Top 10 Combat Rifles
-
I love the show... AK-47 is considered the bad guys rifle...
-
The latest variants of the AK-47 are even designed to fire the NATO 5.56mm and the 7.62mm!
-
Actually the AK 47s were last built in the late 50s or 60s - for the Russian ones anyway. They were replaced by AKMs and eventually AK 74s in 5.45 mm caliber. New versions in NATO calibres are AK 101 & AK 102.
AKs are accurate to 200 m , M16s to 400 m. M16 s are good but I prefer the G36 s. Our SAR 21s are too heavy and really need to be improved. Its ergonomics especially for Safe/Fire Single Shot/Auto sucks. Weight shud be reduced to 3.5 kg ( with scope ) range & the Standard SAR 21 for the normal infantry shud have Picatinny rails so that sights & other accessories can be attached. We also do not need a full length 20 inch barrel. Most new rifles make do with 16 to 18 inches - it will save weight, make overal length even shorter and does not have a major impact on accuracy ( for the normal combat ranges up to 300 to 400 m ) for the normal soldier especially when you have better optical sights. Lets hope that ST Eng comes up with a A1 version soon. -
Let's have an insightful look at barrel lengths of some weapons.Originally posted by glock:We also do not need a full length 20 inch barrel. Most new rifles make do with 16 to 18 inches - it will save weight, make overal length even shorter and does not have a major impact on accuracy ( for the normal combat ranges up to 300 to 400 m ) for the normal soldier especially when you have better optical sights. Lets hope that ST Eng comes up with a A1 version soon.
SG
SAR-80: 18 inch
SR-88: 18 inch
SAR-21: 20 inch
USA
M16: 20 inch
M4: 14.5 inch
ISRAEL
GALIL: 21 inch
TAR-21: 18 inch
S. KOR
K-1: 18.3 inch
Belgium
FNC: 17.6 inch
RUSSIA
AK-47: 16.3 inch
AK-74: 16.3 inch
AK-101: 16.3 inch
CHINA
Type 81: 17.5 inch
Type 95: 20.5 inch -
Does rifle length affect the punching power of rounds?
I do know that M-4 with short barrel have weak stoppage power.
I love the Sar-21 scope.... when it doesnt fog...anything within 300m ka-pow!
--->It's So heavy. i 'm glad i dont have to move closer to hit something. Heh -
I prefer AK 74, more acc.
-
I love the Ak too, thats when I am playing Counter-Strike. But when I fire an actual AK, oh my god, the recoil gave me bruises...I still prefer M16 although I think the Ak packs more wallop....but its not easy to aim accurately using Ak...
-
Well glock, I quite agree with you on the fact that the SAFE/SEMI/AUTO selector's ergonomics sucks big time but I disagree with the need for P-rails on the standard Infantry issue SAR21. Why? Because frankly, we are a conscript army, and most if not all the troopers will not spend money on optics, fore-grips, tactical lights etc. for their service weapon.Originally posted by glock:I Weight shud be reduced to 3.5 kg ( with scope ) range & the Standard SAR 21 for the normal infantry shud have Picatinny rails so that sights & other accessories can be attached. -
the overall of SAR 21 is good to new recruits and those not so fit.
I have seen teenages and even auntie of 40's shot SAR 21
live rounds without problems.
2.SAR 21 can be one of the top 1o.
SAR 21 Assault Rifle -
You need a 20' barrel to get the most magic out of the 5.56. Using that barrel and your typical ball ammo, the 5.56 is actually more lethal then the AK 7.62 bullet within 100 meters due to its fragmentation effects. Start messing around with the length and you'll see issues like not being able to stop your targets start to appear.
Reduce the barrel length and you will start to erode the very qualities of the 5.56 that give it certain neat advantages over the 7.62. In theory, you can carry more 5.56 ammo for 7.62 and in the short ranges typical of FIBUA your weapon is actually more effective at killing the enemy. Though 5.56 sucks at shooting through barriers... which would be typical in FIBUA.
I always wondered what's up with the SAR-21 fire selector, but I never had any issue with the weight. The justification for it, or so I heard was that if you mounted the same amount of accesories of the SAR (scope, LAD) on the M16 and you will get a system that is heavier. So the weight issue is pretty moot in the end. The SAR was supposed to be some kind of standard weapon to give a basic form of these capabilities to the conscript army I suppose. -
The AK like never jams or screw you up. So I'll go with it anytime...
When all hell break loose you just fire and pray hard. Also pray it don't jam on you too. -
This is MAGPUL's upcoming piston-driven AR named MASADA in 2007 S.H.O.T. show:
It looks like a cross between the FNH SCAR and H&K G36.......
