• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

Best Assault Rifle

Tomcat_ha

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
3,283
185
0
31
battle rifle rounds can go through more wood which would be handy in ye woods.
 

Grobut

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 1, 2006
3,623
1,310
0
Denmark
battle rifle rounds can go through more wood which would be handy in ye woods.
They do, but it comes with certain drawbacks, like bigger and heavier magazines, needing longer barrels to perform as intended, more recoil.. BR's are heavier, longer, and they aren't all that great at full-auto fire due to their recoil, hence they where replaced by the AR in the first place.

The real problem is that current AR's are too wimpy (5.56x45 or 5.45x39), they get good accuracy at range, but they have no real force left in them at ranges past 300~500 meters, so it's not really usefull.

What's really needed is a mix between the 7.62x39 and the 5.56x45, something with the more penetrating power of the 7mm and the better accuracy of the 5mm, so probably something in 6mm point something or other..
 

Flogger23m

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 5, 2009
3,441
538
0
Keep in mind that rifle squads do not have M240s or a 7.62x51 capable weapon, at least in the US Army/USMC. Unless they happen to have an M14/21 or SR-25/M110 for a marksmen.

That said, I still think an assault rifle is good enough.
 

Reddog

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 7, 2005
2,573
476
0
Australia
They do, but it comes with certain drawbacks, like bigger and heavier magazines, needing longer barrels to perform as intended, more recoil.. BR's are heavier, longer, and they aren't all that great at full-auto fire due to their recoil, hence they where replaced by the AR in the first place.

The real problem is that current AR's are too wimpy (5.56x45 or 5.45x39), they get good accuracy at range, but they have no real force left in them at ranges past 300~500 meters, so it's not really usefull.

What's really needed is a mix between the 7.62x39 and the 5.56x45, something with the more penetrating power of the 7mm and the better accuracy of the 5mm, so probably something in 6mm point something or other..
That's exactly what i was talking about, a caliber somewhere between 6-7mm which can offer better stopping power and performance at range while still being light and handy to use.

Having a medium machine gun or two in your squad is all good, but it's putting all your eggs in one basket one they are exhausted of ammunition or taken out of action.
 

Zeptorem

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 30, 2009
373
106
0
As a former user of the G36 i will just say it has its share of problems. Given a little familiarization I could see myself taking an HK416 over it and I am pretty confident the majority of active G36 users, of whom i know quite a few, would agree. Sig i have no idea. I bet you have years of experience with all of them right?

Concerning the Fedorov: the prototype cartridge was even stronger at over 3000 joules (compared to 2500 of the Arisaka), or in other words 7.62 NATO level. So there.
I've screwed around with an SL-8 before. I thought it felt flimsy and with a poor fit and finish. Left a bad taste in my mouth; I like a gun that can be used confidently.

If i had a dollar for every AK vs M16 agrument i stumbled on id be able to afford both of them and provide myself with a first hand evaluation...
Tell me about it. I've lost 10 IQ points reading this thread alone.

AK wins for me. accuracy, weight, reliability, noise and cost aside, it wins for me because i like the idea of having a gun you can bash someone thats trying to kill you to death with it. Hardly a nice image. But it could happen one day... Bashing ability is important.
Wait, so you ignore every aspect of performance except one in your evaluation? You can bash people to people with tons of guns. Ones with proper sights, a bolt hold-open device, the ability to be fired from a low prone position, light ammunition, good accuracy...

To ignore all that stuff in favour of ONE advantage is kind of illogical. A good gun would do all things well, not one thing well and the rest so-so.

The real problem is that current AR's are too wimpy (5.56x45 or 5.45x39), they get good accuracy at range, but they have no real force left in them at ranges past 300~500 meters, so it's not really usefull.
That's what we have DMs for; most firefights are well within 300-500 meters, so it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to use a larger round that is a bit wasted.

The russians dealt with this using an SVD in each squad, so they could reach out past 300m if need be.

What's really needed is a mix between the 7.62x39 and the 5.56x45, something with the more penetrating power of the 7mm and the better accuracy of the 5mm, so probably something in 6mm point something or other..
It's not the caliber that's accurate, it's the cartridge. 7.62x39 is just poorly-designed all around, with an only slightly-angled shoulder and a bullet that is only useful if traveling at about 50% higher velocity than it would out of an AK. It's about as twice as heavy as it needs to be; it manages to cut the performance of a full-sized 7.62mm rifle cartridge in half while weighing only a little less.

