Best Assault Rifle

[[TW]schneidzekk]

I thought this thread is about the best assault rifle?

What i have learned from this thread: Neither the AK nor the AR type rifles are the best.

So, which one is the best right now?

 

[Zeptorem]

I thought this thread is about the best assault rifle?

What i have learned from this thread: Neither the AK nor the AR type rifles are the best.

So, which one is the best right now?

Hard to say, since many are better than others in different conditions/theatres. If, for example, you were fighting in an urban environment, you'd want a short-barrelled, compact rifle, and weight might not be much of a concern, allowing you to use more accessories and carry more ammo. If you're in the jungle, you'd want something light, maneuverable, and not prone to rust, which means lots of aluminum, plastic, and stainless. If you're out in the desert, something that can reach out and touch something.

Most modern assault rifles have excellent standards of reliability, accuracy, weight, and ergonomics. So the only really good answer is the best-performing rifle that you feel comfortable with; unfortunately, armed forces tend to ignore your personal preferences. If you want my opinion, though, I think a lot of these newfangled polymer-reciever rifles are a little too melty and flimsy. I'd probably issue my troops with something quirky and full of class, like the LR300 or the AR-18 for that IRA feel. And I'd issue PMAGs instead of regular
aluminum ones.

 

[KrazyKraut]

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.

No. You apparently have no idea what makes a representative sample, that is all. But you don't care about that, right. All that matters is that some guy had no reliability problems with a gun you like.

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.

All magazines and rifles were brand new. The problem with standard issue magazines is that they wear fast. But not THAT much after 6000 rounds. In either case, the magazine is a part of the weapon system, so it's Colt and FN who are system design responsible. And of course shortly after the test Colt offered a new magazine aswell.

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.

As said heavy oiling can lead to problems of its own. The other designs could do without. A plus for them.

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...

Lol you are quite the bigmouth with nothing to show for. As if torture test were uncommon for other mechanical devices. Please go search Mil Std 810F. Which applies to a wide range of mechanical equipment btw.

Stick with running your mouth. Your expertise does not lie with guns. But it's funny: All the M4-o-philes are so quick to find "flaws" with the test or excuses for the stoppages. The HK416 had most of its stoppages with a single of the test examples if you'd exclude it, it would've come out second (or even first i don't remember for sure). The results are what they are though. Period.

 

[Zeptorem]

No. You apparently have no idea what makes a representative sample, that is all. But you don't care about that, right. All that matters is that some guy had no reliability problems with a gun you like.

My point is that performance could only possibly improve if you use military ammo over Wolf ammo. You don't seem to get this...

All magazines and rifles were brand new. The problem with standard issue magazines is that they wear fast. But not THAT much after 6000 rounds.

Uh, no.

The problem with USGI mags is that their followers tilt like hell and the springs aren't great either. This alone causes a huge amount of AR-15 malfunctions, along with low-tension extractor springs. Replace those and AR-15s have excellent reliability.

In either case, the magazine is a part of the weapon system, so it's Colt and FN who are system design responsible. And of course shortly after the test Colt offered a new magazine aswell.

If it isn't broken, don't fix it. The point that you can't seem to be able to wrap your head around is that the weapon itself can be vastly improved with just a couple changes without having to replace the entire damn thing.

And besides, people have been wanting new magazines for ages. Thermolds used to show up in armories occasionally, but with USGI mags all you really need is a drop in follower/spring replacement and reliability is hugely improved.

As said heavy oiling can lead to problems of its own.

Do elaborate. I'm excited to hear what kinds of new misconceptions you've got to share...

The other designs could do without. A plus for them.

The XM8, SCAR, and HK416 all have minuses as well, be assured of that.

Lol you are quite the bigmouth with nothing to show for.

Pot? Surely you've met kettle.

As if torture test were uncommon for other mechanical devices. Please go search Mil Std 810F. Which applies to a wide range of mechanical equipment btw.

And my point (which, again, you simply don't get) is that a good torture test susses out the weak points in a device. The weak points of an AR-15 are the magazine, extractor spring, and need to run wet. All of which can be easily remedied.

