What is the best First World main battle rifle?
- Thread starter Thomas D'Arcy McGee
- Start date
There is no such thing as best. Armed forces use rifles as integral part of their current doctrine.
Also by definition MBRs are not assault rifles, as they are almost all in 7.62x51 NATO and fill the role of DMRs, auto fire from them requires high degree of training and usually select fire MBRs are used by special forces for specific missions.
IMO. Best MBR is SCAR-H. Best assault rifle is M4 (mainly due to rifle's weight, you will shoot it 2% of the time and carry it around another 98%).
Also by definition MBRs are not assault rifles, as they are almost all in 7.62x51 NATO and fill the role of DMRs, auto fire from them requires high degree of training and usually select fire MBRs are used by special forces for specific missions.
IMO. Best MBR is SCAR-H. Best assault rifle is M4 (mainly due to rifle's weight, you will shoot it 2% of the time and carry it around another 98%).
p.Rundle
CGN frequent flyer
This is probably true. I've heard nothing but good things, except for "the ugg" component. Hopefully that version that's still in FRT goes through so I can remain broke
The Wizard
CGN Regular
- Location
- Colorado Springs, Colorado USA
This question belong in the realm of questions like: Which is better Ford or Chevy?
Best eh??....Hmm
One has to consider the realities and match em up with the conditions/environment....
The W5's of the "battle".....who are you shooting at, where, how far, what are they wearing, what kind of cover is typical of the environment, how big a force, duration of the mission, are you on foot and if so how far and long do you walk, or vehicle mounted, is the mission resupplied often/easily,
Separate 556 from 762nato rifles 1st......then choose the platform.
Carrying 762nato rifles and ammo around on foot for long periods and far distances blows...and you will have less ammo to boot.
If you need to shoot further, defeat cover/body armor/vehicles or any other scenario 762 is far more effective and comforting....and may not require as much ammo.
If you are resupplied often/easily and or not deployed on foot, don't have to hump everything on foot for extended periods/distances the benefits of 762nato are significant.
If your enemy is thin skinned typically on foot and no vehicles or other armor, fighting close quarters, no decent cover available, reasonable engagement distances, on foot for extended periods/distances, resupply difficult or not possible, maybe just plain unlikely to shoot much at all.
Well now the groundhog platform starts lookin' real good.
Then go down the rabbit hole of which platform in the calibre chosen.
Reliability/durability/user friendliness/serviceability/repair or canabilize in the field/parts availability and compatibility.
And unless this is pure fantasy....who's footin' the bill. Cost IS relevant regardless of who's paying....from a single weapon to an army.... Platform/parts and ammo cost matters.
One has to consider the realities and match em up with the conditions/environment....
The W5's of the "battle".....who are you shooting at, where, how far, what are they wearing, what kind of cover is typical of the environment, how big a force, duration of the mission, are you on foot and if so how far and long do you walk, or vehicle mounted, is the mission resupplied often/easily,
Separate 556 from 762nato rifles 1st......then choose the platform.
Carrying 762nato rifles and ammo around on foot for long periods and far distances blows...and you will have less ammo to boot.
If you need to shoot further, defeat cover/body armor/vehicles or any other scenario 762 is far more effective and comforting....and may not require as much ammo.
If you are resupplied often/easily and or not deployed on foot, don't have to hump everything on foot for extended periods/distances the benefits of 762nato are significant.
If your enemy is thin skinned typically on foot and no vehicles or other armor, fighting close quarters, no decent cover available, reasonable engagement distances, on foot for extended periods/distances, resupply difficult or not possible, maybe just plain unlikely to shoot much at all.
Well now the groundhog platform starts lookin' real good.
Then go down the rabbit hole of which platform in the calibre chosen.
Reliability/durability/user friendliness/serviceability/repair or canabilize in the field/parts availability and compatibility.
And unless this is pure fantasy....who's footin' the bill. Cost IS relevant regardless of who's paying....from a single weapon to an army.... Platform/parts and ammo cost matters.
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Only reason the G3 was ever developed was because West Germany could not get FN to sell them a license to manufacture the FN-FAL in Germany.
IMO H&K roller bearing belong with true intermediate rifle cartridges or less powerful rounds, and certainly not the 7.62x51 NATO round.
Unless it's a crew served weapon with fixed support.
IMO H&K roller bearing belong with true intermediate rifle cartridges or less powerful rounds, and certainly not the 7.62x51 NATO round.
Unless it's a crew served weapon with fixed support.
p.Rundle
CGN frequent flyer
The Germans seem like the sort of people to make their own weapons, so I don't know how much I agree with that. I've read they were interested in the FAL, but they're Germans...and the call of a legacy weapon from the StG-45...pretty strong to the nationalistic bunch. Plus it allowed them to continue experimenting with their fetish of stamped metal
100% agree that the roller delayed action is not a great choice for such a large round.
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
The Germans seem like the sort of people to make their own weapons, so I don't know how much I agree with that. I've read they were interested in the FAL, but they're Germans...and the call of a legacy weapon from the StG-45...pretty strong to the nationalistic bunch. Plus it allowed them to continue experimenting with their fetish of stamped metal
Check it out for yourself.
Dont take my word for it.
The Germans seem like the sort of people to make their own weapons, so I don't know how much I agree with that. I've read they were interested in the FAL, but they're Germans...and the call of a legacy weapon from the StG-45...pretty strong to the nationalistic bunch. Plus it allowed them to continue experimenting with their fetish of stamped metal
Keep reading, your wrong, they were more than interested, they were in whole hog on the FAL.
Thomas D'Arcy McGee
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
AR - Can reliably hit a golf ball at 100 meters.
AK - Can reliably hit a watermelon at 200 meters.
Mosin - Point at the sky, pull the trigger, and someone in Berlin dies.
(There's no humour like Mosin Humour).
But if we're talking MBR (which none of the above happen to be)...
As others have mentioned, it's about doctrine, training, and use case as much as anything else.
In terms of ubiquity and continued use, you'd almost have to give the FAL the nod. To this day there are many militaries, and individual soldiers, who want nothing else from a rifle, and refuse to part with the FAL.
