What rifle and why in a combat situation?

[Thrawn]

[Dakota_kid]

I'd use the new Barret M468 6.8 Remington SPC.
It looked pretty good in the review I read.

[maarten221]

M4 or a SMG like MP%/P90 and a scoped FAL....

Or if I can get really creative....

Something the size of MP5 PDW firing 7.62 Tokarev and a CZ52 sidearm with a scoped FAL over the shoulder.
The 7.62 Tok is only marginally less powerful than 5.56 anyways and works fine out to 150 meters. The FAL will be to take care of anyone past 150 meters.

[Despoiler]

Welcome Dakota_kid.

[Gunnie Ed]

what the heck, i'm just gonna go all out.

i'm gonna go with the Stormtrooper blaster rifle from Star Wars. pyew pyew!

[Shaun]

if only one on the list its the Garand for me the 30-06 will take about any target allowing SA fire control. Otherwise a bolt gun would be the ultimate for precision work

[Dakota_kid]

Thanks, I think I'll like it here.

[ducktapehero]

Gimme a 30-30!!!!

[willypete]

How About A Ge Minigun

[Gunnie Ed]

or that gun that the army's developing. you know, the one that shoots little guided missiles instead of bullets, and can transform into a machinegun, a rocket launcher, and a massive taxpayer burden!

[TULAver]

Mighty partial to this design myself:

http://www.dsarms.com/item-detail.cf...ge=sa58osw.gif

Not as hard hitting as the Garand, but the other features I think make up for that. Show me a modular M1 Garand with a rail or two and a place for an extended eye relief scope, and I might change my mind.

Boy that would be pretty, a tactical M1.

[toolman]

Originally Posted by NorCalAshnjikov

Why spread that BS (its just a popular misconception)?
Action doesn't affect the accuracy of the gun.

If you can show me one full-power (ie:308+) rifle that will outshoot the average Rem 700, Win M-70, Sav 110, etc. right out of the box, you can take your choice of any gun in my closet! I was able to shoot an accurized M-1 Garand (Fulton Armory) a couple of years ago that grouped Black Hills Match into just under 2" while my 91\30 M\N was shooting Wolf 200gr. ($4.79\box) into near identical groups. We all know that there are exceptions to every rule and almost any gun will have an affinity for one ammo over another, but I've NEVER seen any semi-auto other than the AR-15/M-16 outshoot the average generic bolt gun. That being said, my choices would be totally dependent on situation but would most likely include 1.M-39 M\N for long range work 2. Chi-Com SKS for absolute reliability and adequate accuracy within 250 yds. 3. Ruger P-90 .45 ACP-again, absolute reliability. P.S.-How come the ovewhelming majority of SWAT/Sniper divisions use bolt guns if they aren't more accurate? Do you know something that they all don't?

[hounddawg]

Mmmm...

During my military stint in the South-African army I encountered a few good weapons, but they all had their specific limitations.

The R1 rifle (South-African FAL) is a good weapon for longer ranges, but the 7.62 X 53 ammo weighs a bit when carrying 400 rounds with you.

The R4 rifle (South-African Galil knock-off) has in my opinion too little "knock-down" power with the .223 round, and compared to the AK47's the enemy used, too "jam-prone".

The Uzi submachinegun.... Well, perhaps in an urban scenario, and the you make sure you get a Belgian-made weapon, not an Israeli piece of .... well, excrement.

Star 9mm parabellum pistol. Throw this thing away. It will jam on you.

Bren macinegun. Calibered for the 7.62 NATO round, it is fed from a 20-round FAL box magazine. I would have preferred a belt-fed weapon for an !!!-on-the-line weapon. This updated WWII monstrosity tests strong men, as after a day in the field you would think that someone had sneaked an elephant bull into your kit.

I do not have any experience with Armour, but perhaps a good choice would be to wear your weapon :nod:

[TULAver]

Toolman, while there is some wisdom to choosing bolt guns over semi auto for sniper work, it's not the antiquated notion that you're holding onto.

