The top 10 combat rifles

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by Matt308

Well that theorem holds true unless LesOfPrimus weighs in. Then suddenly everything becomes black and white. There no longer exists shades of grey, blurring logic from emotion. Dogs love cats. The sun may no longer shine during the daytime. Baseball is no longer the American pastime. And big block V-8s are for pussies.

Sometimes boys you have to live with a ruling. You must learn it. Love it. Live it.

How true!

I would venture to say that les qualifies as a "force of nature", IMO.

[Matt308]

As TheLancasterKicksAss (Lanc) once said, he is the forum's Morale Officer.

[glennasher]

The reason for limiting a .30/06's 150 grain bullet to 2700 fps was to keep recoil down for inexperienced draftee soldiers who were complaining about the kick. The Garand was designed for ammunition loaded with 172 grain bullets, but those had to be discontinued because of the range limitations on some National Guard ranges. The 172 grain ammo was too long-ranged and often escaped the shorter National Guard ranges, causing complaints among the populace. All this is according to General Hatcher's "Book of the Garand". Hatcher was in charge of the Springfield Armory and was the Ordnance Corp at the time of the adoption of the Garand. The 150 grain load was basically a reduced load that was safe for the range parameters at that time.
150 grain .30/06 can be loaded to 3100fps safely in a good bolt action rifle, but that overworks the operating rod of the Garand rifle, quickly putting them out of service.

[Soren]

Roger that glennasher.

The 8x57mm JS can be loaded to safely fire a 150 gr bullet at 3,100 fps as-well, but that's really the maximum with such a light projectile, and the 30.06 can actually go a little faster with bullets in that weight class.

It is with heavier bullets of 185 gr or more that the 8x57mm JS is faster than the 30.06.

[Phil Robins]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

AK-47 is the single best weapon of modern warfare. Atleast when it comes to small arms.

Since I "learned" on an M-14, I would put it ahead of the AK-47 when you count "fixed bayonets."

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by ToughOmbre

I'll take the M16A1, M16A2 over the AK any day. They are far more accurate. The AK47 is a fine weapon and reliable but the A1 version of the M16 corrected (with the forward assist mechanism) the jamming problems encountered by the early M16s circa 1965 in Viet Nam. More improvements came with the A2. Not to forget the M1 Garand, Thompson M1 and the M14.

I'm inclined to agree based on handling qualities, short/long range accuracy as an infantry weapon.

The one that didn't make the list is my personal favorite - the AR-18/10. I have all the semi auto stuff mentioned including M-14/M1A and it would be my second favorite except for the way the damn thing rode in full auto.

The AR-10 is the one rifle I would pick if only had time for one.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Roger that glennasher.

The 8x57mm JS can be loaded to safely fire a 150 gr bullet at 3,100 fps as-well, but that's really the maximum with such a light projectile, and the 30.06 can actually go a little faster with bullets in that weight class.

It is with heavier bullets of 185 gr or more that the 8x57mm JS is faster than the 30.06.

With same barrel length Soren? the last time we wandered in this discussion you were using figures for a 29" Mauser.

Do you have a set of ballistic tables for the 8x57 JS in a 24" barrel? And, in the discussion of 'safely fire', what pressures are you loading to? I generally stick to 55,000 psi although all my bolt actions will easily exceed that.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by glennasher

The reason for limiting a .30/06's 150 grain bullet to 2700 fps was to keep recoil down for inexperienced draftee soldiers who were complaining about the kick. The Garand was designed for ammunition loaded with 172 grain bullets, but those had to be discontinued because of the range limitations on some National Guard ranges. The 172 grain ammo was too long-ranged and often escaped the shorter National Guard ranges, causing complaints among the populace. All this is according to General Hatcher's "Book of the Garand". Hatcher was in charge of the Springfield Armory and was the Ordnance Corp at the time of the adoption of the Garand. The 150 grain load was basically a reduced load that was safe for the range parameters at that time.
150 grain .30/06 can be loaded to 3100fps safely in a good bolt action rifle, but that overworks the operating rod of the Garand rifle, quickly putting them out of service.

It wasn't just the recoil, but the difference between an 03 Springfield and the M-1 action. The 03 can take a lot more pressure, not so much because of the different actions but because of the gas system.

You really don't want to fire commercial 30-06 ammo in an M-1. All the load tables that display "M-1" loads are lower in powder loads at max than the "commercial 30-06" max loads. At one time I had a Browning BAR (rifle, not the 20# varmint) and loaded it with the same loads as the M-1.

If you check Hornady, as an example - the M-1 is loaded to 2750 (Max) with 155gr and 2700 (max) with 168 gr from a 24" M-1. The next set of tables for 30-06 is 3000 (Max) for the 155 and 2900 with 168 gr from a 23 1/2" bbl. These figures will vary slightly from one reloading manual to another but consistent with loading differences.

That same manual has for the 8x57 JS, the following Max loads for a 24" barrel on M98 action.

150 gr 2800fps
170 gr 2700fps
220 gr 2300fps - (the comparable 30-06 max for the slightly shorter 23.5 barrel = 2500fps)

The rule of thumb for the slow burning powders is an extra 50fps per extra inch of barrel.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

However, in my opinion as-well as many expert's the Mauser is the best bolt action rifle in history, and for good reasons as nearly every military & commercial bolt action rifle today utilizes its design. (The Isrealies actually used K98k's as Sniper rifles up till the mid 90's)

I agree, even though the M700 has an amazing rep for accuracy, I believe in the claw extractor.

I do like the FN600/Sako action better than the M98 with clip cut out as they're stiffer. I have several in the 700 action but none above 30 cal.

Lots of 'improvements' to the M98/FN but still the same great design.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Err, no. Some Snipers "stole" (Besorgen) higher powered V-patr. (V = Verbesserte = Improved) used by the LW for an extra 150m of effective range, but the quality of the round was the same, excellent, the only difference being that the V-patr. featured a more potent propellant charge.

Soren - where did the V-patr fit from a burn rate in comparison with say IMR or VIHT powders? Near 4381 or VHT-140/150? or closer to upper ranges of slow burners like RL-22 or RL-25?

"Potent" is a hard term to understand but propellant burn characteristics would make it easier to understand what the real potential is in comparison to the modern propellants.

The pressure experience is dominantly a function of cartridge design, quantity of powder and burn rate (as you well know). Having said that the only difference between the LW and the infantry round had to be the powder - primer wouldn't make significant difference.

Using the US as a contrast - the equivalent discussion is between the A/C load for the M1919 Browning versus the 03 springfield with a commercial round, not an M-1 round which had to be loaded for reduced pressures as a semi auto.

The aircraft round was loaded to max pressures (I am looking for the load now) and troops were warned to not use it - even in the 03 which was a Mauser 98 basically.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Someone also made comment about indifferent quality of ammunition having a great risk of exploding the enfield. In twenty years of working around them, i have never seen a single failure of the gun due to poor ammunition. There are only be two possibilities arising from that

1) I have been incredibly lucky and not encountered bad ammunition
2) The enfield is more resistant to bad ammunition than the claim would suggest

Another cause would be the headspace slightly too high and the cartridge slightly too 'short' at the shoulder.

Another possible cause is a 'short' drop of powder (yes, not enough) from the reloading machines. This is an odd example but has been encountered by reloaders using reduced charges to 'blow out' a shoulder for a wildcat cartridge... still don't know why 'detonation' rather than 'burn' occurs