5.56 wounds more violently (up to about 150-250m, depending on barrel length), and still penetrates quite well, thanks to the magic of the SS109 and its steel penetrator. It penetrates even better at longer ranges; at that distance, it travels too slow to fragment, and thus retains velocity better when it hits it's target.

5.56 could use a bit of beefing up, but it's a good cartridge for ARs to begin with, being light, low-recoiling, accurate, and optimal for close to medium range.

That's exactly what i was talking about, a caliber somewhere between 6-7mm which can offer better stopping power and performance at range while still being light and handy to use.
It's more-or-less one or the other, thanks to those dastardly laws of physics. You can't push a bullet faster without accelerated barrel wear and more recoil, and you can't just upscale it without increasing weight (and, again, recoil).

Infantry doctrine revolves around engaging enemies well within effective range (around 300m usually) and using artillery/CAS/snipers/vehicle-mounted weapons to take care of enemies outside of it. It's the most efficient way; they did that more or less in WWII, and realized therein that the half-kilometer effective ranges of full-sized rifles were pretty much always wasted, and that guns that could put out a lot of fire and cartridges light enough that soldiers can carry a huge amount would be better. In other words, the design philosophy ARs today are pretty much optimized for current warfare.

Having a medium machine gun or two in your squad is all good, but it's putting all your eggs in one basket one they are exhausted of ammunition or taken out of action.
I remember seeing a clip from Future Weapons with that moron Mack talking about how awful squad support weapons were. He went around like an idiot with a loose belt slung over his shoulder like Rambo then complained afterward that SAWs suck because the belt can get caught and break (that's why you keep it in the poly box you fool). He then completely invalidated all of his opinions when he said that SAWs can't use STANAG magazines, meaning you can't "bum mags off your buddies".

He then brought out an AR-15 that had a TOTALLY REVOLUTIONARY feature that made it fire in open-bolt in full-auto and closed-bolt in semi-auto, meaning it would keep cool if laying down rapid fire and would still be accurate in semi-auto. He said it would be perfect to arm entire squads with instead of SAWs, carbines, and rifles, because it can DO BOTH.

Never mind that you can't lay down a curtain of fire very long with 30-round magazines, or that AR-15s are so light that they're not acceptably controllable in full-auto for supporting fire use, or that overheating mitigation sucks on them, no, a gun that can accomplish both tasks to a mediocre degree is perfectly good.

Point is, you simply cannot have a weapon that's good, or even decent, at every task. I would rather have a squad of weapons that each do their job well than a squad of weapons that each do all jobs terribly.

My opinion on the "best assault rifle", you hypothetically ask? There is no "best assault rifle". My favourite AR is, however, the AR-18. Beautiful in a purely utilitarian way, hellfire-accurate, very reliable, and lighter than your average AR-15. Also folding stock-capable, unlike most AR-15s. Such a shame it never caught on, though it was tarted up with a bunch of plastic and HK logos and made into the G36 after being ****ted up and turned into an extremely heavy bullpup by the name of SA-80. Both are inferior weapons, in my opinion.

Plus it was used extensively by the IRA, which is all the badass cred it needs.

 
Last edited:

Wiglaf

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 12, 2006
86
5
0
Ok, so here is couple warfilm, now they might not be 100% realistic and yuo might or might not like them, but pay attention to certain moments there.

YouTube - " DEFIANCE " Trailer - Second World War Movie - Daniel Craig - Combat Scenes

At 4:95 and 7:30
Now how germans actually win that at beginning is whit "recon by fire" and suppression..goes to show how often all yuo see is a muzzel flash.
2nd shows roles reversed as all they spot even whit tank support is something over there. which goes to show the importance of automatic fire even if not so accurate against point targets.(and sustained suppression)


YouTube - (3/13) Stalingrad


2:20 , 3:35, 6:30.
Now yuo might argue that extra penetration offered by bigger bullets offers advantages as by default enemy would be behind some tree etc. Yuo are doing so however whit the expence of yuor ammo supply.



The first 2 parts continue to demonstate allready given points. The strong cover offered in urban terrain would midigate the advantages of stronger bullets.
This is solved at 6:30, which if anything continues to be of growing importance in modern warfare. And has been, yuo might not like it in game, but nade spam is effective tactic, whit modern launchers even more so.