It's been proven by Armalite, H&K, and SIGArms that a semi auto .308 sniper rifle can be every bit as accurate as their bolt gun counterparts. The real advantage of the bolt gun over the semi auto is that you can achieve a higher degree of accuracy for less money with the bolt gun.

Pay $1500 for an AR10 and $1500 for an accurized bolt rilfe, and most likely the bolt gun WILL out shoot the AR. Spend upwards of 3-4 grand on the AR and you can get one that will match the bolt gun.

The PSG-1 is as accurate a gun as any bolt rifle any of us have likely handled, but with semi autos, it proves that you pay a premium for the performance.

So why do most SWAT teams choose bolt guns over semi autos? Simply because they can get a lot more bang for the buck with a bolt gun, and the benefits of the semi auto system rarely outweigh the drawbacks(weight, complex operating system compared to bolt, cost, etc)

[jerry]

I can honestly say Iv'e been watching this thread for years. LOL
Give me whatever they will provide free ammo for, along with spare parts and a trained armorer. I will make it work or it will kill me, literally :insane:

[toolman]

TULAver, your post pretty well stated the same thing that I was saying. I've seen out-of-the-box bolt guns of pretty well every make shoot under 1 1/2" (most under 1") where even high dollar guns like the White Feather MIA are hard pressed to break the 2" mark in a full-power chambering. I'm not the most knowledgeable guy in the world of high-dollar guns like the PSG-1 and the M-16/AR-15's can be truly remarkable, but, you don't see any 7.62 semi-auto rifles in serious competition or tactical situations requiring extreme accuracy. I'm not trying to be contentious, just stating my personal observations.

[Gyrene]

The thread was based upon the question: Which do you select in combat and bet your life with?

Extreme accuracy is not the most pertinent point, reliability combined with solid consistent performance in any situation (which usually occurs in combat). Accuracy to the extent that it would stay within a 10 to 12 inch group, with serious "Knock Down" power, at distances of 500 yards/meters, and beyond, is sufficient to meet the needs of combat. Occasional need for basic maintenance, dirt removal and relubing. Sturdy parts that seldom need replacement.

There are many rifles that will satisfy these needs, including a myriad of "Bolt Action" rifles, but there are several Semi-Auto rifles that have near the same accuracy as these "Bolt Action" rifles, with a very significant increase in rounds fired at the enemy within a given time. I know full autos will exceed the semi autos in output, but it is the aimed shot that will do the job, and firing in full auto, only the first shot can be the aimed shot.

WWII was a war that included every possible variation of climate and terrain that could be encountered, and most of the firearms were up to the tasks assigned, with few needs that were not met.

The jungles of Viet Nam were a continuum of the WWII jungles on the islands of the South Pacific, the extreme cold temperature of North Korea was matched in WWII with soldiers fighting the Japanese on the extended peninsula of Alaska, and while not as extreme a cold, the Battle of the Bulge in the Ardennes (a friend of mine lost both legs and laid out between the lines for 3 days, the cold kept him from bleeding to death). Throughout all of this, the M1 Garand kept the pressure off our troops and on the enemy, and is today loved and revered, as no other weapon ever has been! Why? It was a combat rifle for its time, and still has never been bested!

Every effort has been made to reduce the load on the individual soldier, including attempts to reduce the weight of the firearms carried. My experience is seeing that every rifle that has been offered, weighs almost the same as the M1 Garand (+/- a pound), and none of the others have the knockdown punch or effective range the M1 Garand has. My AR-15 weighs as much as my M1 Garands, and it is a Flat Top AR-15 A2 HBAR with a removeable handle and a floated barrel. If it had all of the attachments everybody has been adding, to their AR-15's (that includes the M4 and whatever else you may want to call an AR-15/M-16), it would weigh half again as much as my M1 Garands.

While you can carry more ammo for some of the replacement offerings (the intent of reduced calibers), that ammo plus more will be needed to get the net result you can achieve with the .30-06 AP (the USGI's used .30-06 AP for much of the last three years of WWII and in Korea).

