Best production assault rifle in the world?

[Baztard1984 0]

No I think that's a river he's standing in

Just kidding.

Thats the land Warrior system he's wearing aint it?

Has a camera on the M4 commando so you can look aroud corners. Has the viser mouted display for direct visual commands and intel etc.

Friggin awsome bit of kit, once it's finally completed testing.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

I bet kids cant wait till the new digital soldier comes out, then you'll here kids say they wana be a digital soldier when they grow up.

[zverushka 0]

Picture > 100 kb removed

It has a system that delays the recoil for 1 more round, so a 2 round burst will hit spot on, instead of one on top of the other.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 14 2002,15:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ July 15 2002,00:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 14 2002,15:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ak-47 no doubt about it. The G3 and it's successor G36 is actually quite shitty for maintenence (hard to clean). Their reliability is also very questionable since they are prone to jam.<span id='postcolor'>

The G36 is actually extremely reliable. It also doesn't need a lot of cleaning, because it doesn't vent gases into the action, unlike the M16 and many other gas-operated rifles.<span id='postcolor'>

Lol. Have you ever cleaned a G3-series rifle? Lots of small moving parts, surfaces that are hard to reach. Pure hell.

It jams a lot when you are using blanks at least. And I'm talking *a lot*. Usually at least once per 10 magazines when in semi-auto.

Edit: Not to say that it can't handle any abuse. Try pulling it through mud and try to get it to operate. Good luck I say.

Edit2: Note that my experience comes mostly from the G3 rifle and not G36. The G36 is of course improved, but I am still sceptical to anything that starts with "HK G3" <span id='postcolor'>

Please note that my comments were made in regards to the G36, not the G3. I have no first-hand experience with the G3, but I have some with the HK91 that was derived from it.

The jamming you are referring to with blanks is not entirely surprising, since blanks don't produce the same volume and pressure of gases that regular ammunition does, and any gas-operated rifle either needs to have the gas ports adjusted (where that is possible), or reliability will be compromised. With regular ammunition, the G3 should be far more reliable.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

the last image may look crappy, but i had to compress it, so it would be under 100 kb.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ July 15 2002,06:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

did this guy play OFP too much?

[Benze 0]

LOL Ralph. That's what I was thinking too. Too bad there's no scope on the m4 (one that WORKS )

I am surprised no one has mentioned the m16. It is a decent rifle used by many forces.

[Harnu 0]

I was just about to say the M16. I mean, it is quite versatile, is it not?

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ July 15 2002,00:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">more parts=more chance of malfunction.<span id='postcolor'>

Here ralf, you can have this and ill take any rifle  

[ralphwiggum 6]

nah...still has too many parts..i'll stick with this:

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

Or a louisville slugger?

[ralphwiggum 6]

maybe..

this is my opinion, and I never shot a rifle in my life.

Best in availability: AK47 and its variants.

Best in technology top of the line: G36

Best in short distance: HK MPs

Best in long distance: G3

[Kasatka 0]

The mother and fader of the modern rifles..... the AK-47 it's my option..  

Let's see this bealty in action...

http://i.guns.ru/club/ak_anim.gif

Simple and deadly......

Edit(R.G.): Next time make a link if you want to show a huge pic/animation.

[Paratrooper 0]

The Ak-47 may be a benchmark weapon but it is not the worlds finest assault rifle.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Kasatka, pictures should be under 100k. yours is nice but is too big..2megs?

plz make a link to your picture's source file. or mods will be eager to do you some punishment!

[Oligo 1]

Now this is a really hard question. I'd love to say M16, because it is a really beautiful piece. All the controls are nicely thought out and the accuracy is good or so I have heard.

But considering the conditions on the field, I'd have to say that the best rifle around is the AK47 and the good variants. This thing is reliable beyond any doubt. You can take a shit inside the housing and it will still fire without jams.

I have seen a SAKO RK62 (AK47 variant) being fired with the housing full of sand. The bullet left the barrel, but the slide got jammed half-way (no wonder). The firing person just popped the housing cover (a press of a button), poured out the sand, reattached the cover and cocked the gun. And he was back rocking and rolling, no hassle.

It's still accurate enough as well. With the 7.62mm bullet, at least I managed to easily drop man-sized targets at 300 meters.

During my military service, our whole company experienced practically no jams whatsoever that I heard of, except for the one where the gun was fired housing full of sand.

