dirtier than Army ammo. Hell, a lot of civilian ammo is.

The point was that it's not representative.

What, you mean that one where they put a ridiculous amount of rounds through it (60000), and compared M4s to SCARs, HK416s, and XM8s, and concluded in the end that not only would occasional heavy oiling cut down jams to near the level of the other ARs (307 as opposed to 882), but that the vast majority of the jams came from crappy extractors/extractor springs (fixed with simply replacing the spring with a harder one) and the horrible design of STANAG magazines (something that could be fixed with a new follower and a spring, or just buying some PMAGs)?

You mean that one?

I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement, but the extent to which the DI system is involved, it's hugely exaggerated. Performance with M4s and M16s could be vastly improved with just some new magazines and a harder extractor spring.

The 416 and the scar use the same magazine, still fared better. Heavy oiling itself will lead to problems sooner or later and if the other designs can do without it shows they do something significantly better.

And don't give me that "rediculous amount of rounds" crap to prove that this doesn't represent operational conditions. This is a torture test. I work at a Aero Engine manufacturer and every new design runs through several 150h+ tests to prove itself. Those that fare worse here are always those that prove to be unreliable in the real world as well. the same prinicple applies here and the M4 fared poorly. Deal with it.

 

[Zeptorem]

The point was that it's not representative.

You're right. It's unfairly biased in favour of the AR-15, considering Wolf ammo is far harsher than any military ammo made past 1969.

The 416 and the scar use the same magazine, still fared better.

No they don't. You are laughably wrong.

The HK 416 uses "HK-Improved" stanags that have slight cosmetic differences and very different followers and springs, to fix the problems with regular USGI mags.

FN SCAR magazines have even fewer similarities to US Military-issue magazines.

Heavy oiling itself will lead to problems sooner or later and if the other designs can do without it shows they do something significantly better. And don't give me that "rediculous amount of rounds" crap to prove that this doesn't represent operational conditions.

It's not crap. I think if you can find, much less carry 6000 rounds, I think you can scrounge up a few drops of oil to keep your weapon working. That kind of torture test is as indicative of weapon performance as running a car engine without oil is of your engine's reliability.

This is a torture test. I work at a Aero Engine manufacturer and every new design runs through several 150h+ tests to prove itself. Those that fare worse here are always those that prove to be unreliable in the real world as well. the same prinicple applies here and the M4 fared poorly. Deal with it.

Oh, so comparing Wolf ammo to M855 ammo is irrelevant, but comparing jet engines to guns is perfectly okay? Apples and oranges man. Stick to jet engines, your expertise isn't with guns...

 

[Grobut]

Sorry, but saying "i take good care of my gun, so it works" does not mean it doesen't have below average reliabillity under extreme conditions.