I think that Kevin Mcklung guy should take back that slogan and change it to: "The best way to improve the AR15 is to forget about it and start from scratch." -
i like the M1 Garand because of the clip drop head shot trick
-
anyone record it down....
-
You don't need a 1903 Springfield with bayonet to stab friendlies from behind. I got one in the back with an M16 + bayonet in SAFINCOS when a section mate behind me tripped when charging hill.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Saw those ancient clips. My god...those troopers using the 1903 Springfield with bayonet attached...better not get near them man. The likelihood of getting stabbed by friendlies from behind is like damn high. -
Let's do some pasar malam analysis with these figures.
SG
SAR-80: 18 inch
SR-88: 18 inch
SAR-21: 20 inch
USA
M16: 20 inch
M4: 14.5 inch
ISRAEL
GALIL: 21 inch
TAR-21: 18 inch
S. KOR
K-1: 18.3 inch
Belgium
FNC: 17.6 inch
RUSSIA
AK-47: 16.3 inch
AK-74: 16.3 inch
AK-101: 16.3 inch
CHINA
Type 81: 17.5 inch
Type 95: 20.5 inch
The Belgians, who make some of the finest military small arms of this past 100 years, feel that a 17.6-inch barrel for their 5.56mm FNC is more than enough.
Interestingly, the list showed that amongst CONVENTIONAL layout 5.56mm weapons, the M-16 and Galil stand out as the rare few having the full length barrels of 20 to 21 inches. Most people settle for around 18-inches.
Even SG made 2 AR with 18-inch barrels before coming up with the bullpup SAR-21.
Also interesting to note that a shorter barrel does not necessarily mean a lighter weapon. The SAR-80 and SR-88 with 18-inch barrels are both HEAVIER than the M-16 with a 20-inch barrel.
The Russians had been, and continue to be, very satisfied with 16.3-inch barrels and feel that accurate aimed shots out to 200m more than sufficient.
In fact, I get the feeling that they feel that accurate aimed shots are in practice not the most important thing. They also continue to use the open v-notch rear sight which is much better at quick acquisition of targets (but less precise aiming) than our M16 ring-type rear sight.
On the other hand, China abandoned the AK-47 in favour of their own Type-81 (also in 7.62 x 39mm) with a slightly longer barrel cos it is apparently much more accurate. They continue to seek accuracy and longer barrels with the new Type 95 in bullpup with a full length 20.5 inch barrel.
Just when everyone is adopting bullpups with full length barrels, the Israelis did the complete opposite by adopting a bullpup that has an 18-inch barrel as standard, shorter than either their current M-16 or Galil. -
True enough, but you are just as dead if you can't hit jack with it and your enemy has a far more precise weapon at a distance fight. I think a compromise must always be struck between reliability and actual usability. The AK is reasonably precise in a good hand, but it's not something you want to tot to a long range engagement, given it fires an underpowered round (by 7.62 standards) with a rainbow bullet path. Ugh, bad.Originally posted by jianfish9:The AK like never jams or screw you up. So I'll go with it anytime...
When all hell break loose you just fire and pray hard. Also pray it don't jam on you too. -
I think its got to do with other factors. NATO has a lower population and in the case of the US, a largely volunteer army. Thus you need more bang for the buck, something that can disaproportional increase the fighting capability of the regular grunt. Much like our force multipliers. Thus the high precision weapon like the M-16. The Warsaw Pact on the other hand, has enormous numbers with a beat-up economy. Theres absolutely no way you can spend so much time and money in training troops to handle something like the M-16. So you need an effectively idiot-proof weapon, so there you have it, the AK-47.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:True enough, but you are just as dead if you can't hit jack with it and your enemy has a far more precise weapon at a distance fight. I think a compromise must always be struck between reliability and actual usability. The AK is reasonably precise in a good hand, but it's not something you want to tot to a long range engagement, given it fires an underpowered round (by 7.62 standards) with a rainbow bullet path. Ugh, bad. -
Agreed, one of the interviewees said that he can teach a fresh recruit how to strip,assemble,maintain and operate the AK-47 in like 4-5hrs as compared to an M16 which needs a week at least.Originally posted by fallin:I think its got to do with other factors. NATO has a lower population and in the case of the US, a largely volunteer army. Thus you need more bang for the buck, something that can disaproportional increase the fighting capability of the regular grunt. Much like our force multipliers. Thus the high precision weapon like the M-16. The Warsaw Pact on the other hand, has enormous numbers with a beat-up economy. Theres absolutely no way you can spend so much time and money in training troops to handle something like the M-16. So you need an effectively idiot-proof weapon, so there you have it, the AK-47. -
It is quite wrong to assume that the Russians (or Soviets in the old days) decided upon the AK based on having an expendable population.Originally posted by fallin:I think its got to do with other factors. NATO has a lower population and in the case of the US, a largely volunteer army. Thus you need more bang for the buck, something that can disaproportional increase the fighting capability of the regular grunt. Much like our force multipliers. Thus the high precision weapon like the M-16. The Warsaw Pact on the other hand, has enormous numbers with a beat-up economy. Theres absolutely no way you can spend so much time and money in training troops to handle something like the M-16. So you need an effectively idiot-proof weapon, so there you have it, the AK-47.
