whats the worlds best assault rifle?

[Awang se]

Malaysian army use FN MAG as GPMG. we usually carry 100 ready fed round, and another 300 carried by the assistances. We also operate HK LMG as a squad automatic weapon and recently we've received FN Minimi.

I guess what rebellious trying to tell is the M60 bullet feeding mechanism which is located almost above the handgrip.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think it's just a case of bad grammar. What I think Rebellious is trying to say is, " I hate bullpups". "M60 all the way". AS he appears to prefer M60's over bullpup designs...

The Australian Army also uses FN MAG 58 as it's GPMG's but no longer employs them at Section level, apart from certain operations. Our section strength weapons are now 2x FN 5.56mm Minimi LSW's, 7x F-88 Steyr rifles and 2x 40mm M203 GLA's (Grenade Launcher Assembly), plus Short Range Anti-Armour Weapons (SRAAW's), F1 Hand Grenade's and L9 Browning pistols as required.

The L7 7.62mm GPMG (FN MAG 58 is normally employed at battalion level within the Direct Fire Support Weapons (DFSW) platoon. On ops occasionally though L7's are employed at Section level to boost available firepower. (East Timor was the last time I recall this being done).

 

[driftder]

The ejection port on the Steyr is designed so that it can be situated on the right hand side or left hand side as required. The conversion is relatively straight forward since converting the weapon simply requires "left handed internal parts" and is installed exactly the same way as "right handed" ones.

This can be conducted "in the field" by any soldier trained to use the weapon, provided he does in fact have the necessary parts. Obviously if you are under fire you are not going to worry about changing it, but it's a simple enough exercise that can be conducted if you have a bit of "quiet" time.

It doesn't take much longer than simply stripping and re-assembling the weapon, though I've never actually done it myself, being right handed and all...

Well that makes it easier than the SAR-21. We can't just change it to shoot left-hand just as we like. I guess most bull-pups can be configured to suit the shooter but, like you said, the key word is "quiet time".

 

[Pendekar]

these days an assault rifle is an assault rifle. it doesnt make a huge difference but if u want an answer the M4A1 with M-203 grenade launcher. the AK is not that accurate and ull hav to fire burts of 2 shots. The fire rate is the same practically. I hate the bullpup M60 machine gun the whole way!!

as far as is remember only one man have ever use M-60 as an assault rifle. what's the guy name again? yes, his name is John Rambo. he single handedly wipe out an entire VC battalion with it.

 

[Awang se]

Bullpup offers various of advantages compare to the conventional design. even Israel is now planning to replace it's M-4/16 rifle with TAVOR, a bullpup design. though the function is the same, but the handling is different. As was previously mentioned and i will mention it again (stay tune) Bullpup offer the same level of firepower as the conventionaly design rifle but in a much more compact design. this is a significant advantage if the soldier operating in the confined space, either in room to room combat or while taking cover inside a small space.

I've burned my cheek once for trying to shoot M-4 left handed because of the ejected hot casing. my friend have had the casing went straight inside his shirt and burned his stomach. luckily in didn't went further down the trouser into that sensitive area....

 

[Awang se]

trying to compare M-60 with the rifle is pointless since both have a different function in combat. for exampled, M-60 offer a tremendous stopping power, but it's size and weight negate it's use as an assault weapon because assault means maneuver and trying to maneuver with that weapon in hand is a difficult task. it will stay back in a static position and trying to suppress the enemy defences or fend of enemy attack, hence it was called support weapon.

 

[jtcohen]

That's a good question, probably not the M-16A2, too fragile. I'd say it could be the Finnish Valmet, but it is heavy, the AK-47 is rugged but not accurate past 200 yards. It certainly is not the Enfield (not the musket) and for sure not the FMAS. It is a good question, I guess it depends upon the mission.

It I had to equip a force, a generic one, I'd give them new build AK-47s.

I've seen pics of US troops in Iraq armed with AK-47s.

The M-60E3 is ok for use in the assult, it can also be somewhat effective in the single shot mode if you have really good trigger control.

Better to take the M-249 MIMI (SAW) but then again it is a 5.56.

Mod Edit: Highsea: Post Merged

 

[Chino]

Can anyone make an informed comparison between bullpup and conventional layout weapons on handling etc?

During my service I used the M-16 - which I stil have great affection for. It's light, accurate, and the ergonomics were GREAT. And the selector switch is easy to reach. The carrying handle, charging handle were all just superb.

