what is the best assault rifle?

[BakaSmurf]

Well, I've only ever used Lever and Bolt-Action Rifles, and my knowledge of anything other than those is virtually non-existant... But, if I had a choice, I'd have to go with an AK-47, if only because of how damn easy they're supposed to be to use for those that've never used an Assault Rifle before.

 

[Xhumed]

Personally, I favour the HK G36, but that's just personal preference. The M16 is a little too complicated to maintain in battlefield conditions- it's a real sod to clean, whereas the AK47 is very simple to clean. AK47 isn't quite as accurate, however, but does have larger calibre ammunition. Depending on the situation, that's either a good or a bad thing.

 

[crepesack]

ak47 because you can use/clean/maintain/arm one with little training and military know how. Which is why it is popular with guerrilla factions. oh and also because they come a dime a dozen.

 

[Stalk3rchief]

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.
The AK-47 beats it by a long shot with considerably less parts and more stopping power.
BUT, in this case I'd have to go with either the G-36C [Or any of it's variations] Or even the H&K 416.
But good luck getting your hands on either one, even if you are in the military. Definitely not standard issue.

 

[ThisTypeofThinking]

I'm really not impressed at the level of knowledge about firearms in this thread. Almost all of you seem to have extremely limited knowledge on the subject, and even those of you with some demonstrated knowledge seem to have gaps in your knowledge that would lead to tactical failure.

Clearly not many people know much about guns here. As with say, a longboard, there is no such thing as the "best" assault rifle. Picking an assault rifle is entirely dependent on the current situation and personal taste. Me and my friend have discussions about this fairly often, he prefers the M4, and similar weapons, which allow for lighter rounds, hence the ability to carry more with you, as well as general advantages of a 5.56mm round. I on the other hand prefer battle rifle style weapons such as the M14. I don't feel confident shooting at the enemy with a glorified .22. In my opinion, the best era of war was WWII, where they cared less about the little features of weapons, which really don't matter, and more on knocking for the enemy with one shot. I also appreciate the ability to reach out further than most 5.56mm weapons can and still inflict some damage.

With that said, as mentioned above, I really don't like assault rifles, since they compromise range and power for rate of fire and ammo capacity. So I'd say an M14 with a EBR stock. I really wish everyone would shut up about the Tar/Tavor, since it is pretty much the Halo of assault rifles, it has brought nothing new to the table, but everyone still seems to love it for some unknown reason. Bullpups are supremely overrated. The SA80 blew so bad, that the brits needed HK to fix the entire design so it didn't jam more than a 'nam M16. If I have to choose and assault rifle, however, it's going to be some variation of a G36 in 6.5mm Grendel.

I wouldn't exactly trust you to outfit an army in the field. You sound like one of those old Bisley School nutcases, for whom accuracy and marksmanship was everything. We never hear about the rifles that they designed any more; the World War I and World War II weapons we hear about are the ones which compromised on accuracy for superior battlefield reliability and performance. The Ross rifle never displaced the compromised but ultimately superior Lee-Enfield, and there's a reason why they don't outfit Walther WA2000s to battlefield snipers.

There are plenty of good reasons why the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge replaced the full-power 7.62x51mm NATO round, and one of the most important is the weight factor. Both the rifle and ammunition for a 5.56mm-calibre weapon is considerably lighter than that for a 7.62mm weapon, which allows a soldier to carry more ammunition, which is useful. You seem to be forgetting the utility of suppressive fire, which is what most fire under a fire-and-manoeuvre drill amounts to, and having more ammunition for that suppressive fire allows the soldiers to present more of a threat than they would with heavier rifles with less ammunition. The weight factor helps a lot when it comes to fighting in close quarters as well; if you're trying to make your way through streets and houses, I bet you'd rather want a smaller, less awkward weapon over a full-sized battle rifle. That's where the 5.56mm calibre comes in handy.