Only thing is that might kill 5.56 or any round in that power range is that whit some much other equipment to carry: average infantry man has M4 which is not taking full advantage of 5.56 and M249 does not do its job at 500m.

Distance realistic in mountains of afganistan. A jack of all trades round is not necessarily what is needed, rather A right tool for a right job thinking might be more sound.


A lot of yuo tube vidoes I see are like this:


YouTube - firefight in afghanistan


Ofcource this is partially because now they have the time to take pretty pictures, but what I gather they are using their heavy/special weapons, would it be that bad if average infantry man could not engage at 400m, but unit having a good amount heavy weapons instead?


That could only really be tested in combat.
 
Last edited:

Ermac

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 19, 2007
591
106
0
The 6.5 grendel is really the answer to this problem. At long range performs just as well as a full sized rifle catridge and even had better penetration against a wind shield then a 7.62x51 did. The British had right idea over 60 years ago they came up with the .280 british which had similar performance a full sized catridge just like the 6.5 grendel did, the American stupidly rejected it claiming it was too weak and yet went to the 5.56 which has unsatisfactory perfomance at long distances and poor penetration compared to the enemy's 7.62x39 weapons. Yes the 5.56 fragments but really there are so many factors that can effect it like the barrel length etc and when it dosen't fragment it leaves a .22 caliber hole in the enemy. A round that has consistent performance is better.
 
Last edited:

Grobut

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 1, 2006
3,623
1,310
0
Denmark
The 6.5 grendel is really the answer to this problem. At long range performs just as well as a full sized rifle catridge and even had better penetration against a wind shield then a 7.62x51 did. The British had right idea over 60 years ago they came up with the .280 british which had similar performance a full sized catridge just like the 6.5 grendel did, the American stupidly rejected it claiming it was too weak and yet went to the 5.56 which has unsatisfactory perfomance at long distances and poor penetration compared to the enemy's 7.62x39 weapons. Yes the 5.56 fragments but really there are so many factors that can effect it like the barrel length etc and when it dosen't fragment it leaves a .22 caliber hole in the enemy. A round that has consistent performance is better.
Yup, that's pretty much it, the 5.56x45 tries to be a jack of all trades, but as is common with such things, that just means there's nothing it really excels at.

It is accurate at range, yes, but it has no real power to speak of at range, depending on barrel leangth, the projectile will stop performing as intended after 300~500 meters, and at this point it's basically just a glorified .22lr, the wounds it will produce at range are not impressive, and it has very poor penetration at range (it actually penetrates best just after it has left the speed where it fragments, but even at it's best it is unimpressive).

And yes it fragments, this can cause very serious wounds, but as stated above, this performance is not stable, it doesen't work past it's optimum velocity, it's very depandant on barrel leangth, and at clouse range, it comes at a cost aswell, namely very poor penetration.

So what you get is a round that can hit a target at distance, but performs quite badly when doing so, and within it's optimum range, it's still only good on soft targets as it wont penetrate much.


If we look at the 7.62x39 by contrast (and mind you, this is a round designed in 1943, so i'm not by any means claiming it is the best that modern technology could produce), it may only be accurate to 300 meters, but atleast it performs well and consistant within its ideal range, it has both stopping power and penetration, so it is an overall performer when used for what it was designed for, it'll make dead people, even if they are hiding behind moderate cover.


Personally, i think the 7.62x39 comes clouser to what an AR needs than the 5.56x45, it's not perfect and could use a makeover with the knowledge and technology we have today, but it does what it's supposed to at the ranges an AR is intended for, and with a facelift it could become very good indeed!, and for long range, DMR's, LMG's and Sniper's work much better anyway, you just plain need size and weight to make an accurate and deadly long range round (and that wont work on full auto, so you cannot have both in one round).

The 5.56x45 seems to have been born out of the outdated view of the "rifleman", sacrificing some of the brute force it could have had within it's ideal range, for a little more accuracy at distance that it cannot put to much use anyway, you still need a DMR for the long range stuff, but coupled with 5.56 AR's, you lack clouse range automatic fire that can penetrate cover, leaving your cheese hanging a bit in the wind..


The "jack of all trades" approach just never works well enough, sure a multitool can get work done, but a sepperate screwdriver and pair of pliers are going to do a better job faster.
 