Stick with running your mouth. Your expertise does not lie with guns. But it's funny: All the M4-o-philes are so quick to find "flaws" with the test or excuses for the stoppages. The HK416 had most of its stoppages with a single of the test examples if you'd exclude it, it would've come out second (or even first i don't remember for sure). The results are what they are though. Period.

Well if you want to look at the "results" in an insanely idiotic and simplistic way ("they are what they are"... brilliant!), then that's your prerogative. Some of us think it would be easier to improve upon a good design instead of throwing it out for the newest, shiniest, most expensive one.

 

[Flogger23m]

Bad magazines create around 30% of all M4/M16 failures. Replace those with Pmags, and the rifle will produce similar results to the other weapons. Look up the durability of the Pmag, it really is amazing.


They do cost more, but I think it is cheaper than buying an entirely new weapon. And, at the same time, they weigh less. Our soldiers are already carrying so much stuff, the reduced weight can't hurt.

Not sure the exact weight difference, but my steel AK mag weights over twice as much as my polymer mags.

 

[Maschine Pistole-38]

I'd say when it comes to being battle tested, i'll say the AK family and AR/M16 family of assault rifles are still the best. If you look at more of the modern assault rifles coming out, especially out of the US. They are mostly based off the M16 family of rifles.


Also about the M16 jams, in my time in the Marine Corps so far i'd say 80-90% of the jams (Stoppages is what we call them in the Marines, when concerning a crappy magazine) I had were from my magazines. This goes from the peice of **** M16A2 I had in boot camp, to the M16A4 I had in MCT, to my M4 now.

 

[Zeptorem]

I'd say when it comes to being battle tested, i'll say the AK family and AR/M16 family of assault rifles are still the best. If you look at more of the modern assault rifles coming out, especially out of the US. They are mostly based off the M16 family of rifles.


Also about the M16 jams, in my time in the Marine Corps so far i'd say 80-90% of the jams (Stoppages is what we call them in the Marines, when concerning a crappy magazine) I had were from my magazines. This goes from the peice of **** M16A2 I had in boot camp, to the M16A4 I had in MCT, to my M4 now.

Buy these.

Hell I'd buy some for you, if I weren't broke.

Or you can go for some Thermolds; the ribbing can function as finger-grooves if you're using an M203. And I think they look better, but they're not quite as reliable as PMAGs. The Canadian Forces sometimes issues them pre-loaded in plastic packages, and instructs to treat them as disposable (as aluminum STANAG mags are supposed to be).

Seriously though, aluminum USGI mags are ****. I'd change them out; your life depends on them, and magazines are cheap.

 

[Maschine Pistole-38]

They sell PMAGs at the 7 day store right across from my barracks. They go for 30 bucks a pop, so either im getting screwed or they are a high tier PMAG. Either way, yes the issued magazines I have are pretty ****ty, but the stoppages I get from a bad magazine can be cleared in 5-6 seconds.

Thats not to say I havent thought of getting PMAGs, cause yes they are better and they make you seem more OPERATOR.

 

[Zeptorem]

They sell PMAGs at the 7 day store right across from my barracks. They go for 30 bucks a pop, so either im getting screwed or they are a high tier PMAG. Either way, yes the issued magazines I have are pretty ****ty, but the stoppages I get from a bad magazine can be cleared in 5-6 seconds.

Thats not to say I havent thought of getting PMAGs, cause yes they are better and they make you seem more OPERATOR.

Yeah, they're OPERATOR gear for when OPERATORS are doing OPERATIONS, but they're still good for everyday shooting. They'll last long than aluminum mags, too.

But hell, $30? They're ripping you off. Get family/friends to mail you a big box of them. Maybe throw in a MOE handguard/stock and a MIAD grip. Magpul makes some pretty good (and, as far as AR-15 accessories go, cheap) stuff, and they're OPERATOR-approved, since Chris Costa and Travis Haley use them.

 

[Maschine Pistole-38]

I'd buy some, seriously, but right now when I can shoot is when the Marine Corps wants me to shoot. If I had the choice i'd shoot atleast once a week, but now im lucky to shoot once every 4-5 months. Also about the extra gear, i've seen some high speed low drag ****, but the Marines are very picky on what you can put on your weapon.