As for bullpup weapons, the unreliability of the L85A1 and L86A1 is not indicative of most bullpup weapons. Indeed, the unreliability of both weapons is more a case of them being designed by committee, as it were, and they'd originally been designed for a smaller-calibre round to boot (4.85x49mm). British involvement with bullpup weapons stretches back further than the 1980s, as in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the British Army designed the EM-1 and EM-2 bullpup weapons, firing the .280 British intermediate cartridge. These weapons were designed very well, unlike the later L85 and L86 weapons, but their adoption was halted when it transpired that America wanted a heavier cartridge, the 7.62x51mm round. Of course, the Americans decided that the round was too powerful, and promptly adopted a smaller round than the .280 British round which probably would have worked the way they wanted the 7.62mm round to work.

The 1980s SA80 project took little from the previous EM-2 rifle, apart from its bullpup layout; its internals are more reminiscent of the Armalite AR-18, and there are rumours that the Royal Small Arms Factory basically nicked the design from the AR-18 and failed to copy it correctly [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/oct/10/military.jamesmeek], because the AR-18 is known as a simple, cheap weapon design using cheap pressed-steel parts. (Actually, there's another connection in there that the British Army must not appreciate - it's the AR-18 that the IRA are most associated with, because of its simplicity.) Interestingly, the L85A1 seems to be another victim of Bisley School thinking, because it's an accurate weapon with appalling reliability.

Other examples of bullpup weapons, including the FAMAS and the Steyr AUG, are known for good reliability and robustness, and hold to that one great advantage of bullpup weapons: they're less awkward in close quarters, such as MOUT fighting and inside APCs and helicopters as part of mechanised warfare. So, perhaps you should have a look at your own considerations in this subject before criticising other people's knowledge, OK?

As I said, personal preference. I realize the advantages intermediate rounds provide, I just prefer a heavier round. I also never said that all bullpups were unreliable, I only mentioned the SA80 on that point. While bullpups are useful when you don't have a lot of space, they also have disadvantages. They are balanced awkwardly, the rounds eject closer to you face, due to the changed locations of different parts, the weapons tend to be more complex than they should be. Magazine changes are also made a bit more awkward, but this can be remedied with experience with the weapons. Also due to the mag location, firing from a prone position can be made difficult unless using a smaller capacity magazine. It can also damage the mags from contact and strain against the mags if there's any weight on them.

 

[101194]

AK-47 is the most user friendly gun. But I'd have to go with my Trusty AR-15 It makes me feel like A bad ass.

 

[101194]

Who needs assault rifles when you have sexy ass guns like the P90?

If you like that you'll love this...

OT: I have to go with the entire AK family. You have an extremely reliable weapon that can be used in any condition that packs a big punch. Even though the Ak47 lacks accuracy, other models like the AK74 have improved accuracy.

If I had to pick something more NATO I would probably have to go with the Scar, or G36, or XM8, or well anything other than an M4.

I have an FN-2000, Very reiable gun but the Jams are a ***** The Reddot scope I fitted with it and the ACOG Quick-Attach work pretty well on it, Id fit it with a Silencer but my .45 Carries that shit well, As well as my K23 Pistol (basicly a AR-15 in pistol form) I'm trying to get some Scars but, The military bought them bitchs out and I agree FS-2000 is a SICK MOTHER F*CKING GUN!

 

[Altorin]

AK-47 is cheap, effective and very reliable.
Sums up humanity's ruthless determination pretty well.

that and it can fire when its wet, covered in mud, and run over by a truck.

 

[Echelon_3]

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.

It's unreliable if you never clean it. Admittedly the AK can stand up to a lot more abuse, due as much to sloppy manufacturing tolerances than to its design. And I've never, ever heard the M16 accused of being inaccurate.

 

[CheeseSandwichCake]

Did Lincoln pull an M-16A2 out of his hat and blow Batman away with a ratatat-tat?

I rest my case.

LEMON DEMON FTW! I LOVE YOU!

 

[Christemo]

A Gau-8 Avenger Cannon.
That's the best assault rifle there.
And my idea of a fair fight is the fact that I live while the enemy and anything near them is atomized by the hailstorm of depleted uranium bullets.