Ermac

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 19, 2007
591
106
0
And the thing that sucks is the 5.56x45 is very unlikely to be replaced.
 

Colt .45 killer

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 19, 2006
3,998
775
0
Ive always felt that for cartridge size and power, its more of an issue of how effectivly you can counter the recoil. old battle rifles have heavy wooden stocks, try taking that off and firing the gun, *ItakeNOresponsiblity!*.

some interesting new weapons like that kriss .45 cal smg deal heavily with recoil reduction, now if the old .280 round the british thought up 60 years ago were to be utilised with good recoil reduction, one would have a very interesting base for a rifle..

Ive always thought of the best rifle, as not being invented yet. on that futuristic note, im thinking the next big thing in assault weapons will most likely be a gun which fires two different bullets. one barrel, both munitions with the same projectile diameter, one is a long cartridge, the other a shorter, almost pistol like, cartridge; two seperate inline magazines for each type of ammo, and the fire selector switches the two. other then that im blanking on how the jack of all trades weapon will ever be invented, because lets face it, the idiots who buy the weapons are suckered on catch lines and phrases, not the feedback from those who use the weapons...
 

Grobut

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 1, 2006
3,623
1,310
0
Denmark
some interesting new weapons like that kriss .45 cal smg deal heavily with recoil reduction, now if the old .280 round the british thought up 60 years ago were to be utilised with good recoil reduction, one would have a very interesting base for a rifle..
Recoil is only a big problem if you do nothing about it, which sadly, is the norm in western firearm design, look at any AR designed in allmost any western nation since their inception, and what do you see on the muzzle? a flash hider, nothing else.. even on firearms like the X-47 and the newer MASADA and SCAR rifles, which chamber the beefier 7.62x39 and even the 7.62x51 in some configurations, there is only a flash hider.
If you are lucky, it will atleast have an in-line stock, but thats all that is done.

Well it's no wonder that recoil is an issue then, if you add more recoil you have to do something about it! like adding a combined flash hider and recoil compensator, the damed things aren't even expensive or complicated things, the one on the AK-74 is dirt cheap even in civilian retail, and this simple tube reduces felt recoil by a considderable margin (i've heard 75% mentioned, but i'm not sure how credible that claim is, but it's going to be a significant amount at any rate).
 

Zeptorem

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 30, 2009
373
106
0
Yup, that's pretty much it, the 5.56x45 tries to be a jack of all trades, but as is common with such things, that just means there's nothing it really excels at.
Excuse me, what? It's designed as an intermediate round, between subgun caliber and rifle cartridges. Exactly like every other assault rifle round out there (many of which, by the way, intended to copy the ballistics of 5.56; 5.45x39 and 5.8x42 come to mind, but I guess you know better than Russian and Chinese military R&D guys)

It is accurate at range, yes, but it has no real power to speak of at range, depending on barrel leangth, the projectile will stop performing as intended after 300~500 meters,
Which, if anything but CAS, artillery, or the designated marksman is engaging, they're doing it wrong.

and at this point it's basically just a glorified .22lr, the wounds it will produce at range are not impressive,
"Never mind the fact that at 500 yards 5.56 will still have nearly three times the kinetic energy of .22LR at muzzle and will still yaw and penetrate, I watched a History Channel documentary and now I'm an expert."

And yes it fragments, this can cause very serious wounds, but as stated above, this performance is not stable, it doesen't work past it's optimum velocity, it's very depandant on barrel leangth, and at clouse range, it comes at a cost aswell, namely very poor penetration.
Yes, it's true that 5.56 isn't at it's best penetration at extreme close range, but with regular-issue M855, it's still very good.

And I'd still have a round that fragments violently up to 250m than a round that doesn't fragment at all.

So what you get is a round that can hit a target at distance, but performs quite badly when doing so, and within it's optimum range, it's still only good on soft targets as it wont penetrate much.
Where the hell did everyone get this "omg 5.56 can't penetrate and 7.62 can" idea? I see you haven't met Mr. M855 Armour Piercing, which is not only an excellent penetrator, but leaves some nasty wounds behind.

If we look at the 7.62x39 by contrast (and mind you, this is a round designed in 1943, so i'm not by any means claiming it is the best that modern technology could produce), it may only be accurate to 300 meters,
If you're optimistic.

