I beg to differ. The AK47 is the best assault rifle of all time and one of the most influential inventions of the 20th century. How many other firearms appear on national flags? In the early 1980s I was living in Boston and one of my work colleagues had been a grunt in Vietnam. He was bitter and resentful because, in his own words, “they sent us to war with a gun made by Mattel”.
Think how high the scores could have been had the. Military adopted the .22 long rifle!
The German FG-42, used in the Second World War, had a design that directed recoil straight back as well. It used flip up sights to enable a good sight picture. The FG-42 was reportedly very controllable in full-auto fire, despite using the full power German 7.92mm rifle cartridge.
I’ll never know, because legal FG-42s have climbed over 300k in this country.
Would they still have been motivated to develop the scaled down version? Or would a controllable 308 have been the end game?
I tend to think they still would have wound up with an intermediate. The theoretical work had been done in the early 50s, before the battle rifles test ever happened.
I think you would have seen AR10 carbines and m60/m240s with the ability to eat AR10 mags first. I think with the 222, 22-250, and 222mag along with the 7.62x39 already being fielded the AR15 would have come about. but I also think there would have been more of a chance for the 276(?) prototypes from Garand and Enfield staying relevant and leading full circle to where we are with a 6ish mm cartridge being developed.
Just look how the M4 was developed out of a need for a lighter, shorter M-16.
I think the military definitely would have eventually wanted the intermediate rifle for scouts, support troops, and other soldiers whose role wasn’t as a line combatant.
The AR15/M16 remains an overblown rabbit rifle. There are too many accounts of enemies hit 5 and 6 times, only to keep shooting back. There are too many anecdotes of brush deflecting bullets in flight. The original DuPont powder, barrel twist, and bullet design were what gave the rifle its remarkable lethal effect inside 200M, but all that was cast aside in the early 60s. Since then, it's been a second-rate battle rifle. And, if you restored the original rifling, propellent, and bullet design, its weaksauce outside 200M. There's still plenty of fighting to be done outside 200M.
Amen on the shot placement! It worked well for me in Bosnia, Africa and Iraq. Although I do appreciate the effectiveness of a .308 for punching through walls. 👍🏻
…and how many have YOU personally shot with an M16?
I’ll rely on the experience and judgment of those who’ve done enough fighting to KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. If you haven’t used different weapons in wars that gave you enough trigger time, what good is your opinion? I will listen well to the words of those men who have that highly developed experience.
And they tell me it’s not as good a rifle as other weapons. My own, lesser experience is in line with this.
Consider: .22LR is deadly too. Why don’t armies use those?
Maybe there are reasons? Maybe there are better options than the M16?
WWII US Army veteran infantry troops often carried no more than 80 rounds. That was enough for them to get their jobs done. More is not better; rounds on target are what matters.
7.26×39mm is a solid, lethal cartridge. Been shot at by Africans using it. It has a good reputation.
My first match rifle in cowboy action was a Marlin 1894 in .44 Mag. Later on I got a long-barreled 1895 in .45-70 for long range side matches. Both excellent rifles, but both tell victim to the economic troubles of '08, alas.
I feel that! The 1895 was at the upper end of enjoyable with cowboy speed cast 405s. When I tried jacket and 300s loaded up to Marlin only pressures, things got a little intense.😵💫😵💫
Yeah, either the slow end of the pistol spectrum, or a fast rifle powder. It's been a long time, but I remember using 2400 or Unique, 3031 or Varget, depending on what I had in stock. Generally trying to replicate the effects of a full case of FFg black powder. 1200-1400 fps.
I remember the jacketed loads were knocking on the door of 2000 fps, but I don't really remember how I got there. One of the IMR rifle powders, but don't ask me which one. LOL
Great stuff. Apparently Sig Sauer has been tapped by the Army for a new battle rifle in a 6mm+ caliber. The most innovative feature seemed to be the ability to fire in three round bursts. Most gunsmiths and military were skeptical of the higher caliber saying it's just more and heavier gear to put on already overloaded infantrymen.
