Best cost effective rifle

I linked the Hitchman report earlier if anyone wants to read it, repeated here:
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0000346
I’ve never actually read through that before, it’s fascinating. Reads like a sales pitch for the M16 (or even more, the AK74), but from 1952! Also, the random side note about poison bullets is - random.

Interesting that like most similar report it finds that expectations of marksmanship are wildly unrealistic and that army training and qualification on fixed-distance ranges are nearly worthless. It would be interesting to know how the advent of cheap reliable optics has affected that, if at all.
 
We were still using the M14 when I got to basic in 1964. Firing from fox hole position or sitting, using a 12 o'clock hold on the silhouette target at 500 m was a fairly certain hit. The same was true with the M16 when I was in 101st Abn. In RVN, a 100 m verified hit was unusual. Most engagements were at far less range. I was never in an engagement/gun fight at greater that 25 m (all four of them - not many, but quite enough for me). The Army did develop a training regimin known as Trainfire in 1967 that was developed for close range engagements. The KD adherents got rid of that fairly fast.
 

Deleted member 1487

I’ve never actually read through that before, it’s fascinating. Reads like a sales pitch for the M16 (or even more, the AK74), but from 1952! Also, the random side note about poison bullets is - random.

Interesting that like most similar report it finds that expectations of marksmanship are wildly unrealistic and that army training and qualification on fixed-distance ranges are nearly worthless. It would be interesting to know how the advent of cheap reliable optics has affected that, if at all.
Well I've read there was an investigation into the USMC murdering prisoners in Fallujah because so many of the dead insurgents with killed with headshots. The investigation found that the accuracy of the rifles coupled with the optics and training resulted in the ability to get reliable headshots in urban combat. The story might be apocryphal though.
https://books.google.com/books?id=IFoqDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT247&lpg=PT247&dq=marine+accuracy+head+shots+fallujah&source=bl&ots=HR3N7wVIom&sig=9VVZ1FJE8u0kKKnkipft8EhsIrc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjB6_GF39DXAhWDzIMKHcYxBVUQ6AEIPTAG#v=onepage&q=marine accuracy head shots fallujah&f=false

The Hitchman report IIRC came out before the tests with the .22 SCHV round for the military too. Yeah that poison bullet thing was weird.

And US army marksmanship training was overhauled after Korea for a reason.

We were still using the M14 when I got to basic in 1964. Firing from fox hole position or sitting, using a 12 o'clock hold on the silhouette target at 500 m was a fairly certain hit. The same was true with the M16 when I was in 101st Abn. In RVN, a 100 m verified hit was unusual. Most engagements were at far less range. I was never in an engagement/gun fight at greater that 25 m (all four of them - not many, but quite enough for me). The Army did develop a training regimin known as Trainfire in 1967 that was developed for close range engagements. The KD adherents got rid of that fairly fast.
KD adherents?
In terms of what you're saying I did see a report from Iraq saying virtually the same exact thing (very different for Afghanistan of course); in Iraq almost no engagements are over 100m and most are within 25.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
We were still using the M14 when I got to basic in 1964. Firing from fox hole position or sitting, using a 12 o'clock hold on the silhouette target at 500 m was a fairly certain hit. The same was true with the M16 when I was in 101st Abn. In RVN, a 100 m verified hit was unusual. Most engagements were at far less range. I was never in an engagement/gun fight at greater that 25 m (all four of them - not many, but quite enough for me). The Army did develop a training regimin known as Trainfire in 1967 that was developed for close range engagements. The KD adherents got rid of that fairly fast.
THat is pretty much all the Army uses now. They use a pop-up target range where you get targets popping up at random between 50 and 300 meters.
 
THat is pretty much all the Army uses now. They use a pop-up target range where you get targets popping up at random between 50 and 300 meters.
I think we had pop up targets out 500 meters in 1966. We just shot at empty beer cans between operations on the E/1/17th Cav range. Used up our carry ammunition for this bit of amusement and training. Engineers had to come out to construct a back stop since the occasional round went close to a village 800 to 1000 meters away. 173rd Abn did its best to get along with locals. Generally did the same with carry hand-grenades since they could get a bit crusty looking.
 
The Marines and the Army routinely trained troops out past 600 yards until they wound up with a caliber that simply can't manage that sort of range. The Army used to require troops to qualify on a skirmish course at ranges to 600 yards with a .30-40 Krag. Even today the Marines require EVERY RECRUIT to qualify out to 500 yards (although it is only firing from the prone position these days) using the 5.56mm.

5.56mm drops 51" at 500
30-40 Krag drops 88" at 500
Easier with the M4, by far
 
5.56mm drops 51" at 500
30-40 Krag drops 88" at 500
Easier with the M4, by far
M4 and M16 have very different barrel lengths and velocities. I think we zeroed for 200m on those targets we sighted in at 20 or 25 m. 51" drop is still point blank with head point of aim.
 