First of all, the Russians are technically proficient enough to build an accurate rifle if they feel that's what they need. But the AK tapered cartridge and the rifle itself is designed with loose tolerance for reliability over accuracy.
Secondly, their experience in WW2 with generous issue of SMG "burp guns" showed that high volume of automatic fire actually worked as well as - if not better than - aimed single shots.
And besides, a Russian infantry platoon has several sharpshooters armed with scoped Dragunov sniper rifles to deal with the accuracy and longer range issues.
Also, they have many SAWs in the platoon in the form of RPK which has a longer barrel and more accuracy if fired single shot. So long range engagement for a Russian rifle platoon is no problemo.
And once the infantry get to close quarters urban or jungle, an AK firing bursts is a lot more devastating than those coming from M16-armed infantry. -
1. All the newer rifles invariable have 16 to 18 inch plus barrels eg TAR21,
F2000, G36 in standard variant. All have built in scopes & all are much
lighter than SAR21. A 20 in barrel is more lethal but a 16 to 18 in one is
sufficient for a normal conscript infantryman up to 300 m ranges. With
modular designs, give the more skilled conscript a 20 to 24 in barrel and 4
X scope & he will take out enemy at 400 to 600 m.
2. The aunties / teenagers / kids can hit man sized targets at 100 m with
SAR21 without training. They can also do the same with the other rifles
above. They can also do so with a scoped M16.
3. SCAR, G36 and F2000 have Safe/Fire & Auto/Single shot controls which are
similar or better than the ones in M16s which are hard to fault.
4. P rails give flexibility to the normal infantryman. They are not only for Spec
Ops. When u need a light in urban combat or when u need to configure
rifle for a night battle and need a night sight , the P rail will be needed.
5. The sight reticule in the standard optical sight in the SAR21 is hard to see
& is useless in poor light & darkness. It shud not be black but illuminated
to amber or red. There are also no graduations to estimate range - one
only needs to see a G36 standard optical sight to see how simple and
effective a good sight is.
6. The SAR 21 can be a great rifle if the above improvements are made.
As a Sporean, I hope we get a A1 version with all the features above
soon. -
I left the army long time ago and had no chance to use the Sar *whatchamacallit?? But on of my visit to Singapore I asked my brother in law who is an OC in one of the the reservist Infantry unit and he said he is not being trained to use the Sar.Why is that so? I think all soldiers ahould know how to use the various small arms in the SAF and also including the wapons of potential enemies..this is pure common sense.
-
Erm, an close in burst from an M16 using normal ball ammo is far more lethal then AK burst. The tendency for such 5.56 to fragment at high velocities after entering the body causes larger wounds then the size and velocity of the round would account for. The AK 7.62 on the other hand, only starts to cause significant injury when it starts to yaw and tumble after having penetrated sufficent tissue... otherwise the AK round produces the typical "ice pick" effect.Originally posted by moca:And once the infantry get to close quarters urban or jungle, an AK firing bursts is a lot more devastating than those coming from M16-armed infantry.
Hence at FIBUA distances a 5.56 round is actually more dangerous. Unless of course for some reason you are using the current standard issue Yank greentip ammo which removes this fragmentation effect and rendering the round very much less lethal.
Above 100 meters however, the AK round is more dangerous... but this is offset by it being less precise. The real gem of the AK is in its reliability, given an IA in close quarters is death... something that is more likely with an M16. -
LOL! SAF will teach you that in 1 day as well, and you'll have many many many experiences of stripping and maintaining it as well. Blindfolded etc. BMT not so nice to give u 1 week to teach u how to handle the M-16.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Agreed, one of the interviewees said that he can teach a fresh recruit how to strip,assemble,maintain and operate the AK-47 in like 4-5hrs as compared to an M16 which needs a week at least.
And of course, one can teach a fresh recruit how to do something, but whether he really learn anything is dependent a lot on the quality of instruction as well.