The reduced length "So-Called" M1 Tanker Garand, was not designed to be carried inside Tanks, but was designed to replace the longer M1 Garand, while still supplying the same punch of the .30-06 AP, for house to house and inside housing combat in Europe. It was considered a "Total Failure" and dropped (except for museum pieces, the others were all scrapped for useable parts) because it was FAR TOO LOUD, and was no better in the inhouse combat than the full sized M1 Garand.

It is possible for a better combat rifle than the M1 Garand to be built, but it will need the full power, reliability, and minimal maintenance characteristics that are the Hallmarks of the M1 Garand. The M-14 S/A is close (and I have one of those, too), but not more reliable, and it has less punch, and less range with reasonable accuracy. The USGI 7.62 x 51mm AP (or other) bullet will tumble after 850 to 950 yards, while a .30-06 AP (or other) will remain stable to beyond 1,100 yards. Yes, there really is a difference, at least a 100 feet per second speed at the muzzle, and 100 pounds feet of energy at the muzzle, and that is significant all the way out.


`

[toolman]

Gyrene, I agree with you 100%. In a combat situation, I prefer absolute reliability\power above extreme accuracy as I stated in my post outlining my choices. The only reason that I even chimed in on this topic was to refute Norcalashnikovs' (sp?) arrogant view that bolt gun accuracy vs. semi-auto is just a fantasy. I stand by my claim that the average Wal-Mart bolt-action hunting rifle will outshoot almost ANY high-power semi-auto rifle in a head-to-head, right out-of-the-box competition. While the thread seems to have morphed, as most do, my comments are based on practical reality and were made in the hopes that some of us would drop the attitude level a bit. P.S.-I claimed my M-39 would be used for long-range work-if given the choice, I would probably choose a Savage 110 or equivalent in 30-06 for sniper-type activities IF I had the time to train with it. If TSHTF, you use what ya got, right? BTW-The ONLY semi-auto that I have extensive experience with is the SKS and to a much lesser extent the AK in various forms. I know without a doubt that the SKS will work long after many other semi-autos' have ground to a halt even though it lacks the power of the M-14 or M-1(FAL, STG, CETME, ETC). While I love the SKS for intermediate ranges, I would still prefer a slow-a**ed bolt-action for long range "sniping".

[TULAver]

Good points all around. Toolman, I got to check out an original FN manufactured FAL that a friend of a friend recently acquired, and you might be interested to know, it operates quite like the SKS with an adjustable gas system, and charging handle on the opposite side. I was very impressed with the utility there.

The more you post though, Gyrene, the more I want a Garand.

WHat about the FN-49? Reliable as an SKS or an FAL, with 10 rounds of 30.06

Wouldn't mind one of those personally.

[hounddawg]

Originally Posted by TULAver

Good points all around. Toolman, I got to check out an original FN manufactured FAL that a friend of a friend recently acquired, and you might be interested to know, it operates quite like the SKS with an adjustable gas system, and charging handle on the opposite side. I was very impressed with the utility there.

In Namibia and Angola we used FAL's very effectively. Suppressive fire can be layed down effectively from ranges exceeding 600 meters. The point is not to really hit anyone. You need to make him keep his head down, while your buddy advances. Your buddy will then keep the enemy nervous, while you advance. While the advance takes place, normally 60 and 80 MM mortars are used to convince the opposition to keep well down. The killing normally gets done at ranges far less than 100 meters (at least for the ordinary Infantry-man), where extreme accuracy is not the determining factor.

I am not saying that nobody gets killed at long range. Those are "bunus" or "bad-luck" kills, depending on the perspective.

The Garand will most certainly be able to lay down suppressive fire at ranges equal or greater than the FAL, but I would consider it to be a section shy on the magazine-capacity.

I have been in combat, therefore if I have to do it again, I think I'll give the Artillery a try. :nod: