Greatest rifle of all time?
 

What is the greatest rifle of all time and why?

My vote is for the M1 Garand. It is a well balanced weapon that provides an excellent effective range of a larger caliber round.

The M1 Garand saw service for over 40yrs and is still the cerimonial weapon of choice for the United States Armed Services.

~k_day64

I'm going to have to say the m14. A history comparable to that of the garand, but with greater accuracy, reliability, and is still being used both in service and competitively today.

M-16 and AK47

That depends a lot on qualifications (are we going for accuracy? longevity? cost effectiveness? etc), but for an all around best rifle, I would also say the M14. Superior accuracy and range to the M16 and M1, more durable than many rifles, and a good deal of history to it. It's got a lot of things going for it.

It is relatively effective as both an assault weapon and a sharpshooter weapon (when it needs to be), in addition to its standard mid range applications. All around, a very good rifle.

Best rifle? At what? That is like asking "What is the best tool?". A carpenter may say a hammer while a mechanic may say a wrench. There are so many types of rifles and so many applications that it is apples, oranges, and kumquats.

Lee Enfield - used by the British in 2 World Wars - Its probably better than the SA80 they are using now !

Anything is better than an SA80 - belive me.

And I love my Lee Enfield:

http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/images/uploads/Lady_C.JPG

Its just dying to go for a nice hunt, havent had a good one since leaving South Africa.

As for white tails I myself am partial to my Remington 700 30-06

M-14's are great rifles, good accuracy, and uses a larger round than the M-16. But it is also much heavier, and the ammunition weighs more which makes it even more of a pain to carry extra ammo. If I had a choice I would take the M-4 over it.

Thanks Cannibal and Unleashed, it's nice to know that Lee Endfield is well represented. My dad's is a beaut.

M-14 and variants.

maybe not be the greatest of all time, but it has left a soft place in my heart and bruise on my shoulder:

Winchester Model 1886 rifle

not only the rifle that tamed the west, but it looks great wheeling around in john wayne's hands when he crosses the field in 'true grit'

I'm gonna add the Brown Bess.

I don't think that the MP5 could fit in here but it would have my vote.... but since i cant say it i would say the M16

Amen, brother! I concur. :thumbsup:

I vote for the AK-47 and its variants. Cheap, easy to clean, and can take a beating and still work. Plus it's got that badass look.

if only for us two, i gotta quote it:

Robert Duvall: "Rooster Cogburn, that's bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!

The Duke: "Fill your hand you sonofabitch!"

easily one of the greatest moments ever captured on film.

A true classic. The Western Channel runs True Grit quite a bit. It's almost to the point of being like Rocky Horror in my house where we say the lines somtimes ;-)

M14 gets my vote. A close second would be the AR15 with the pink furniture. :eek:

I would have to say the M14. Superior accuracy, great range, and shoots a helluva round. I love my M16, but I would take an M14 for all general purpose rifle shooting.

I am not an expert, but I would say the M1 Garand or Winchester Model 64.

I can just picture him in my mind, riding across the field with the reins in his teeth, rifle in one hand, revolver in the other, and blowing the hell out of the bad guys. :D

Thanks for the quote, gibingus. :)

I have a soft spot for the garand (where my collar bone use to be). It's in my mind the last true rifle before everything became portable machine guns

personally, I have a fondness of the Heckler-Koch G36 if for no other reason than it's versatility. It's got more options and forms for specific tasks that you'd be hard pressed to be in a situation where this gun couldn't be suited. Whether you're in the field or are in CBQ, this rifle can adapt to ensure the advantage. Or at least that's my opinion on it.

The M1 is called my many the greatest weapon man has ever known.

Ak-47....that thing will be around forever.

The AK, including variants, and the SKS impress the hell out of me. I've seen a video where a guy pours gatorade into the chamber of an SKS, then with the bolt open, buries it in dirt and lets it sit for a few. He then picked it up, wedged a round into the chamber, slammed the bolt closed and actually fired the damn thing.

In another video I saw where the Russians were testing the durability of either the AK103 or AK107 (I forget which), they dropped it from the roof of a three story building onto a street, and then a UAZ (Russian jeep) runs over it. Seconds later, a soldier picks up the weapon and fires it full auto. Now that, friends, is a reliable weapon.

Also, I have found in my experiances, that the AK47 is not much less accurate than the M16. I think the popular idea that the AK47 can't hit the broad side of a barn is because it is such a prolific weapon, and sees heavy use in third-world armies and militias. With proper care, mantinence and training, it's not too shabby.

Israeli Military Industries Galil Assault Rifle

Yeah, thats the best :)

If the Galil is so great, then why do the majority of the IDF use m16s and m4s?

Becuase they get them for free from the US government.

Hands down, it's gotta be the Wincchester Model 1894. The 30-30 lever action rifle is deadly accurate and the best damn deer rifle of all time...
'nuff said

In the words of Samuel L. Jackson:

"AK-47, when you've absolutely gotta kill every muthafucka in the room - Accept no substitutes."

Where did you see this? Do you have a link?

AK-47 What other gun has made it onto nations flags?

I don't know why anyone would ever vote for the m-16, the guns jams like a sob, its unreliable. . . To name off a few very good rifles Id like the start with the AK-47- A beautiful weapon, may not be the most accurate, but this baby packs a punch. You can take this gun underwater, cover it in mud and it will still fire. (hold the m-16 the wrong way and it will jam). So for its reliability and stomping power I vote AK.

My second gun of choice, would probably have to be the garand. Ok Ok, its not accurate. . . .a bitch to reload. But DAMN this gun is fun to shoot. So comming up in second is the Garand.

My 3rd place vote has to go to the. . . .umm. . . .. im gonna go out on a limb here and vote for the M-14, this gun is a semi-automatic badass. Accurate and imo think that the m-14 should have never been replaced during vietnam. So for its accuracy and power, the m-14 gets my third place choice.


A worthy mention of EVERY single Heckler-Koch gun also.



PS: Im Canadian, but our army has a contract with our arms dealer. I HIGHLY doubt you get the rifles for free. Colt is the supplys most of your rifles doesnt it? I would think that the army has some type of deal with them. I dont think they come from the government

Gotta say, the Garand proved itself in the hardest conditions possible. And on the opposite end, the m-16 proved it can jam easy and is useless with the wrong ammo. Given the right ammo and heavy barrel, its a pleasure to shoot and accurate as hell.

Heckler & Koch G3, has been the standard weapon in the german army for about 40 years. Unfortunately, i had to use its succeeding model, the G36 when i had my basic training in the Bundeswehr. Not a bad rifle either, but the G3 was just a real rifle, made of steel, not like the G36 which is of a carbon material.

Duh... the Garand

Was split between 3...

M1 Garand for obvious reasons

AK47 and variants for being one of the most reliable automatic rifles ever and may be in use years from now

Mauser 98 - because among bolt actions, this is simply one of the most beautiful ever made and reliable as well

Yup....The Garand. It's record speaks for itself.

Garand. Bottom line.
Dead-on accuracy, rugged as pure steel, field strips easy, reliable, one-shot knockdown.

If it wasn't for the size and weight of the 30.06 round, I bet the US Army would be using a modernized version. They even tried to, with the M14. But 7.62 doesn't work with an assault rifle. 10 or 12 round clips, semi-auto, with high personal marksmanship would work with a modern Garand. Not current military doctrine, unfortunately.

I'm very partial to my M16A2, but the army will soon be replacing it:(

The Mauser K-98!

Anybody that has shot one knows what I'm talking about when I say that this thing is more "art in practice" than a mechanism or device.

http://www.secondeguerre.net/Armes/mauser98k.jpg

I'd put a vote down for the m1. Balance and accuracy galore.

Its been awhile since i checked this one out, but to that perosn way up there who says the mp5, no one reminded him that the mp5 isnt really a rifle :x

Best of all times? That's really decide.

M1 Garand is definately there. Also my next choice would be the M14.

However, what about the modern ones? Like CAR-15 or the new XM-8? I can't tell personally as I never fired any of the CAR-15 or the XM-8

Cheers!

AK-47....it has been in use for a long time and will continue to be used.

:eek: No! You didn't! You did! You let reality poke it's ugly head into this thread!... Don't you know that the proper etiquette is to pronounce your opinion as fact with no supporting facts or evidence? :D

For shame sir!

Uh, personaly, I'd like to vote for the M14. Because I said so.

the M1 Garand gets my vote as well... but I also enjoy my M16A2 quite a bit. The XM8 will be quite an adjustment when the Army moves to it.

they're probably a lot cheaper ;)

While all these American guns are great guns.

Nobody here can deny the reliability, knock-down power, and the sheer volume produced of the AK-47

The newer M16/M4 are still prone to jamming, and the small caliber can't really compete with a 7.62 mm cartridge.

M1 Garand would be my number one choice.

number two, you cannot beat the pure stopping power of the barrett M107 (military grade) or just below that in the competition market the 82A1.

While the AK-47 is impressive with it's reliability, it lacks seriously in accuracy. Also, as for caliber, the .223 rounds are designed to NOT blow a giant hole in you. The M16 uses rounds that are meant to maim and not kill as easily. If you're dead, you're one man down. If you're injured, you're one man down and one or two men trying to pull you off of the field. It's all about tactics my friend.

The AK47 in the hands of a competant marksmen will do serious damage, there are also several variations of the AK (Dragunov being one of them) that can pick off enemies from 1/2 a mile away.

Are you sure the .223 round was designed to maim and not to kill? The standard NATO Full Metal Jack round that is designed to penetrate and not to mushroom?

But it all comes down to personal preferance. I would compare a AK and a M16 to a Muscle car and a highly tuned import. The AK being loud and heavy and powerful while the M16 being more refined and more prone to failure.

StG.44 - The start of the revolution.

Almost any weapon in the hands of a competant marksman can be dangerous. Not to brag, but I am an Expert Marksman (so says the Army at least). I've fired an AK47 (not 74) and found it to be innacurate past about 150m or so. Maybe it was just the weapon I fired. *shrug*

Yes, the .223 round is SPECIFICALLY designed to maim and not kill. The maim is an ideal tactical victory on a soldier by soldier basis. Mushrooming rounds are forbidden by the Genvea Convention and sadly enough I think the US is one of only 3 or 4 countries that still abide by those rules (for the most part).

At any rate, the argument is NOT so much against the AK as for the M16... I've fired the thing more times than I can count and have always been fairly please. The one or two times I've had it jam, I've been able to pull SPORTS on it in under 5 seconds and continue firing.

If you're looking just for kick or power, then I'd say a nice .50cal automatic would be more to your liking. Or even a SAW, same .223 but much faster fire rates. It doesn't need to be accurate to sweep a street.

L1A1 SLR - the Rolls Royce of modern weaponry - sorry but in my humble opinion it beats the M14 hands down.

I liked the M16 when I got issued one (despite the lack of reliability)- appreciate the AK variants and did like the Steyr F88C I used to have issued to me also.

Thats my two bob's worth!

I am going to go with the M16. I have an AR-15, and while it does jam often, it takes under five seconds to clear. The gun is just so damn accurate and light.

The garand is great, but too heavy for use in modern combat.

I'm so tired of people knocking the AK47 for accuracy. It is NOT an inaccurate rifle. I have fired both an AK47 and M16 derivitave. Both were almost the same in terms of accuracy. However, the AR15 jammed a few times while I was using it, the magazine slipped in the magazine well (not to mention the magazine that fell out of the AR15 the guy next to me had), etc. I've also heard they are a bitch to clean. Out of every AK47 derivitave I have fired, I have only ever had one misfire, and that was from bad ammunition. It is so simple to clean, a monkey could do it. There are no small parts to lose. In the end, I would rather have a gun that fires when I pull the trigger, rather than have a 1.5 MOA gun over a 2 MOA gun any day.

My vote goes for... Enfield #4 Mk. 1.

I'd put it as a tossup between the Mauser K-98 and the AK-47.

The Mauser K98 is simply an art work - a rifle built 100 years ago that is still ever reliable, ever refined, powerful, and accurate. This is still my favorite among "classics" - simply one of the best.

The AK-47 would be my next choice - its power, accuracy, and reliability all put in one will ensure its place in history. It has been used by more people in more nations and in more wars and battles than any other gun now and it will continue to be used for years. Its a gun you can throw in the mud outside, leave it for months, and come back and still fire when you pull the trigger.

I agree with Zeld. The Mauser K98 and the AK47 are the two most important rifles in history. The K98 and its variants (including the Springfield '03) dominated the history of warfare for the first fourty years of the twentieth century. The AK-47 for the past fifty. Although the M-16 is a good gun, in many ways better than the AK-47, the profligation of the AK has changed the course of history much more so than the M-16.

My vote is for the L1A1/FAL. It holds as many rounds as the M14, and is easier to shoot. The M14 was picked over the FAL in the 50's because of politics. The FAL was easier to maintain, shoot, and clean. It is also cheaper than the M14. THE M14 costs over $1000, the FAL goes for about $500-$600 for a rebuilt rifle. My second choice is the AR15. Mine has never jammed and is very accurate. If anything happened, I would still grab my L1A1 first. Just MHO.

Okay I am going to go and Screw things Up, Mine are the Thompson (Chicago Typwriter) and the Barrett M1911. Remember when I absolutly has to be there, Nothing says Loving Like Barrett on the Muzzel.

My FN-FAL Belgian Congo is the best rifle I ever owned:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...coyne/FALa.jpg

No other .308 even compares.

I believe that you are comparing apples and oranges. The M-14 has been out of production for decades. The semi-automatic civilian variant, the M-1A is made by Springfield Armory, and yes, it does cost about a grand, but it is brand new, not rebuilt.

Go score a new FAL and it'll run the same price.

True. A new FAL from DSArms is about the best FAL you can get and they run over a grand, easily.
Still, new factory 20rd M1A magazines run about $40-$50 each while new factory FAL mags are so abundant they can be found for less than $10 each. I got mine for $8 each.
Also the FAL is more ergonomically sound IMO - it's not nearly as heavy as the M1A (which is a big plus) and the charging handle is on the left which allows chambering while retaining the weapon with the firing hand. The FAL also has that handy adjustable gas system. The FAL is easier and faster to field strip.
The MiA has somewhat better iron sights than the FAL.
Both are fine, reliable weapons but the FAL is what I favor.
(Besides, the FAL has that pistol-grip that intimidates the tree-huggers)

I'm going to have to say FAl/L1A1 as well, although it might be a toss-up against a G3.


I've got a DSA FAL (or rather SA58) and it's an amazing rifle.

I slapped a 4-14x springfield on it with an Armalite mount and found myself unable to go back to shooting a 223. Even with the iron sights at more practical ranges it's just a joy to shoot.


B.

Arawn, I've known folks who have owned G3s and sold them in favor of the FAL. I've never handled a G3 but I'm told the delayed blowback makes it unpleasant to shoot. For the quality of materials and manufacture I've been told the HK is way overpriced. But then I've never handled one.
The G3 was only developed as an alternative to the FAL when Germany failed to get the license from Belgium in the 1950s.
In 1959 Germany bought the manufacturing license for the Spanish CETME rifle and transferred it to the Heckler und Koch (HK) company to produce the first G3 rifles. But many still prefer the FAL.

BTW - which SA58 did you get? I got the DSA 18" Belgian Congo (above).

I've only owned one G-3 (clone on a crappy receiver) but my brother had an SR9 and I loved to shoot it.

My DSA is a medium contour stainless full length. It's got the pinned muzzle break (from before they simply milled them into the barrel ends) and the carbonfiber freefloat handguard (which I don't see available anymore either). Steyr internals, that DSA extreme duty dust cover/mount and all the rail surfaces were handlapped by the gunsmith who assembled and headspaced it because he took so long in getting it back to me (his wife had a baby, I wasn't going to begrudge him his priorities).

It 's like the rifle equivelant of a fine watch and I'll be unlikely to ever outshoot it.

I was actually selling it but I've decided I just can't bear to part with it.
:D

So some others can go, but the FAL stays.

