Best modern infantry rifle?

[urielventis]

The L85 just has something off with its balance and feel to me. Like if I drop it, it will break the floor and itself.

Same thing with the F2000. My first thought on picking one up was "if I drop this thing, it will break into a million pieces".

I don't have this feeling with my FAMAS, maybe because I often made it fall and it survive...

On the topic of the gun, I would first decide which cartridge to use, then the gun. I think that it's time to switch to a more polyvalent 6.5 grendel or something like this.
For pistol round, .45 is overrated:
http://nolo84.deviantart.com/journal/The-Myth-of-The-45-ACP-or-45-Sucks-336915263
Pistol user should practice more and learn to aim in stress situation, then even a .38 is good.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I don't have this feeling with my FAMAS, maybe because I often made it fall and it survive...

On the topic of the gun, I would first decide which cartridge to use, then the gun. I think that it's time to switch to a more polyvalent 6.5 grendel or something like this.
For pistol round, .45 is overrated:
http://nolo84.deviantart.com/journal/The-Myth-of-The-45-ACP-or-45-Sucks-336915263
Pistol user should practice more and learn to aim in stress situation, then even a .38 is good.

The only way 'we' (western military's) move to a 6.5 intermediate round that replaces both 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO is when they make the CTA (Case Telescoped Ammo) aka LSAT work

Until then it's a mixed bag approach at the Squad level

Good news though as from what I hear and read having made the LSAT CTA ammo in both 5.56 and 7.62 (for benchmark purposes) they are also trialing it in a 6.5 although currently it is no lighter than the CTA 7.62 with both being 1/3rd lighter than brass 7.62 NATo rounds (although the 6.5 performs better).

But until it does the best compromise remains a high quality piston AR design in 5.56 NATO such as the M27 - "other high quality Assault rifles are available" - but for the US Mil something similar to the M4/M16 would be preferable

For pistol rounds - I think it should be the best round for the majority for the majority of situations - IMO that's the 9mm x 19

For the US Military while some might be good shooters before they join the military the increasing majority of 18 year old recruits would never have fired a gun beyond maybe a few times outside of any call of duty experience

So they are not going to have a preference and those that might - well repetitive shooting of a 9mm Glock 17/4 will drill that right out of them

 

[Cryhavoc101]

How can everyone avoid nominating the AK 47 as the best modern infantry rifle

Probably for all the reasons why the Russians no longer use it and switched to the AK74 and other subsequent weapon systems

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Probably for all the reasons why the Russians no longer use it and switched to the AK74 and other subsequent weapon systems

Namely, it's not really modern and it's definitely not the best. It was a good idea for conscripts in the massive Soviet army of the 1960's, in 2016 even the AK-74 is looking kinda outdated.

 

[wtw]

Namely, it's not really modern and it's definitely not the best. It was a good idea for conscripts in the massive Soviet army of the 1960's, in 2016 even the AK-74 is looking kinda outdated.

And even the Russians have been trying to replace that weapon for the better part of two decades now. I understand that it will be a around for along time but it is getting out dated.

 

[sloreck]

I agree that a pistol is of limited use, however as a medical person it is better than nothing, and my personal choice is the .45 as it is reliable, accurate if well maintained and you don't try and shoot too far. To be honest my personal weapon of choice would be a 12 gauge shotgun with 24" (short) barrel and 5x 00 buckshot rounds in it (a pump). For close in defense can't do better, we had one for our RAS. If you have ever seen what that round does to the human body at the range where someone would use it...

 

[Redbeard]

someone questioning those conventions, and actually violating them is a warcriminal.

when that rule about bullets was implemented, dum-dum bullets were legal, they are the ancestors of hollow point ammo, the rule came through direct experience how much damage those bullets do.
the trouble is, once you start moving the posts, it goes further and further (another issue is using 12.7mm ammo in anti-personnel tasks, which is also not allowed under the geneva conventions, although the definition is somewhat vague)
soldiers wear a different uniform than police. so as long you wear a military uniform/are in an official conflict those rules apply (and to be honest i think hollow point bullets should be outlawed for police too).
but if you want to be free to use hollow point ammo, then in the lingo of the convention you want to be free to use inhumane and excessive means (which is how the conventions forbids it, the convention forbids the use of excessive and inhumane means).
And if there is one thing that conflict has learned us is the fact that the longer the conflict lasts, the more excessive the violent means get. The conventions are there to prevent this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet (look at the history)

Hollow-point ammo for handguns is in itself insignificant, as is any hand weapon ammo in modern warfare. My main point is that a number of conventions are hopelessly out of date and it is frontline soldiers and people needing protection that pays the price for politicians not daring to realise. Next it is a growing problem that the opponents we have seen and are likely to see in the foreseeable future don't give a damn about conventions. I fully realise that this should not necessarily have us be as brutal, but there is a limit of how asymetrical warfare can be if it is not just sacrificing the soldiers.