All ive seen from my battalion is standard front grips (No idea who makes them) Surefire lights with built in frontgrips, RCOs, and EOtechs. Our armorers check if you make illegal modifictions to your rifle and tell you take that **** off ricky tick. I've seen some guys had to remove one point sling adaptors from their rifles, the armorers would probably **** a brick if I slapped on a custom stock.

Pic of that Surefire light with built in front grip.

 

[KrazyKraut]

My point is that performance could only possibly improve if you use military ammo over Wolf ammo. You don't seem to get this...

You don't get it after two elaborations, so why bother.

The problem with USGI mags is that their followers tilt like hell and the springs aren't great either. This alone causes a huge amount of AR-15 malfunctions, along with low-tension extractor springs.

As explained above.

If it isn't broken, don't fix it. The point that you can't seem to be able to wrap your head around is that the weapon itself can be vastly improved with just a couple changes without having to replace the entire damn thing.

The magazine desing itself is mediocre with the springs only being part of the problem. It's been known for decades. They had much time to improve that but didn't. It is broke and others have fixed it (to some amount).

Do elaborate. I'm excited to hear what kinds of new misconceptions you've got to share...

Oil attracts and holds dirt.

The XM8, SCAR, and HK416 all have minuses as well, be assured of that.

I am well aware of that. We were discussing the test at hand so don't try to circumvent that.

Pot? Surely you've met kettle.

You're the one who started throwing insults all around. On what basis? Being a civilian shooter with access to the internet? What else makes you the firearm expert on the high horse?

And my point (which, again, you simply don't get) is that a good torture test susses out the weak points in a device. The weak points of an AR-15 are the magazine, extractor spring, and need to run wet. All of which can be easily remedied.

And of course the fact that it has an unsuitable operating mechanism for an assault rifle.

Well if you want to look at the "results" in an insanely idiotic and simplistic way ("they are what they are"... brilliant!), then that's your prerogative. Some of us think it would be easier to improve upon a good design instead of throwing it out for the newest, shiniest, most expensive one.

Seems like "you" are finally getting fewer. The AR is not a bad rifle, but it should've been replaced some time ago. And the military procurement unit price for the 416 is not even much more. Especially since new M4s and M16s had to be bought anyway as the then current inventory had to be replaced anyways. And as long as I have no indication otherwise I don't automatically assume the FN to be much more expensive either.

 

[Flogger23m]

Seems like "you" are finally getting fewer. The AR is not a bad rifle, but it should've been replaced some time ago. And the military procurement unit price for the 416 is not even much more. Especially since new M4s and M16s had to be bought anyway as the then current inventory had to be replaced anyways. And as long as I have no indication otherwise I don't automatically assume the FN to be much more expensive either.

Thing is, if we issued Pmags, the stoppages would be similar to that of the SCAR, HK 416, XM8, ect.

Considering that, does that really mean the M4/16 needs to be replaced by something else?

And if you noticed, countries/militaries/police that use the M4/M16 series are those that actually fight. US military, Canadian military, SAS, a lot of SF forces around the world, ect.

Generally, the countries that use "better" weapons like the G36 don't do much of any fighting at all.

 

[Lt_Kettch]

Because we are not at "war"

 

[KrazyKraut]

Thing is, if we issued Pmags, the stoppages would be similar to that of the SCAR, HK 416, XM8, ect.

Really?

M4: 882 stoppages: 643 weapon related / 239 magazine-related

So the majority was weapon related. And it's still almost 3 times as much as the SCAR for example. And that is assuming ALL of the SCAR's defects were weapon-related (as in: no mag defects), which I doubt.

And if you noticed, countries/militaries/police that use the M4/M16 series are those that actually fight. US military, Canadian military, SAS, a lot of SF forces around the world, ect.

Generally, the countries that use "better" weapons like the G36 don't do much of any fighting at all.

I never said the G36 was much better. The British regulars still use the L85 and do a lot of fighting (more than the Canadians e.g., no judging). The Poles do a lot of fighting considering the size and use an AK variant and their special forces also use a G36 variant. The Spanish were in Iraq with the G36 and Germany is in Afghanistan fighting with it now (of course it's only "peacekeeping" for us).

 

[Flogger23m]

Really?

