what is the best assault rifle?

Echelon_3

New member
Sep 10, 2009
50
0
0
Not without some redesigns.

Melty Fishgun can't mount anything but H&K's proprietary accessories which, presumably, they will sell to the Department of Defense at great cost.

Also, integral optics are a no-no. They can become easily dislodged, and it takes a lot longer to detach and replace them.

The curved top of the carrying handle is just puzzling - Why not have a straight one that can accept an accessory rail?
 

Sh0ckFyre

New member
Jun 27, 2009
397
0
0
Echelon_3 said:
Sh0ckFyre said:
M4 Carbine. Small, effective, gets the job done.
U.S. Special Operations Command called the M4 "fundamentally flawed".

This might sound contradictory coming from someone who's just defended the M16, but keep in mind that the M4 isn't just a sawed-off M16. Its shortened barrel and gas tube cause failures to extract and failures to eject. A shoot-off hosted by the U.S. Army, including the M4, XM8, SCAR, and HK416, included ten of each rifle, each firing 6000 rounds in an "extreme dust environment". The results were:

XM8: 127 stoppages
SCAR: 226
HK416: 233
M4: 882

That meant that the M4 malfunctioned, on average, once every 68 rounds - A little less often than once every two reloads. On the opposite end of the scale, the XM8 (based heavily on the G36 which was in turn based heavily on the AR18) malfunctioned on average once every 472 rounds, or once per 15-16 reloads.
This seems askew. Why would the XM8 be canceled if it performed so well?
 

Overlord2702

New member
May 27, 2009
72
0
0
The AK 47 is reliable but the M16 kept in good condition shits all over an AK 47. there is a reason why the US keeps it on. Though replacing the gas tube with an after market makes it jam ALOT less. I don't know what is the best rifle ever made was but i would love to use a G11
 

0p3rati0n

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,885
0
0
US Crash Fire said:
. so i ask you all, if you had to go into battle what assault rifle would you want?
screw assault rifles! I'll go SMG or Bolt sniper rifle any day. But if I have to chose one I'd say the XM8


and the Steyr AUG


These are the best as they come. They can get compact, flexible, and pack a good punch that our troops need!
 

Echelon_3

New member
Sep 10, 2009
50
0
0
Sh0ckFyre said:
This seems askew. Why would the XM8 be canceled if it performed so well?
The XM8 had already been canceled prior to that 2007 test; H&K continued development independently. Also:

Echelon said:
Melty Fishgun can't mount anything but H&K's proprietary accessories which, presumably, they will sell to the Department of Defense at great cost.

Also, integral optics are a no-no. They can become easily dislodged, and it takes a lot longer to detach and replace them.

The curved top of the carrying handle is just puzzling - Why not have a straight one that can accept an accessory rail?
The Army's stated objective for a brand-new rifle to replace the M16 is a weapon that offers "a 100% improvement over the M16 platform" - Something rather impossible with any affordable weapon.

Futhermore, it's rumored that Colt's lobbyists pressured the politicians involved to can the XM8 because all the profits would be going to a foreign company. Not sure if they'll try the same thing should the SCAR become the next M16 replacement contender.
 

Sh0ckFyre

New member
Jun 27, 2009
397
0
0
Echelon_3 said:
Sh0ckFyre said:
This seems askew. Why would the XM8 be canceled if it performed so well?
The XM8 had already been canceled prior to that 2007 test; H&K continued development independently. Also:

Echelon said:
Melty Fishgun can't mount anything but H&K's proprietary accessories which, presumably, they will sell to the Department of Defense at great cost.

Also, integral optics are a no-no. They can become easily dislodged, and it takes a lot longer to detach and replace them.

The curved top of the carrying handle is just puzzling - Why not have a straight one that can accept an accessory rail?
The Army's stated objective for a brand-new rifle to replace the M16 is a weapon that offers "a 100% improvement over the M16 platform" - Something rather impossible with any affordable weapon.