Otherwise, I'd pick the Ak47 if I was going on an extended engagement with little or no support since it is the most reliable, but for accuracy and support, I'd either go with the M4 sopmod, G36k, a Scar-H, or the sexiest gun yet: the XM8, which is cancelled.

you are aware that its only people like GIGN that uses the SOPMOD. its too expensive to be produced to every soldier in the country.

 

[Christemo]

AK-47 is cheap, effective and very reliable.
Sums up humanity's ruthless determination pretty well.

that and it can fire when its wet, covered in mud, and run over by a truck.

i saw the discovery top 10 combat rifles, and the experts taking part in the show said you could shoot with an AK47 whatever happened to it until it is run over by a tank. its that good.

 

[Christemo]

Americans, we're like Nazis we kill the weak too.

you shouldnt post anymore.
its shit like thats that people need to remember when they wonder why our country has such a bad reputation!
even if your joking all it takes is for this to be seen by someone who thinks your serious.

dude, shut up, its true. every single day the US Army battles Taliban, who are much poorer armed, much worse defended and less supported. it is true. the US Army are killing the weak.

so before you go ape-shit over the complete truth, try to learn your history lessons. America DIDNT, i repeat, DIDNT win the war against Germany, it was because of a pissed-off russia.

 

[Aur0ra145]

M14 all day long. Rugged, Durable, Accurate and sexy.

 

[Darktau]

Assault rifle? SA80 (fired one
But if in close combat how about an assault shotgun?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c
AA-12

 

[Vern]

FN-FAL due to it's range, accuracy, and stopping power. The newer variants of the AK, such as the AKM and the 100 series have drastically reduced the accuracy issues of the AK-47 while maintaining the reliability. The m-16/m-4 rifles are extremely accurate for battle rifles, but have a weak round and are prone to jamming frequently due to the pure gas operation system. Far less reliable than the gas piston used by the AK series and the FAL, and though the gas piston requires more movement and looser parts, it can increase recoil and reduce accuracy. Still, given the choice between an AK-47 and an M-16 I would take the AK, simply due to reliability in almost any circumstance and the larger caliber. And the fact that most combat will take place at less than 300 yards, and the AK is decently accurate at that distance. It won't drive tacks, but it will hit a lethal area. But again, I would say a rifle that fires the 7.62x51 round would be preferable to the intermediate cartridges like the 5.56, 5.45, and the 7.62x39.

 

[TxMxRonin]

AK-101. Cause it's just as reliable as the 47 but WAY more comfortable to when firing.

 

[A.A.K]

The AK-74 and AK-103 are through practicality the best rifle.
Pros-Easy to clean. good range. controlled recoil. lightweight ammunition. can hold a good amount of ammo. Extremely durable.
Cons-Fuck Ugly. Smaller cartridge.

The M16a2/a4 are also extremely good rifles.
Effectively the same pros as the Automatic Kalashnikov including a larger cartridge and highly customizable, and it even has a nice look to it.
Although for cons the M16 cant take shitty conditions-eg-mud, and jams after reloading now and then and is a ***** to clean.

Other ones that take the cake are the SA80, The VHS Assault Rifle, the AR-15 and if we're gonna stretch out- the MG4 KE (its a rifle if your strong enough )

 

[tsb247]

Both the AK-47 and the M-16 have their ups and downs as demonstrated in this video. I would go with the M-16 (and variants) myself.


As for the G-36, it is an excellent weapon, but I would hardly call it the best. It is expensive when compared to the AK-47 and M-16 platforms, and I have heard of the polymer frames flexing whrn the weapon heats up (like the XM8).

 

[Echelon_3]

FAL and M14 are not strictly assault rifles, as they fire a full-size rifle round.

But again, I would say a rifle that fires the 7.62x51 round would be preferable to the intermediate cartridges like the 5.56, 5.45, and the 7.62x39.

Somehow I find fault with that statement - Nearly all the world's military forces use intermediate rounds in their standard-issue rifles: 5.56x45 NATO, 5.45x39 / 7.62x39 Soviet, 5.8x42 Chinese. Even the StG44 fired 7.92x33, a shortened version of the standard German 7.92x57 rifle round.

I haven't read the ENTIRE thread, but I'm surprised I'm not seeing more mention of the FN SCAR.