Deleted member 1487

Deleted member 1487

There is about a 10" difference in bullet drop between M4 and M16 according to one of the graphs
Yep. The M4 is fine for short ranges, but it does not really live up to what the 5.56mm round was designed for, which was a 20 inch barrel to use all that propellant. It also impacts the lethality significantly according to some of what I've read, but that changed with the new standard bullet design, which fragments regardless of velocity.
The 5.56x30 MARS carbine project was supposed to do the job of the M4 carbine with a purpose designed round:
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1239
Instead the US military just opted to adopt the M4.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the replies ,but I'm surprised the mosin did not appear considering the Russian stereotype of quantity over quality
 
I'm not familiar with manufacturing techniques is a two stock rifle like the mas 36easier to produce than one piece like the karabiner?
 
I'm not familiar with manufacturing techniques is a two stock rifle like the mas 36easier to produce than one piece like the karabiner?
You mean separate pieces of wood for the Stock, handguard and foregrip
No4-woodwork-set.jpg

like on the SMLE?
 
I'm not familiar with manufacturing techniques is a two stock rifle like the mas 36easier to produce than one piece like the karabiner?
I wouldn't necessarily say it is easier to produce a two-piece stock - although inletting the action into the stock requires some pretty specialized equipment to do it on a large scale - but it definitely makes better use of a finite resource. Imagine laying out a full-length K98, Garand, or Mosin style stock on a piece of wood, you're going to need a long, well grained and strong piece of wood - one that is over a yard long, at the shortest. For a Lee-enfield or MAS36, you can use the chunks and cut-offs all the way down to about 14", and pick out usable sections around knots, rot, damage, etc.
 
I always read this about the time it takes to train an infantryman to be effective out to the range that a full power round allows. Prior to the change over to the range limited 5.56 EVERY Marine and U.S. Army recruit had to qualify out to at least 600 yards.

No, the change to shorter-range, more "practical" rifle marksmanship began immediately after World War II and was a result of the experiences in that war. Here's a 1954 paper from Fort Benning advocating a very familiar course of fire that does not exceed 350 yards in distance.

My cousin, in the late 1960s was on his Army divisional rifle team, competition included 1,000 yard targets engaged with M-14s with IRON SIGHTS.

Rifle marksmanship teams STILL compete out to 1,000 yards, and do so with AR-15s.

The Marines and the Army routinely trained troops out past 600 yards until they wound up with a caliber that simply can't manage that sort of range.

Nope. After WWI, the US Army had a variety of qualification courses. Course A went out to 600 yards, while Course D, for example, went to only 200 yards. In 1940, they standardized on Course B, which went to 500 yards, for riflemen, and Course C for everyone else with an M1. Then the Army cut it to 328 yards (300 meters) in light of experience in WWII and Korea.

The Army used to require troops to qualify on a skirmish course at ranges to 600 yards with a .30-40 Krag.

Yeah, they also didn't have any machine guns or infantry mortars back then, either.

Even today the Marines require EVERY RECRUIT to qualify out to 500 yards (although it is only firing from the prone position these days) using the 5.56mm.

Hah, yeah they do. I asked a Marine marksmanship SME what he thought the maximum effective range of a US Marine grunt was, once. His answer? "No more than 200 meters!"

The Army might have decided that it was too hard to train up troops, no idea why, but during WW II the managed to train several million troops out past 500 yards (you had to qualify out to 300 with the M-1 Carbine). I somehow doubt that the average WW II draftee, many of whom were barely able to get through the physical due to malnutrition during the Depression (shocking number of 4Fs from that cause early in the war) were better prepared to qualify at 500+ yards than those from Vietnam or today's volunteer force.

The Army decided it was unnecessary to train troops to qualify out to 500 yards, in light of their experience in WWII. Keep in mind, many of those who didn't qualify got waivers. What was the point of turning them away in a time of war? In fact, shortages got so bad that the War Department weighed in in January 1945: "the present exceedingly large over-all demands for infantry replacements can be satisfied even in part only by use of men who are not fully qualified physically for infantry duty and by waiver of minor training deficiencies", THE PROCUREMENT AND TRAINING OF GROUND COMBAT TROOPS, page 221.
 
One of the Volksturm rifles probably provided the best bang for the buck.
I doubt if LeeEnfield No. 4 was cheap to manufacture considering all of the machining steps.

Best reply yet in this thread.

The problem with the "best bang for the buck" is that you end up with something that is kind of a piece of crap. "80/20" solutions are like that. Having shot multiple examples, and handled even more, the StG-44 is kind of a pile. "Hot garbage" we'll call it.

My vote for the best all-around weapon would probably be the M1 Rifle. If we're casting the net real wide, how about the M2 Rifle?

D-295-copy-T20E2.png
 
StG44 is an interesting case. For certain answers of cost effectiveness it's a neat solution, because it uses a lot of cheap steel stampings. So strategically, it's kinda neat. However, magazines and ammo were huge issues for it, if I am remembering correctly. Problem with an assault weapon is that they GOBBLE up ammo at a predigious rate. If you don't have the ability to supply that ammo, then it's kind of a moot point if you have a cost effect assault rifle before everyone else.
 
Top