It seemed like an odd choice. I like battle rifles, as I've already said, but 98% off the time, the math favors the middleweight. Why the M16 has been king for so long.
The Big Sig would make sense as a designated marksman rifle, but for every pair of boots? With 14 lbs of gun, scope, suppressor, what's left over for (heavier) ammo?
That doesn't even consider the armor, NODs and other tech today's troopers carry. S.L.A. Marshall would be horrified.
Why would a country buy a battle rifle from a foreign country? Didn't anyone learn anything from the American War for Independence when the Continental Army relied on muskets made by the French, the Spanish, and their own opponents? 🤦♂️
I agree it doesn't make a lick of sense, but they keep either doing it or trying to. One of the big blocks of M4 carbines they bought after Colts patents expired was from fnh, in belgium. Then there's the m9 beretta..🤦♂️
My understanding is much better body armor penetration is the main driver. I had read M4 would remain in service for rear echelon as lighter to carry / easier to shoot - so in a sense back to M1 Garand and M1 Carbine
I beg to differ. The AK47 is the best assault rifle of all time and one of the most influential inventions of the 20th century. How many other firearms appear on national flags? In the early 1980s I was living in Boston and one of my work colleagues had been a grunt in Vietnam. He was bitter and resentful because, in his own words, “they sent us to war with a gun made by Mattel”.
Think how high the scores could have been had the. Military adopted the .22 long rifle!
The German FG-42, used in the Second World War, had a design that directed recoil straight back as well. It used flip up sights to enable a good sight picture. The FG-42 was reportedly very controllable in full-auto fire, despite using the full power German 7.92mm rifle cartridge.
I’ll never know, because legal FG-42s have climbed over 300k in this country.
Thanks for a concise, interesting essay.
Cheers!
I wonder where NATO and the general shooting public would be if the AR10 had won.
That's an interesting question. 🤔
Would they still have been motivated to develop the scaled down version? Or would a controllable 308 have been the end game?
I tend to think they still would have wound up with an intermediate. The theoretical work had been done in the early 50s, before the battle rifles test ever happened.
How bout you?
I think you would have seen AR10 carbines and m60/m240s with the ability to eat AR10 mags first. I think with the 222, 22-250, and 222mag along with the 7.62x39 already being fielded the AR15 would have come about. but I also think there would have been more of a chance for the 276(?) prototypes from Garand and Enfield staying relevant and leading full circle to where we are with a 6ish mm cartridge being developed.
Just look how the M4 was developed out of a need for a lighter, shorter M-16.
I think the military definitely would have eventually wanted the intermediate rifle for scouts, support troops, and other soldiers whose role wasn’t as a line combatant.
Love building ar’s. Especially when they come out perfect.
The AR15/M16 remains an overblown rabbit rifle. There are too many accounts of enemies hit 5 and 6 times, only to keep shooting back. There are too many anecdotes of brush deflecting bullets in flight. The original DuPont powder, barrel twist, and bullet design were what gave the rifle its remarkable lethal effect inside 200M, but all that was cast aside in the early 60s. Since then, it's been a second-rate battle rifle. And, if you restored the original rifling, propellent, and bullet design, its weaksauce outside 200M. There's still plenty of fighting to be done outside 200M.
We never should have adopted it.
Dude, there are a lot of dead people who were alive before they got into a firefight with troops carrying an M-16 or a modern variant.
It kills people when you hit what you are aiming at.
Amen on the shot placement! It worked well for me in Bosnia, Africa and Iraq. Although I do appreciate the effectiveness of a .308 for punching through walls. 👍🏻
Dude! No kidding…
…and how many have YOU personally shot with an M16?
I’ll rely on the experience and judgment of those who’ve done enough fighting to KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. If you haven’t used different weapons in wars that gave you enough trigger time, what good is your opinion? I will listen well to the words of those men who have that highly developed experience.
And they tell me it’s not as good a rifle as other weapons. My own, lesser experience is in line with this.
Consider: .22LR is deadly too. Why don’t armies use those?
Maybe there are reasons? Maybe there are better options than the M16?