That's an interesting bit of history, by the way, about Gemany and the license issue. I had no idea, but it's not that surprising. The FAL is a robust design.


B.

The Mauser was the peak of mass produced bolt action. The Garand gets the semi-auto nod.

It just isn't fair unless you break it down into catagories.

Yeah. I'd keep it if I were you.
A while back my buddy in California sold off his AR. Now he can't purchase one without moving to another state... sad.
That's one reason I'll never sell any of my guns. I keep everything.

AK47. Most used weapon in the world.

You have to remember that just as every shooter is built differently, the greatest rifle of all time is going to be different. For me, for instance, it's the Steyr AUG. I love to fire mine.

As far as what is the best overall for the most people, I would have to say the FN FAL. It took the good things from a number of rifles that had been produced in the past and included them all in one rifle.

The only reason the AK-47 has seen so much use is it is incredibly reliable and incredibly cheap. They are not fun to fire. They are not especially accurate. But you can buy crates of them for cheap, roll them all in river silt, and 95% of them will still fire. The ones that won't fire can be stripped down, reassembled, and you can use one or two for parts to replace anything that went bad on what you had. Ta da!

Any 30/30 lever action rifle... :)

In all seriousness...

H&K g3sg1 and H&K psg1

Oh man, have you ever shot a PSG-1?
Don't get me wrong, it's an amazing machine.
It's also an 18lb machine with no iron sights that ran $10,000 at issue and only went up in price.

:eek:


B.

It depends on how you define rifle. The SMLE doesn't suck too badly. The K-98 is a fine, fine gun. The FN FAL is sweet, everybody should own a half dozen. The AK-47 has some good points and some very, VERY bad points. The M-16/AR-15 rifles are toys. Personally, if I had to pick just one rifle, I'd go "heavy"...and stick with the MG-34. It's select fire, it's in a decent caliber, and when properly tuned it runs like a scalded ape. It even has a nice handy bipod. :)

I'd go with the M14.

The STG-44 from WWII, It was also the first automaitc rifle and then later they made the automat kalashnikov which looks similar to the STG-44. I think the Germans made all of the best weaponry like the world's first jet powered aricraft(Me 262); Sadly they started using the STG-44 later in the war then at the begining. They had also invented a saucer type of aircraft toward the very ending of the war after the jet. Just image if the war had lasted a little more long, they might have improved everything and mass produced them or maybe even thing of new inventions.

Me 262 - http://ens.explanation-guide.info/th...262_color2.jpg

STG44 - http://www.seek-and-destroy.de/weapo...ges/mp44_3.jpg

Love my G3A3, but gotta go with the esteemed Garand.

No, but I'd like to. Got a spare one laying around? :P

Brother, don't I wish!

:crazy:



B.

AK-47 based on kill record alone

If that's your criteria (total numbers killed) I'm thinking it would go to the Maxim/Vickers series of weapons.

The Heckler & Koch G 36 is my favourite rifle right now. The versatility, weight and firepower is good for any kind of use.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/hk_g36.jpg
http://world.guns.ru/assault/hk_g36k.jpg
http://world.guns.ru/assault/hk_g36c.jpg
http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/g36-40mmgranatw.jpg
http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/g36compact.jpg
http://www.heckler-koch.de/html/germ...fles/03_images

I love Heckler & Koch weapons. And the one on the bottom looks like the one from HL2...

You know. . . about 75% of the said weapons in this thread are not in fact rifles. Sure they are "assault rifles" but I don't believe that is what the thread author had in mind.

Also there are a lot of SMG's and machine guns cropping up as well.

:rolleyes:

"Rifle From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A rifle is any long gun which has a rifled barrel. A rifled barrel incorporates two or more helical grooves in its bore which impart a spin upon the projectile (usually a bullet) as it travels down the barrel. The angular momentum thereby imparted to the projectile partially insulates it from certain aerodynamic forces which would otherwise cause it to deviate more substantially from a straight path. The consequent gyroscopic stability allows for much greater accuracy, and therefore, effective range, than would otherwise be attainable through the use of a non-rifled barrel, such as that in a musket or shotgun."