7.62x39's external ballistics are like a 30-30's: crap ballistic coefficient means it drops quickly (and no, this isn't one of those things that can be improved with that magical modern technology), which means any zero you can manage to eek out of the AK's primitive sights is more or less worthless at either extreme close range or long range (which, for an assault rifle, is 300-400m). You tend to overshoot or undershoot your target, respectively, unless you're an excellent marksman and can "eyeball" it.

but atleast it performs well and consistant within its ideal range, it has both stopping power and penetration,
I'm guessing by "stopping power" you mean "wounding capability", in which case, no, no it does not. Rounds that actually expand, fragment, or at least yaw violently are far better at producing big wound channels than 7.62, which tends to stay together and make a nice, neat 7.62mm hole through the target.

5.56x45mm wound profile.
7.62x39mm wound profile.

Personally, i think the 7.62x39 comes clouser to what an AR needs than the 5.56x45, it's not perfect and could use a makeover with the knowledge and technology we have today,
They did that. It's called 5.45x39.

but it does what it's supposed to at the ranges an AR is intended for, and with a facelift it could become very good indeed!,
7.62x39 is just a terrible cartridge all around. The bullet is something more suited to ~2800 FPS, but cut down to 1900, it fails utterly to fragment and therefore the wound profiles are completely unimpressive. SS109 5.56, on the other hand, will fragment very well up to and including 250 m out of a full-length barrel, even longer if you use the mk.262 open-tipped that's so popular among the US's SOFs.

Not to mention, a single 7.62x39mm round still weighs almost as much as two 5.56x45mm rounds. Probably why the standard soviet AKM-armed infantryman only carried 4 mags in a pouch.

and for long range, DMR's, LMG's and Sniper's work much better anyway, you just plain need size and weight to make an accurate and deadly long range round (and that wont work on full auto, so you cannot have both in one round).
So wait, 5.56 sucks because it can't work at range, but even though 7.62x39 can't either, it's okay, because DMs and automatic rifleman can take care of it?

The 5.56x45 seems to have been born out of the outdated view of the "rifleman", sacrificing some of the brute force it could have had within it's ideal range, for a little more accuracy at distance that it cannot put to much use anyway, you still need a DMR for the long range stuff, but coupled with 5.56 AR's, you lack clouse range automatic fire that can penetrate cover, leaving your cheese hanging a bit in the wind..
5.56 SS109 rounds can penetrate perfectly well, that's what the steel core is for. It can penetrate the standard NATO 3.45 steel armour plate up to 640 m, way beyond any assault rifleman's effective range.
 

Xendance

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
4,484
572
0
30
Elitist Prick Club RS Branch
If you're optimistic.

7.62x39's external ballistics are like a 30-30's: crap ballistic coefficient means it drops quickly (and no, this isn't one of those things that can be improved with that magical modern technology), which means any zero you can manage to eek out of the AK's primitive sights is more or less worthless at either extreme close range or long range (which, for an assault rifle, is 300-400m). You tend to overshoot or undershoot your target, respectively, unless you're an excellent marksman and can "eyeball" it.
[nitpick]

Physics 101: You mean that the bullet looses it's speed faster than other rounds? In other words it looses it's kinetic energy which then affects it's stopping power in a negative way :p
It doesn't drop faster.

[/nitpick]
 

Grobut

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 1, 2006
3,623
1,310
0
Denmark
Ohh jolly good, here comes Mr. Sarcastic :rolleyes:

1) We are not comparing the 5.56x45 to the 7.62x39, we are talking about a whole new round that doesen't exist yet, hence, that whole novel you just wrote? it's swatting at figments of your imagination, and is useless to the debate.. i don't think you could have missed the point any harder if you tried.

2) Look up "hyperbole" sometime, maybe then you will grasp the "glorified .22lr" comment.

3) No, you do not get to compare exotic steel core AP rounds to bog standard, cheap as chips ammo as if that was a fair comparison.

4) Stop beeing a self-righteous douche, nobody likes an E-thug, and all that bile you just spewed all over the floor is stinking up the place, and was utterly uncalled for.


Straighten up, get on the same page as the discussion, and then maybe we'll have something to talk about.. or do you honestly think that the 5.56 is the pinnacle of human achivement? that it can in no way be improved upon? no? then what exactly is you objection to us debating how it might be improved?