Anyway it is a very good question what actually is humane. Some years ago the Police here in Dk was armed with 7,65mm Walther PPK pistols. Shooting a criminal in the leg would often just result in a small hole in his leg and he could go on with whatever he was tried to be stopped from. The result was that the police often had to shoot the criminal in the head and killing him where a larger pistol, perhaps using hollow-point (like in hunting) might have stopped him without killing him.

 

[pdf27]

The L85 just has something off with its balance and feel to me. Like if I drop it, it will break the floor and itself.

Same thing with the F2000. My first thought on picking one up was "if I drop this thing, it will break into a million pieces".

You get used to the balance pretty quickly. Build quality is OK on the A2s - feels plasticky and tinny, but that's just a function of the fact that it's mostly made from plastic and sheet metal. Since those bits (finally) work, I'd rather have that than carry an SLR around all day long...

 

[wietze]

I don't have this feeling with my FAMAS, maybe because I often made it fall and it survive...
On the topic of the gun, I would first decide which cartridge to use, then the gun. I think that it's time to switch to a more polyvalent 6.5 grendel or something like this.

Pistol user should practice more and learn to aim in stress situation, then even a .38 is good.

my personal thought would be to put the venerable 6,5mm swedish mauser bullet in a new casing since the size of that was defined by the first generation smokeless powder of the late 19th century.
the bullet itself does not need changing, it has very good precision with the current ballistics (it is so good, trying to improve that will only cost you loads of money and the result will be pretty much the same).
but with modern powders you probably could put it in a shorter case.

 

[fastmongrel]

I cant see the US adopting anything other than another variation on the M16. There is nothing out there in its class that is particulary more efficent, more reliable or more accurate and by now it must be cheap to produce.

Handguns are a waste of time for combat troops just buy a shiny.22 for officers to wear.

 

[Aphoristus]

Hollow-point ammo for handguns is in itself insignificant, as is any hand weapon ammo in modern warfare. My main point is that a number of conventions are hopelessly out of date and it is frontline soldiers and people needing protection that pays the price for politicians not daring to realise. Next it is a growing problem that the opponents we have seen and are likely to see in the foreseeable future don't give a damn about conventions. I fully realise that this should not necessarily have us be as brutal, but there is a limit of how asymetrical warfare can be if it is not just sacrificing the soldiers.

Anyway it is a very good question what actually is humane. Some years ago the Police here in Dk was armed with 7,65mm Walther PPK pistols. Shooting a criminal in the leg would often just result in a small hole in his leg and he could go on with whatever he was tried to be stopped from. The result was that the police often had to shoot the criminal in the head and killing him where a larger pistol, perhaps using hollow-point (like in hunting) might have stopped him without killing him.

Hollow-points are significantly more likely to kill, because they maximise tissue damage and subsequent blood loss.

 

[Ferreti]

If price is irrelevant, then the HK 416. If not, I choose the Steyer AUG.

 

[Redbeard]

Hollow-points are significantly more likely to kill, because they maximise tissue damage and subsequent blood loss.

Not compared to a 7,65 mm in your brain!

Anyway police here have been using expanding ammo (in 9mm H&K USP compact and H&K MP5s), but also found out that can be a disadvantage when facing a person with a bulletproof west. We had an incident last year when a terrorist after having killed two was killed by police, but only after taking a large number of hits. I'm not aware what they carry now and I suppose I'm not supposed to know.

 

[Aphoristus]

Not compared to a 7,65 mm in your brain!

Well, duh. But that's comparing one group of bullets with a small subgroup of another. Saying "a .50 bullet isn't more likely to kill you than a 9mm one to the brain" is also true but does nothing to reflect their respective potential for killing

 

[hipper]

Probably for all the reasons why the Russians no longer use it and switched to the AK74 and other subsequent weapon systems

Of course it depends what you mean by best, all rifles have their good points range, accuracy, weight, reliability, cost, availability.