The reason I appreciate reliability over everything else is the conditions on the field. You always have to crawl through sand, mud and shite, so you would not want your gun to be made of sugar.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ July 15 2002,08:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now this is a really hard question. I'd love to say M16, because it is a really beautiful piece. All the controls are nicely thought out and the accuracy is good or so I have heard.

But considering the conditions on the field, I'd have to say that the best rifle around is the AK47 and the good variants. This thing is reliable beyond any doubt. You can take a shit inside the housing and it will still fire without jams.

I have seen a SAKO RK62 (AK47 variant) being fired with the housing full of sand. The bullet left the barrel, but the slide got jammed half-way (no wonder). The firing person just popped the housing cover (a press of a button), poured out the sand, reattached the cover and cocked the gun. And he was back rocking and rolling, no hassle.

It's still accurate enough as well. With the 7.62mm bullet, at least I managed to easily drop man-sized targets at 300 meters.

During my military service, our whole company experienced practically no jams whatsoever that I heard of, except for the one where the gun was fired housing full of sand.

The reason I appreciate reliability over everything else is the conditions on the field. You always have to crawl through sand, mud and shite, so you would not want your gun to be made of sugar.<span id='postcolor'>

There are more factors involved than reliability.

There are lots of superb weapons that are just as reliable as the AKs with a lot more accuracy, the SIG assault rifles for example.

[Oligo 1]

But how much accuracy do you need? Everybody is not a marksman, you know. If you take a sample of serving men, how big a percentage do you think even has potential to fire a smaller grouping than say AK47 can make due to weapon accuracy?

There were a few good marksmen in our company. These people could consistently slam all their rounds inside an area of a dining plate from 150m with a RK62. Now if your head was the target, you'd be dead every time. And who shoots to the head, anyways?

All I'm saying is that AK47 has enough accuracy to kill humans with and almost more reliability than the soldiers themselves. It also has the massy 7.62mm bullet to punch through bushes and twigs without deflection.

And I'll believe it when I see a SIG manufactured assault rifle survive being fire housing full of sand.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I'll believe it when I see a SIG manufactured assault rifle survive being fire housing full of sand. <span id='postcolor'>

Heavily mistreating a weapon does not represent battlefield conditions.

I suppose your freinds could throw a coin in the air and shoot a hole through the middle with one eye closed and a hand tied behind their backs.

[Oligo 1]

Mistreating, right. He didn't intentionally fill the gun with sand, you know. It's just that we had to crawl through all this crap before firing, so his gun was not the only thing filled with sand. There was sand in our boots and inside our jackets and in our kitbags. If a gun cannot survive a little movement in cover, what's the use of the gun?

And no need to be sarcastic. The inner black target area of a standard 150m rifle target is around 40-70cm. I just cannot remember for sure, it's been a while. About one in ten of our company could consistently hit that area with a RK62 (including me). A few people of our coy could consistently hit the inner half of that target circle (the size of a big dinner plate). Pretty impressive, I'd say, but nothing phenomenal.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 15 2002,09:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Heavily mistreating a weapon does not represent battlefield conditions.<span id='postcolor'>

On the contrary. Heavily mistrating a weapon is exactly what represents battlefield conditions. As I said earlier, if I was in the field and wasn't sure of the logistics and under harsh environmental conditions, I would always go with the AK-47. Even before my own favourite FNC 80 (ak5).

[Oligo 1]

Okay, I did some research. The Finnish Defence Force pages claim that a new RK62 makes a 10cm grouping from 150m. Thus you'd have to be a very good shot indeed so that the accuracy of the gun becomes the limiting factor.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ July 15 2002,11:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Okay, I did some research. The Finnish Defence Force pages claim that a new RK62 makes a 10cm grouping from 150m. Thus you'd have to be a very good shot indeed so that the accuracy of the gun becomes the limiting factor.<span id='postcolor'>

I stand corrected then, the Ak-47 can go on the list of best assault rifles then!

[Oligo 1]

The same pages say that a finnish infantryman should be trained until he can score a hit to a 20cm circle from 150m with a 80% propability, that is, pretty much consistently. I doubt that only one in ten people even has potential for such accuracy, so they surely have set their aims high considering that we have conscription in Finland.

Oh well, I guess that I should be pretty proud that I got the gold marksman badge when I served.

[Guest Scooby]

We had fair amount of people who shot groupings sized of matchbox at distance of 150 meters in our company.

Shooting mans chest sized target from 300 meters is easy if you have time to aim. It gets harder even at 150 meters if you have to shoot two shots to one target in 5 seconds, etc.