A rifle is a rifle is a rifle.
"Assault" rifles are generally light calibur military rifles such as the AR and AK families.
"Battle" rifles are sometimes segregated off being chambered in heavy rounds (308, 30.06).
However, these categories are both contrived and highly subjective. They, like bolt-actions, singleshots, or semi-auto hunters, are all rifles.

Now I will agree that submachineguns (selectfire and chambered in pistol caliburs) are different. As are machineguns, which could be argued to be distinct from rifles in the conventional understanding of the word by their role (support). There are many firerms that blend these categories, especially as one looks at older examples.

My point is simply that "assault rifles" are rifles.

Now as to the thread starter's intent, I can't say.
If we were only discussing semi-only rifles, I'd say the WA-2000 in 300wm.
If we were only discussing bolt-action rifles, hands down the Steyr scout in 308NATO.

Later,
B.

According to Wikipedia this would count as a rifle!
http://www.hpwt.de/Dora.jpg

Don't be a technicality twat!

Touche.
:)

Although as I went on to say, I wasn't disagreeing with you per se.
I was simply pointing out that the distinction between a rifle and an "assault rifle" seems a tenuous one at best.

The thread poster sited an M-1 Garand, what would generally be considered a semi-auto battle rifle, which was succeeded by the M14 with select-fire capabilities. Understanding the objection to machineguns and sub-guns, I am just wondering how the civilian FALs and even the grossly over-priced PSG-1 (also semi-only) are more of assault rifle-like than the two first posts.


Cheers,
B.

blistex, technically not. That's not a shoulder-fired weapon, and all rifles must be made in a shoulder-firing configuration, per BATFE. Iff'n you want to get technical, a rifle is a shoulder fired firearm with a bore diameter of .50 or less that has a barrel length of at least 16 inches and an overall length of 28 inches (I think, but could be wrong, since OAL isn't something that's normally a problem unless you've got the barrel short enough for it to be NFA)

Apparently the M-4 has a LOT of problems though, at least compared to the M-16. Accuracy (which is to be expected), noise, flash, etc. (some of that might just be the commando version)

My vote goes to the G3, not only because it was a great gun for its time, but spawned a huge number of successful weapons (such at the MP-5 series, HK-53, MSG-90/PSG-1, and HK-33).

So those Kentucky long rifles aren't really rifles then. ;-)

They must really be parrots or african swallows.

You have to be careful not to confuse caliber with barrel diameter. The 16-inch/50 caliber Mark 7's on US Navy battleships are commonly referred to as "rifles" in most documentation.

Moron!

If you don't know why I just gave you this title then you truly deserve it. Re-read my last post and tell me why your post I just quoted is moot.

:lol:, Aren't you supposed to be able to hold the rifle though?

Well, maybe. But how often does anyone hold up Barret heavy? Just lay it on the bag and pull the trigger, right? ;-)

Poor, Daswig. Hehehehhe. Get 'em Blistex!

I never once said that I believed the 80cm German Dora cannon would qualify as a rifle in anyone's mind. What I did say is that under Wikipedia's loose guidelines it would qualify. Therefore I was showing that using a Wikipedia definition is not always the upper hand.


Is there anything that says that a Rifle must be hand held? Or even under 500 tons?

Well...if we ignored the phrase "long gun", that cannon (assuming it's barrel were rifled would definitely fit that admittedly loose definition.

My initial reply to Blistex wasn't intended to set the thread on a arguing over descriptions. I was trying to understand the objection to "assault rifles" in a Favorite rifle thread.

I apologize for including the scandelous definition that sidetracked this thread.

;)

B.

The phrase long arm (like the phrase small arm) is generally used to describe firearms which are shoulderable.

But again, while understanding your objection to sub-guns and machineguns, I was simply trying to understand your distinction b/t rifles and assault rifles.

Come on folks, let's all be friends,
B.

I was under the impression that calibre was generally equivalent to inner barrel diametre. I don't see what good it would do one to have, for example, a .75 inch diametre barrel, firing .5 inch bullets, since that would make the weapon inaccurate as all hell.