Assault Rifle vs Main Battle Rifle

[Mike Franklin]

I’ve been reading military debriefings from the Soviet/Afghanistan War. It was mentioned, by Afghani Officers, that the .303 could penetrate Soviet Flak vests while rounds from the AK 47 and AK 74 could not. The .303 seems to have been preferred for some battle conditions. The Soviet Troops also had constant problems with fire control. The AKs were used to spray an area or target. Several times Soviet Commanders had to order the Troops to fire Semi-auto only to conserve ammo. During at least one engagement Soviet Troops were on the edge of victory but ran out of rifle ammo.

[Muddog]

So your saying a battle rifle with semi-auto or bolt action is preferred against a full-auto assault style weapon?

[Capt'n Mil Coll]

Get a copy of the video Deadly Weapons. He shoots an M1 Carbine an AK-47 a Enfield 303 and a FN through a car door into a target with a bullit proof vest behind it.
The M1 shooting .30 carbine barely makes it through the metal ending up behind the interior panel. It is a handgun round ya know.
The AK-47 7.62x39 goes through the door and hits the target in three pieces.
It broke apart.
The Enfield .303 goes through the door and the target and ends up in the bullit proof vest.
The FN .308 goes through the car door through the target through the bullit proof vest and out the other door and keeps going.
He also shoots gallon plastic milk jugs starting with .17 and ending up with .44 Mag.
Then he goes on to shoot a guy in the chest wearing a bullit proof vest with the FN .308 at about 3 feet away. You should see what happens.
He also gets a Ma Duce and shoots the hell out of a car. A very interesting video.

[SwedeSteve]

Sounds interesting Cap'n!

[Windwalker]

+1 on the video Cap'n. Do you have a link to it?

[nathangdad]

A very interesting point for the Soviets and all military commanders
in an unpopular war unsupported by the troops consists of the simple
fact that even when forced into the offense the troops wish to protect themselves defensively. Therefore, the option to spray everything is
of paramount importance to the soldiers on the front. If nothing else, perhaps the enemy will run away.

The army of which you post is a far different sort than the Red Army of WW2. It was forced into a war for which the troops had no interest.
The levels of drug use, alcoholism, and desertion of Russian troops were
phenominal in Afghanistan compared to other operations in the history of the Red Army .

The spray versus aim is a very old debate. You have to consider the motivation of the troops. Well motivated, emotionally involved troops will take the time to aim well when the situation affords this option.

[samuel]

Until they put the ceramics in the vest,s worn by our military in Iraq and Afganistan,they wouldnt stop either the 7.62x39mm or the 5.56x45mm Nato.It is intresting that the AK round broke up,because sheetmetal does little to distort bullets,even varmint bullets.I doubt that the standard issue vest would stop a .303brit..I also doubt that at short range you would notice much difference in the 7.62nato and .303brit,altho there is about 400ft lbs difference using 150gr bullets.But through is through,and I believe the .303 would penetrate the vest.Too bad you didn't post the video,but some of those are rigged.Intresting anyway,please post more. sam.

[Mike Franklin]

I'm not sure I reached any conclusions that matter to anyone but me. I always have felt that conditions decide which weapon is superior. US and Soviet, now Russian, unit tactics depend on Air Power, Artillery and Armor of various types none of which are available to individual 'survivalist'.

[Capt'n Mil Coll]

Sorry I didnt make myself clear on the video. Its called Deadly Weapons. Its not cheep its about $35.00. The purpose of the video is to debunk Hollywood myths. I dont have any links but I did google it a while ago.

[mos19k]

Here's part of the video, you can see most of it on youtube.

YouTube - Deadly Weapons - Second Chance Hardcore...

[mym1a]

being a flack vest was designed to stop shrapnel not a bullet i'm not surprised that a 303 penetrated it. as for the general waste of ammo because of fire power i'm not surprised? once again I will state I don't think quanity is better then quality.i'm going to take the liberty to say that in most conditions just spraying an area is a waste of ammo especialy when you have NO access to resupply, and I also believe carrying all that ammo luls one into a false sence of security.I wish I could remember were I got the stats but as military rifles progressed over the years with high capacity magazines more rounds had to be used to achieve a kill. don't get me wrong assault rifles have there place but the type of battle everyone is speculating, wouldn't realy require every one to have one>

[patrick70]

It depends on the situation.An assault rifle would be a first choice ,but in wide open areas like a cow pasture I would take a battle rifle.

[Mike Franklin]

There are numerous reports of 'failure to stop' shootings coming from both Afghanistan and Iraq. (Both with thier AK and our M-16).
The Strategy of modern warfare has been to cause as many wounded enemy combatants as possible to tie up enemy resources and personal. Unfortunately the current enemy has very little fear of death, willing to die to achieve the goal. Our Military has been looking at a larger caliber, heavier bullet to inflict more serious injury. In other words, ‘You gotta kill them pricks to stop’m’.
Depending on who you think you might wind up fighting with in the future, you might want more gun than you've been planning on.
As a Peace Officer I've seen enough instances of wounded Bad Guys completeing an assault after being shot to know that you better have enough gun.

[Cyrano]

In my opinion, the "perfect survival rifle" is the one that works for you. It doesn't have to work for me, or for Aunt Tillie or Sergeant Bullwhip Psycho, USMC (a character from a comedy routine a cadet a class behind me at the Zoo used to do); it has to work for YOU.

I've written on the subject before. My own opinion is your rifle has to be able to work with minimal maintenance, under the field conditions you can expect to encounter where you are at any time of the year, and be chambered for a 'universal cartridge' wherever you are. Apart from that, trick it out however you like and carry as much ammo for it as you want or think necessary. As long as your rifle works for you and you can reliably hit what you point at with it, carry whatever you please.

Anyone who wants me to expound/expand on this, please contact me off-forum and I'll be happy to discuss this subject.

[Mike Franklin]

It does amaze me that folks think one gun will do it all and that their situation is best handled by what someone's military uses.
I have a nice Marlin Cowboy in .38-55 that works fine for me but likely ain't right for you.

[Beans]

The FN .308 goes through the car door through the target through the bullit proof vest and out the other door and keeps going.

Then he goes on to shoot a guy in the chest wearing a bullit proof vest with the FN .308 at about 3 feet away. You should see what happens.

Should have killed him, based upon the above information

[Capt'n Mil Coll]

Nope 2 different kinds of bullit proof vests. Thats the difference between a cheep one and a good one. Most vests wont stop high power rifle only handguns. The video posted by Mos19k shows the gentleman getting it in the vest. While standing on one foot no less.