Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by cycloneman, Feb 16, 2009.
Which one would you want in battle? Why?
I'd go with the 91.
I really like the HK operating system, although I'd take any of the 3 if you'd like to give me one.
The Garand/M-14 system ain't no slouch either other than the weight. 9 lbs. versus 11 lbs.
i dont know about the Fn but the HK type (clones) do not hold the bolt open on the last shot. That is something I would like to have.
I have to go with the M14. The M14's biggest flaw is full auto accuracy and personally I want a reliable and accurate battle rifle for primarily semi auto fire. Everything that is claimed about the AK47's reliability can be applied to the M14. It will function well in less than ideal weather and without being spotlessly clean. This rifle has been extensively field tested including being buried in sand and still functioned reliably. Some debate that point but I have personally used it and ALWAYS found it dependable. The FAL has a great record and is supposedly more controllable on full auto but from those I know with experience with them they can be finnicky.
HK91, not that I have any good experiences or anything... but out of those the only reliability I have researched and had experience with is H&K. This isn't so much a "out of those three guns that would be the one I want for free," rather... if you came to me and said tomorrow was the apocalypse and I could only have one of them... the H&K.
Good point Vlad.
having humped a m14 and also having a vast amount of experience with a fnfal i'd have to go with the fnfal ( right hand of the free world) easier to fire in full auto able to with stand massive amounts of abuse easy to field strip and parts are every where
For Battle and not for the range is how I'm going to answer.
With no gunsmith or can of spare parts at the ready.
I have or had owned all three, so here's my thoughts, without going into to much detail.
M14 is a nice weapon, Love the sights. The 14 will preform flawlessly with most ammo in the NATO 147ish gr. M1A on the other hand likes the rounds a little heavier 168 to 175. I would say the weak point of these systems are the op rod. Lots of metal flying around. And for my pocket book good USGI mags are a little pricey.
HK 91 not as sexy as the PSG1 but close enough, hard on brass and very finicky when it comes to the ammo it fires. In battle one doesn't have a choice on the ammo that is available. A rifle is not much good if the doesn't fed and eject.
FN FAL This rifle can be the greatest thing since slice bread or no better then a fence post. Just depends on the builder and the parts being used. Thankfully mine is of the first type. Any climate, any ammo, any distance it has preformed better then my expectations. Only weak point would be the many worn out mags on the market. Spend the extra money for new mags, it will make the difference.
I would go with the M14. The M21 systems were the sniper rifles the US Army used in Vietnam, with a lot of success. There were a lot of national records set with that weapon and the national championships at Camp Perry have been won with that rifle, against bolt guns.
FAL gets my vote.
I find it interesting that an HK 91 is grouped with M14's and FN FAL's. G3 intentionally left out or?
All three rifles are so heavy I wouldn't want any of them in battle.
The FAL is the superior design of those 3, but for some reason not always quality built with proper materials/workmanship.
Without time to thoroughly check out that last thought, or margin to undue acquiring a lemon....I'd play safe and use an M14...they are at least consistent.
Off the list, H&K 417 has them all beat if it must be a 7.62mm NATO and you are determined to hump a 9lb-10lb bullet launcher.
Can't I just have a 6lb M4???
Light is right.
The original question was framed for 'battle rifles' or at least that is what I gathered from it. A 7.62 would fall under the guidelines of 'battle rifle' whereas a 5.56 is not. You can play all day long with a M4 but it is defined as an 'Assault Rifle'.
Also, after humping a 16lb bolt gun in the unforgiving Chihuahuan Desert of West Texas, a 9 to 10lb rifle in nothing but a thang.
Disregard before edit. I found the definition. Battle rifle= above interm cartridges etc.
Slap 60lbs of gear on with those 10 lb "battle rifles" and hump it 25 miles tonight then get back with me.
A Battle Rifle or Main Battle Rifle is a full-size select fire rifle designed for military use that fires a high-power rifle cartridge such as the U.S. .30-06 Springfield, the Russian 7.62x54mmR, or the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. 'High power', in this instance, refers to a combination of velocity and bullet weight; these cartridges commonly employ bullet weights of at least 147 grains (9.5 g) and velocities in excess of 2,600 feet per second (790 m/s). The term battle rifle is usually given to post-World War II selective-fire infantry service rifles such as the H&K G3, the FN FAL, the ArmaLite AR-10, or the American M14.
In contrast, so-called assault rifles fire smaller, intermediate-size cartridges and bullets such as the 5.56x45mm NATO round used in the M16, or the Russian moderate-velocity 7.62x39mm cartridge of the AK-47 and AKM series of rifles. However, some overlapping of rifle design and cartridge application occurs—for example a few relatively compact selective-fire rifles in 7.62x51mm NATO caliber have been produced.
The battle rifle's power and long-range accuracy were intended to engage targets at long distances, its length and weight make it relatively cumbersome in close-quarter combat. The recoil of a full-size cartridge makes most battle rifles difficult to control when using full-automatic fire, though a few designs have attempted to control this tendency.
During World War II both Axis and Allied researchers observed that most small-arms combat occurred at about 100 metres (or yards) or closer distances, with few occurring beyond 300 metres (or yards) (precise metric-imperial cross-conversion is redundant - as with all combat-gathered data, these are loose estimates at best). Thus, at short range, the battle rifle's advantages are mostly wasted, thus favoring the employment of more compact, lighter, and more maneuverable rifles. This dimensional disadvantage provoked development of the world's first true assault rifle that would become the German StG44.
Also My Pack is 43 lbs, 16 lb rifle, 100 rounds .308 and 8 quart of water and I hump it across the desert in late August when it's about 105 degrees. If you would like to join me I would love the company
Look on top of the page where it says Edit This Page, click it and notice you could write in there what ever you'd like and save it. I learned this from anti-gun college kids. This is why wikipedia shouldn't be quoted or used as a source.
I concede your point, but be aware that the role of a weapon system ultimately defines what it is. If you're using an anti-tank gun to shoot helicopters....it is for now anti-aircraft.
A 1918 BAR (30-06) is a squad automatic weapon, yet so is an M249 (5.56mm). A 10" barrel M4 on an A-team is an "assault rifle", but on a personnel security team it is a PDW. Splitting hairs.
Irregardless...I stand by the M4 because as of 2009 across the globe the overwhelming majority of dismount combat occurs within 220 meters. That's down from 300 meters just 25+ years ago. As things go, combat will continue to occur closer.
Thanks for the invitation and keep it open for me...as long as nobody is shooting at us it sounds fun.
In September I usually like to make a hunt in New Mexico for Pronghorne. I have a Savage varmiter in 308 (bull 26" bbl) with scope, bipod, ammo. My guess is at least 15 lbs. Fanny pack with radio, phone, MRE, water, binoculars, knife and a ghillie suite to top it all off. Usually it nice in the 60's.
5 to 10 miles a day. THAT'S ENOUGH FOR ME
More power to you guys. The rifle at 15 or 16 lbs is not the problem. You get used to it. It's all the other crap! I can't imagine a 40 or 50 pack.
yea, the older I get the heavier it becomes.
I have been updating items with lightweight gear, trim the pounds anyway I can.
The pack is not the typical day pack, it is geared for 'extended stays'
I believe in testing one's self in a harsh, real world environment and ya, it gets harder and harder ever year.
I have a lot of experience with all three and the HK 91 in my view has the edge over the other two primarily because it is not gas operated. The FN has far less recoil than the other two and does much better job staying on target in full auto. The M14 is horrible in full auto as is the HK 91. In my opinion all three are very good and any one of them would make a great battle rifle. You might want to know I have not shot at anything other than junk in our farm bone yard the three and nothing there ever shots back, if it did my opinion might change but I don't think so.
Separate names with a comma.