Futhermore, it's rumored that Colt's lobbyists pressured the politicians involved to can the XM8 because all the profits would be going to a foreign company. Not sure if they'll try the same thing should the SCAR become the next M16 replacement contender.
So, the XM8 was canned because of greed, and an interesting attempt at optics. The fuck? It looked cool, too!
 

andrat

New member
Jan 14, 2009
654
0
0
Antlers said:
You may find it a bit interesting (well ok, maybe not) to know that this thread was completely lost on me. I presume it's because I'm not American. I don't even know if you're talking about real rifles. Are any other British/Irish/non-Americans completely lost?
Naw. Canadian here, we can't even own anything aside from a hunting rifle and the occasional handgun and I get what he's talking about.

OT, M4.
 

Echelon_3

New member
Sep 10, 2009
50
0
0
So, the XM8 was canned because of greed, and an interesting attempt at optics. The fuck? It looked cool, too!
Any irrational decision made by the military can be traced back to political back-room deals or plain greed.

The original M16s were issued to soldiers in Vietnam sans their cleaning kits, because the Pentagon thought it could save them money.
 

CAW4

New member
Feb 7, 2009
111
0
0
I'd say a G36K (G36 or G36E is too much, G36C is a tad too small).

Also, the XM8 cancellation has nothing to do with greed, it would melt under sustained fire, I don't think you can blame the government for that.
 

Tdc2182

New member
May 21, 2009
3,623
0
0
US Crash Fire said:
ive always heard the debate between the AK-47 vs the M-16A2, but a freind of mine recently brought up the fact that he thinks the G-36 is the best assault rifle ever made. this made me think that the M-16 and the AK-47 arent the only ones on the market and maybe not the best. so i ask you all, if you had to go into battle what assault rifle would you want?

(im not adding a poll because there are so many to choose from)
The best gun would have to be the AK47, but the modern M4 is maaking a comeback. The AK is more reliable than most. But if you want a gun with more accuracy or more power? It depends on the situation.
 

Echelon_3

New member
Sep 10, 2009
50
0
0
CAW4 said:
Also, the XM8 cancellation has nothing to do with greed, it would melt under sustained fire, I don't think you can blame the government for that.
It would be a really easy task to pick a different polymer for the XM8's handguard.

And after everything I've said in this thread, people still spout "AK" and "M4". Please. Nobody mentions SCAR and I think you're the first to mention G36K. The G36KA2 model is pretty much perfect and has ironed out all the kinks in the G36 design.
 

tsb247

New member
Mar 6, 2009
1,783
0
0
Stalk3rchief said:
tsb247 said:
Stalk3rchief said:
tsb247 said:
Stalk3rchief said:
Beyond a doubt, the M-16 is a piece of shit.
Anyone with weapons experience will tell you that it's a pain in the ass to take apart and reconstruct, it's innacurate and very unreliable.
Ummm... I'm going to have to go ahead and stop you there. The M-16 is FAR from a piece of shit. There are a LOT of people who aren't breathing anymore because of that little black rifle. There's a reason it is still seeing HEAVY use today.

The M-16 is NOT inaccurate in any way, shape, or form. The 5.56x45mm round has proven itself to be a more than accurate round time and again, and the M-16 has also proven very efficient at delivering it. In fact, the 5.56x45mm round has FAR better terminal performance at range than the 7.62x39. The 5.56x45mm round may lack the stopping power of the 7.62x39, but it is a faster round with better ballistics. The only thing that the 5.56x45mm round lacks is the kinetic energy due to it's smaller size. This makes it a little less capable of penetrating heavily armored targets, but with the right kind of bullet, the 5.56x45mm round can still penetrate just about any normal, reasonable, object it will encounter (light wood, drywall, soft body armors, some hard body armors, and many other materials.).

I've never found mine (it's an AR-15, but they are fundamentally the same) to be a pain in the ass to take apart either. It is easy to take apart, and the only real pain can be the bolt carrier, but even that is no big deal. The only reason you would ever want to take that apart anyhow would be to scrape the carbon off of it. As far as the rest of the weapon is concerned, it is a breeze to disassemble and reassemble. No tools are required, and there are very few small parts, no springs, and there are only two pins that hold the upper and lower recievers together.

I have also not had any problem with my AR-15 jamming. As long as you take care of it, it will work. I have fired THOUSANDS of rounds through my rifle, and I have yet to encounter a malfunction. The only reason I can think of that it would jam would be if someone flat-out did not clean it - ever. As long as you keep the carbon out of the bolt-carrier and keep a little Break Free in it, it will work whenever you ask it to.
That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't excuse the fact that it's a pain in the ass to take apart and reconstruct, and that it has 0 stopping power.
Yeah it's still used today, but only because it's cost effective.
There are at least 10 assault rifles that beat it in every single way, but they're more expensive. I have 2 friends that are in the military, one's a simple lieutenant, the others an MP. BOTH of them have told me how unreliable the M-16 is on the field.
It's accurate, but even they have told me that's it's only advantage.
ONLY advantage.
The weapon was not designed to kill, it was only meant to immobilize any threat.
For some reason it's viewed as "More Humane"
In basic, when one is required to take the M-16 apart and put it back together, they BOTH told me it has too many parts.
I think I'll take the word of two trained soldiers over yours.
It's hardly a pain in the ass to take apart and put back together. I just took mine apart and put it back together (and took pictures to demonstrate how simple it is). This 11 year old girl obviously has no problem with it:


Here are some pictures of my rifle field-stripped. I did not remove the buffer spring nor did I bother with the trigger group since those RARELY ever break. The buffer tube should be swabbed from time to time, but there are differing opinions on that. As you will see it is HARDLY difficult or complex. Field-stripped, the rifle has very few parts. Most soldiers and Marines only need to disassemble it to this extent for cleaning.

Fully Assembled Rifle:


Partial Field Strip:


Field Stripped with disassembled bolt assembly:


Close-up of the disassembled bolt assembly:


Again, there was no need to pull out the trigger group or buffer spring since they should never fail, and if they do, it is usually because the person operating the weapon did RIDICULOUS things to it (like bathe it in bleach and run it over with a tank). I also did not bother with them because the AK field stripping procedure does not remove the trigger group either.

Your claim that it is unreliable is also ill-founded. The design has been in constant revision for 45 years now, and all of the kinks that existed when it was fielded back in 1964 have pretty much been ironed out. Again, the only way it will malfunction on any regular basis is if the person operating it fails to give it basic, routine, maintainence. Any other firearm on earth will fail if it is not properly taken care of. Even the venerable AK-47 can be made to fail if it is not properly maintained. I have seen it myself.

As for your, "0 stopping power," claim, I can promise you one thing. One bullet from an M-16 will kill you just as dead as any single bullet from any other weapon. the 5.56x45mm FMJ can penetrate concrete blocks and also has the tendency to tumble upon entering a soft target. The fact that the round tumbles end over end means that the bullet creates a wound channel that is the length of the bullet rather than just a clean hole!

I too know quite a few Soldiers as well as Marines. Hell, one of them is a certified U.S. Army armorer. Every single one of them swears by their M-16 because it does what it needs to do and it does it very well. It makes bad guys die... And it has more than proven that over the past 45 years or so. Seriously, your claims that it is inaccurate (a laughable claim that will be refuted by anyone who has ever used one), a pain to take apart (which I have shown is not the case), and unreliable are a little ridiculous. Sure, there are better rifles out there, but the M-16 and its variants are hardly, "Shit."

EDIT: Much respect to your enlisted friends, but I am speaking from personal experience as well. The M-16 platform is excellent, and I know very few Soldiers or Marines that will argue differently. I own one, and I feel as though that makes me more qualified to pass judgement than you seeing as how I use, clean, and modify it on a regular basis. Were you ever enlisted?
The how do you explain all of the money the us army delta forces were putting into finding an H&K gun that was better that the colt rifles back in the early 2000's?
They wanted a better gun, but you say they already had the best one?

This forum is about the best gun, the BEST gun. Not a gun that works alright, does the job fairly well, blah blah blah.
I don't honestly give two shits about your preferences, everyone has an opinion, and mine certainly won't be changed by the likes of you.
A gun that designed to immobilize a threat is NOT efficient. I prefer guns that kill.
In fact of all the guns out there, I'd use the HK-XM8 over anything else.
Besides, if I'm right, you shoot your gun at a range, yes?
I've heard so many stories of the M-16 and the M-4 jamming on soldiers in Iraq, it's always in articles and war stories.
But my god, there's no way there right, you are!
=D
Jack ass.
Wow... I attempt a civilized discussion, and the best you can do is some sarcasm and some name calling. I provide proof, and you provide an opinion based on misconceptions. I point out those misconceptions, and the best you can do is stubbornly cling to your opinion and deny the facts that I have presented. Wow...

If you honestly believe that the M-16 does not kill than you are indeed the most ignorant individual I have ever debated with. The weapon was not specifically designed with the idea of, "Hey, let's just wound them," but rather that the soldier could carry a LOT more ammo with them, and it would make for a lighter combat load. The idea was that the soldier could sustain himself longer than the enemy in a prolonged firefight and not run out of ammo. I suppose you can also make that claim about the SA80, Styer Aug, G36, XM8, and the Israeli Tavor seeing as they all chamber the SAME ROUND! Hell, the Russians even have an AK variant that chambers the 5.56mm round, and the AK-74 chambers an ever smaller caliber round (5.45x39mm). So honestly, you are only displaying your ignorance here.

The XM8 was scrapped because the polymers in the rifles' frame melted during sustained automatic fire. If you would really want a weapon that melts, go right on ahead. You can have it.

The money spent by the Special Forces branches back in the early 2000s did go into R&D of new weapons platforms, but that's only half of the story. When it was decided that re-inventing the wheel was both unnecessary and a waste of time, a great deal of the money went into developing an intermediate cartridge for the M-16 platform. Just see the 6.8SPC and the 6.5 Grendel. The 6.5 Grendel was not specifically developed for the Special Forces, but has been explored as an option to compliment the 5.56mm round. The 6.8SPC and a weapon to fire it is where a lot of the money went. The XM8 melted, and the FN SCAR is the only real contender left (aside from the REC7 that is), but there are some that are skeptical of how sturdy the composite stock is (see the August 3, 2009 issue of Shotgun News).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_REC7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_mm_Remington_SPC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5_mm_Grendel
 

TornadoADV

Cobra King
Apr 10, 2009
207
0
0
Echelon_3 said:
So, the XM8 was canned because of greed, and an interesting attempt at optics. The fuck? It looked cool, too!
Any irrational decision made by the military can be traced back to political back-room deals or plain greed.

The original M16s were issued to soldiers in Vietnam sans their cleaning kits, because the Pentagon thought it could save them money.
Don't forget the complete lack of their chromium barrels in the first mass produced batch. When the Green Berets and Rangers used it in the early 60's as SV advisors it earned the monkier "The Black Gun" for it's lightness and ease of use for the infantryman.

Anyway, the XM8 melted, looked like a toy and completely lacked a rail-system, meaning the entirety of the US armory would be unusable with the new rifle. It would of cost the US Military more to replace everything then the XM8 was worth.

The SCAR is superior in every aspect to the XM-8.
 

DVTK00p

New member
Sep 11, 2009
14
0
0
Personal experience that (sad to say here) the Canadian varient of the M-16 is somewhat superior to what we used in the Corp. With the exception of the ELCAN optics package, the C8 is just the better rifle. Redesigned and produced under license by Diemaco, the rifle is good out to 800 yards within about 1.5 MOA. Still lacks the hitting power of the higher caliber rounds (such as the 7.62 or 6.68) but being able to put steel on target at almost double the expected engagement range rates as a plus in my little black book. Down sides inlclude the C8 being somewhat heavier due to the match grade nickle plated barrel, and still suffers from the abundance of parts to strip down and clean. Easily fixed with a few after market parts from Magpul.

My second choice would have to be the DMRS varient of the M-14. 7.62mm ftw.
 

userwhoquitthesite

New member
Jul 23, 2009
2,177
0
0
I'd like to see numbers on how many of you ACTUALLY know what the hell you are talking about. Thats REALLY know, and not THINK you know. In the meantime, I'll be sniping pets and small children with my air rifle ;)
 

SenorTico

New member
Sep 3, 2009
31
0
0
I am not going to quote the large argument above me, but the M16 is not a terrible weapon. There is a reason why the Marines love the damn thing so much. And it's funny the sheer amount of people saying the XM8 when the Army ditched the project. From experience I am going to say the AK-47. I've shot both. I had to shoot the M16A2 for boot camp and I've shot an AK-47 for fun. The AK has more power, more reliable than anything else made, and if you can handle the kick and take your time to fire it, it can be pretty accurate.