M4: 882 stoppages: 643 weapon related / 239 magazine-related

That is getting much closer to the other weapons. If I recall, they did the same test another time (I think it was before) and the M4 only had something like 500-600 stoppages.

I never said the G36 was much better. The British regulars still use the L85 and do a lot of fighting (more than the Canadians e.g., no judging). The Poles do a lot of fighting considering the size and use an AK variant and their special forces also use a G36 variant. The Spanish were in Iraq with the G36 and Germany is in Afghanistan fighting with it now (of course it's only "peacekeeping" for us).

And those that use the G36 are hardly putting them to the test. I'd like to see how they hold up when they get used a lot, like our M16/M4s.

It took them 10 years to fix that major flaws of the G36.

And I think you missed the point, which was that countries and forces that do a lot of fighting use the M4/16. And those that typically use the G36/whatever don't even use it. You'd think that those doing the fighting would know which weapon works.

And the AK doesn't really fit in the same category as the SCAR/G36/XM8/other new weapons that everyone is claiming to be a good replacement for the M4/16. Obviously an AK is reliable. Aside from that, being cheap and easy to clean, it sucks in every way. When you mess around with one, you'll quickly find out just how out dated it is. It still makes for a decent weapon, but it is not in the same league as a SCAR or M4.

 

[[TW]schneidzekk]

And those that use the G36 are hardly putting them to the test. I'd like to see how they hold up when they get used a lot, like our M16/M4s.

It took them 10 years to fix that major flaws of the G36.

And I think you missed the point, which was that countries and forces that do a lot of fighting use the M4/16. And those that typically use the G36/whatever don't even use it. You'd think that those doing the fighting would know which weapon works.

Well, that does not really make sense. That would mean the AK is way superior to any other rifle on the planet, because it is put to the test way more often every day than any other rifle. Is that true? Nope.

And to be honest, saying the G36 or the L85 aren't used in fights is quite ignorant.

I know the SA80 had a rough start, but I haven't heard of any major flaw of the G36. I never used it as a service rifle (Yes I am old, we had the good old G3), but I know people still serving and i haven't heard of any complaints and this includes Fernspaeher and KSK guys deployed in a funky country called Afghanistan.

Anyway, you guys should really take a breath from time to time. This is about rifles and not my country > your country.

 

[KrazyKraut]

That is getting much closer to the other weapons.

Unless you did the same distinction (mag-related vs. gun-related defects) with the other guns, that statement is baseless. And 2.85 times the gun-related defects (at best!) is still a lot.

And those that use the G36 are hardly putting them to the test. I'd like to see how they hold up when they get used a lot, like our M16/M4s.

It took them 10 years to fix that major flaws of the G36.

What major flaws?

And I think you missed the point, which was that countries and forces that do a lot of fighting use the M4/16. And those that typically use the G36/whatever don't even use it. You'd think that those doing the fighting would know which weapon works.

That is pretty wrong and ignorant to say.

 

[Flogger23m]

Unless you did the same distinction (mag-related vs. gun-related defects) with the other guns, that statement is baseless.


And 2.85 times the gun-related defects (at best!) is still a lot.

Still a lot, but much closer to the other weapons. And how does it handle in a real world environment? In reality, they don't seem to jam as much in actual combat conditions.

What major flaws?

1) When dropped, the integrated carry handle sight loses zero easily. The sight was tiny anyways, and this can be fixed by replacing it and putting on a quality sight.

2) The stock is flimsy and breaks.

3) Even without the sight, dropping can sill cause accuracy problems.

4) Magazines were fragile and have shattered when dropped.

Forgot what they were called, but the German Army soldiers that fight a lot in the mountains kept the G3 because of the G36's tendency to break really easily. I think now after 10 or so years, they finally switched over with the G36A2.

That is pretty wrong and ignorant to say.

I'm sure those that know what works will use what works. The M4/16 and SCAR seems to be some of these. Just an observation.

 

[[TW]schneidzekk]

As far as i know they prefer the G3 because of its range, pretty much the same reason the M14 is still used in certain situations.

 

[[TW]schneidzekk]

Haven't heard of the problems you described, but they might have existed, i don't know.

But to be honest, none of my buddies has ever mentioned that he wants a new or different rifle and I totally trust their judgement, because they are the pros and I am not