It's length never really bothered me as I was just a rifleman, not motorised or airborne. And fighting in buildings I would still prefer an M-16 as magazine changing is very very fast - which can be crucial in tight situations.

And in very close-quarter combat like trench fighting, a longer weapon with a bayonet can't be a bad thing, surely.

 

[Awang se]

I've seen pics of US troops in Iraq armed with AK-47s.

i think it's more like a logistical problem rather then a performance problem. It's better to have a modest rifle that can shoot rather then a top of the line rifle without a bullet.

 

[driftder]

Can anyone make an informed comparison between bullpup and conventional layout weapons on handling etc?

During my service I used the M-16 - which I stil have great affection for. It's light, accurate, and the ergonomics were GREAT. And the selector switch is easy to reach. The carrying handle, charging handle were all just superb.

It's length never really bothered me as I was just a rifleman, not motorised or airborne. And fighting in buildings I would still prefer an M-16 as magazine changing is very very fast - which can be crucial in tight situations.

And in very close-quarter combat like trench fighting, a longer weapon with a bayonet can't be a bad thing, surely.

Just to add - its easy to maintain. And you can shoot right or left handed around corners easily - unlike a bullpup which would cause eye injuries if you shoot it left-handed, as the ejection port is next to the face area (unless its modified). The M16/M4 have its ejection port in front over the magazine and have a cartridge deflector as well. Add a m203 combo and you have a nice break and entry tool plus room sweeper. And if you have a M4 with Picatinny rails, you can customize and suit your needs.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Can anyone make an informed comparison between bullpup and conventional layout weapons on handling etc?

During my service I used the M-16 - which I stil have great affection for. It's light, accurate, and the ergonomics were GREAT. And the selector switch is easy to reach. The carrying handle, charging handle were all just superb.

It's length never really bothered me as I was just a rifleman, not motorised or airborne. And fighting in buildings I would still prefer an M-16 as magazine changing is very very fast - which can be crucial in tight situations.

And in very close-quarter combat like trench fighting, a longer weapon with a bayonet can't be a bad thing, surely.

During my training in the reserve, they taught us to short stock our C7(Canadian modified M-16) when fighting in close quarters. Basically you place place the butt stock on your shoulder instead of pressing the stock against it.

 

[driftder]

During my training in the reserve, they taught us to short stock our C7(Canadian modified M-16) when fighting in close quarters. Basically you place place the butt stock on your shoulder instead of pressing the stock against it.

C7? folding butt M16? mmmm gotta see tat one. Too bad we don't train with Canadians.

 

[Sparapet]

A question for the experts here.

Has anyone had a chance to try the new Russian ARs? I am talking about the likes of AN-94 (Abakan) and the AK 100 series. I belive AK-101 and 102 modifications are fitted to fire 5.56 x 45 mm NATO ammo. I would like to know how well the new rifles compare to their older cousins.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

C7? folding butt M16? mmmm gotta see tat one. Too bad we don't train with Canadians.

No it's not a folding stock M-16. Usually when you fire the C7 you press the stock against your for stability, but during CQB training we simply put the stock on top of our shoulders so we can manoeuvre around easier. However, this method severely affect our ability to place shots accurately. When you use this technique when you are aiming, it's basically point and shoot in the direction of your target.

 

[Awang se]

i've tried AK-101 once and it's no better then AK-47 in terms of handling. unlike US M-4A1 which use a special bullets with added gunpowder, the AK-101 use an AK-74 bullets and mags, plug and play. so u got a reduce accuracy and range.

 

[Ricardo P.]

AK-47. No doubt about that

 

[Bordo-Bereli]

the best assault rifle is G-3 I think.Used by Turk Army.7.62 caliber.

 

[USAF32093]

I like the M-4 and M-16.:ar15 :ar15

 

[goran]

best assault rifle is Serbian M-21, 5,56 NATO

 

[driftder]

so what makes the Serbian M-21 the so-called best? Any personal ancecdotes as to how well it stands up to combat conditions? Accuracy and range - how much MOA at say 100yards? Overheating problems and climb when on full auto? Accessories that goes with it and make it stands out eg night sights, rifle grenades? Recoil and point of aim? And what is the benchmark that the M-21 is compared against? FN-FNC, Steyr AUG, HK G-36, M-16A3 etc? Most important - have it been used personally and under what conditions? :coffee

One last - any rifles, footman, grunts, legionaires etc who can stop laughing for a few minutes and dish out some advice on what's the most "cool" and "best" rifle? :help