I submit that the AK 47 will be best in reliability, cost and availability.

If those are what's important to you then the AK 47 is best.

If weight and accuracy is important then you want something more modern, I suspect the SIX8 SPR in 6.8 MM. is about the best you can get.
But it's rare and expensive.

Cheers Hipper.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I cant see the US adopting anything other than another variation on the M16. There is nothing out there in its class that is particulary more efficent, more reliable or more accurate and by now it must be cheap to produce.

Handguns are a waste of time for combat troops just buy a shiny.22 for officers to wear.

While I agree that sidearms are a little more likely to be used as a Bayonet is - the Bayonet is still carried - and if carrying a Pistol makes soldiers feel that little bit more confident about being on a 2 way firing range then Im all for it.

Also with too many incidents of green on blue in certain areas - carrying a pistol does actually make sense.

If it was me - I'd be packing a Kaltech PMR-30 - because that gives me 30 chances to hit but then I have no intention of ever being on a battlefield

 

[Redbeard]

Well, duh. But that's comparing one group of bullets with a small subgroup of another. Saying "a .50 bullet isn't more likely to kill you than a 9mm one to the brain" is also true but does nothing to reflect their respective potential for killing

The original point was, that with a FMJ in a small caliber like 7,65mm police couldn't count on stopping a criminal by shooting him in the leg but sometimes had to shoot him in the head - i.e. 99% kill. Even if a big caliber pistol with hollow point ammo does massive damage if hitting a leg, you're still better off than with a 7,65 mm FMJ in your brain.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Of course it depends what you mean by best, all rifles have their good points range, accuracy, weight, reliability, cost, availability.

I submit that the AK 47 will be best in reliability, cost and availability.

If those are what's important to you then the AK 47 is best.

If weight and accuracy is important then you want something more modern, I suspect the SIX8 SPR in 6.8 MM. is about the best you can get.
But it's rare and expensive.

Cheers Hipper.

Well the OPs questions was

"If you could equip American forces (using our current mission requirements) what infantry rifle would you use?"

That's never going to be the AK47! Its not even going to be an AK74!

Modern M16 and Piston clones are as reliable if not more so than the Ak47 and the AK design has more ingress points than the AR design so while it is more forgiving of dirt it is also more likely to get dirt inside!

My problem with 6.8 is that it is intended to work on a AR15/M16 platform with a few modifications - build a new gun around the bullet For f***s Sake

Also its heavier than 5.56 and larger so less rounds can be carried

Currently the 5.56 is good enough - if and when LSAT / CTA ammo can reduce these true intermediate 6.5mm/6.8mm/7mm rounds to the same or less weight than 5.56 and battle sights improve to the point where the soldier can identify the target and shoot the weapon at or near the weapons ability then go for it.

 

[Jotun]

When it comes to firearms, I am unapologetically nationalist.

AR: HK416A5
DMR: HK417
Sniper: DSR-1 in .338 Lapua
Pistol: HK P30 or Walther PPQ

 

[Minty_Fresh]

Well the OPs questions was

"If you could equip American forces (using our current mission requirements) what infantry rifle would you use?"

That's never going to be the AK47! Its not even going to be an AK74!

Modern M16 and Piston clones are as reliable if not more so than the Ak47 and the AK design has more ingress points than the AR design so while it is more forgiving of dirt it is also more likely to get dirt inside!

My problem with 6.8 is that it is intended to work on a AR15/M16 platform with a few modifications - build a new gun around the bullet For f***s Sake

Also its heavier than 5.56 and larger so less rounds can be carried

Currently the 5.56 is good enough - if and when LSAT / CTA ammo can reduce these true intermediate 6.5mm/6.8mm/7mm rounds to the same or less weight than 5.56 and battle sights improve to the point where the soldier can identify the target and shoot the weapon at or near the weapons ability then go for it.

Another big reason for not using the AK family is that if we are talking about current mission requirements, the vast majority of times the US military fights someone, they are using weapons from that series. That creates enormous issues of friendly fire potential if we were to adapt the AK74. It has a very distinctive sound, after all, and no matter how cheap the weapon is, that doesn't overcome the risk of friendly fire accidents.