Can't really argue that. I just had a groundhog get away from me, last night after a solid hit from a 222, the 223's parent case.
If I'm outfitting myself, a full battle rifle it is.
WWII US Army veteran infantry troops often carried no more than 80 rounds. That was enough for them to get their jobs done. More is not better; rounds on target are what matters.
7.26×39mm is a solid, lethal cartridge. Been shot at by Africans using it. It has a good reputation.
That’s a Marlin 1894/1895 SBL in the photo. I have one.
My first match rifle in cowboy action was a Marlin 1894 in .44 Mag. Later on I got a long-barreled 1895 in .45-70 for long range side matches. Both excellent rifles, but both tell victim to the economic troubles of '08, alas.
My 1894 in 44 mag is probably the funnest gun I own
1895 in 45-70 is awesome for everything but my shoulder. 1894 I can send endless rounds down range.
I feel that! The 1895 was at the upper end of enjoyable with cowboy speed cast 405s. When I tried jacket and 300s loaded up to Marlin only pressures, things got a little intense.😵💫😵💫
405’s with a fast powder?
Yeah, either the slow end of the pistol spectrum, or a fast rifle powder. It's been a long time, but I remember using 2400 or Unique, 3031 or Varget, depending on what I had in stock. Generally trying to replicate the effects of a full case of FFg black powder. 1200-1400 fps.
I remember the jacketed loads were knocking on the door of 2000 fps, but I don't really remember how I got there. One of the IMR rifle powders, but don't ask me which one. LOL
Wild. I’ve been using Varget for 15+ years on .308..does really well with 155gr.
Great stuff. Apparently Sig Sauer has been tapped by the Army for a new battle rifle in a 6mm+ caliber. The most innovative feature seemed to be the ability to fire in three round bursts. Most gunsmiths and military were skeptical of the higher caliber saying it's just more and heavier gear to put on already overloaded infantrymen.
Another great write up! Thank you!
Thanks!
There is an old Army infantry saying “if they make it weigh half as much they’ll make you carry twice as much”
“Ounces add up to pounds, and pounds add up the pain”
My SF buddies said that they always carried 100lbs of lightweight gear.
That sounds about right…😬
file:///C:/Users/rober/Downloads/Soldier's%20Load_dated%201980.pdf
S.L.A.M!
Yeah, last i heard the Sig rifle was “off again.”
It seemed like an odd choice. I like battle rifles, as I've already said, but 98% off the time, the math favors the middleweight. Why the M16 has been king for so long.
The Big Sig would make sense as a designated marksman rifle, but for every pair of boots? With 14 lbs of gun, scope, suppressor, what's left over for (heavier) ammo?
That doesn't even consider the armor, NODs and other tech today's troopers carry. S.L.A. Marshall would be horrified.
Why would a country buy a battle rifle from a foreign country? Didn't anyone learn anything from the American War for Independence when the Continental Army relied on muskets made by the French, the Spanish, and their own opponents? 🤦♂️
Thought sig was here in America
Sig was originally a Swiss company, but is now owned by L&O Holding, a Germany company.
Learn? 🤭🤭😂
I agree it doesn't make a lick of sense, but they keep either doing it or trying to. One of the big blocks of M4 carbines they bought after Colts patents expired was from fnh, in belgium. Then there's the m9 beretta..🤦♂️
The 6.8 cartridge gets a 135 grain fmj to 3000 fps out of a 13 inch barrel.
I'm not saying it isn't potent. Just that that potency isn't the most important factor. Portability and logistics tend to be moreso.
My understanding is much better body armor penetration is the main driver. I had read M4 would remain in service for rear echelon as lighter to carry / easier to shoot - so in a sense back to M1 Garand and M1 Carbine
New Sig rifle is all about near-peer enemies in body armor. It punches through plates that easily stop 5.56.
It requires more disciplined fire due to lower ammo capacity.
According to Stoner's daughter, he said AR stood for ArmaLite Research. She that on Fuddbusters YouTube channel.
That's interesting. That's one I haven't heard.