RE: the M16 carbine version- you can pick at its faults, for sure- lower muzzle velocity and accuracy than the full rifle version. However, the modern battlefield sees the utility of the shorter weapon in the fact that the uniforms spend much more time in armored vehicles and in non-field areas. Should the Army and Marines out in the field get the longer variant? Maybe.
But in many applications the shorter version takes the prize. With the Air Force and Navy playing greater "ground pounding" or at least convoy escort duties as they have been recently, the M4 is a good compromise. There's room for both variants in today's mission profile.
I think the Mosin would bump at least the Winchester, and possibly the G3 series, based simply on length of service-there are still a scattering of Finnish Army reservist snipers who use a rifle built on the Mosin action, to include original receivers made in Czarist Russia.
This is 116 years after the rifles introduction.
Larry, I absolutely agree, there is certainly a place for the shorter carbine; what I have an issue with is the fac tthat the 10.5" to 14.5" carbine has become the standard issue for all Army and Air Force personnell; in preference to the full rifle; even though for many of those personnell the full rifle would be the more appropriate weapon by fire.
insightful as always- thanks for this post.
Knew several Marines who dumped their M16's for M14's in Vietnam; they trusted the M14 more in field conditions.
The 1903A3 was used by some in Vietnam also, as a sniper rifle. I knew a couple of guys who preferred the '06 cartridge over the .308.
Am I the only person in the world who thinks the Thompson M-1 belongs on this list?
I know it's heavy, but so are many milspec rifles. It's not much heavier than a Garand and how can you go wrong with that ultra-American, very manly round, the .45ACP?
I have a semi-auto version and I love it.
I mean, Audie Murphy, various G-Men, Dillinger and Bonnie and Clyde all agree, that has to mean something.
The Thompson isn't a battle rifle; and cannot usefully be compared against other battle rifles.
It's an excelletn weapon; but it's an entirely different category.
I'm not being a jerk, but why isn't it a battle rifle?
Or at least, I'm not trying to be a jerk.
Well, for one thing, it fires a pistol cartridge, and it has a maximum effective range of well under 100m.
The thompson is large, rifle like submachine gun; and as such is an excellent example of the breed. It is, other than it's weight, the best of hte first generation SMGs.
Comparing even the best SMG against a full assault rifle, or battle rifle is jsut apples and oranges.
An assault rifle has an effective range out to 300m, and a battle rifle out past 600m or even out to 800m.
Thanks.
I figured I was missing something stupid or else that would have been included.
I never thought of the caliber.
Who used the Winchester lever gun as an issue weapon? The only one I can thing of off the top of my head are the 1895s in 7.62x54R, which you excluded.
Also why do they class the M14 as average in innovation? Isn't it pretty much a short-action Garand with box mags and the next to useless option to go rock-and-roll?
Winchester lever action rifles saw wide use in U.S. military engagements from the end of the civil war until immediately prior to WW1.
Though they were never adopted as a primary service arm, they did see wide deployment; especially among cavalry forces.
I don't intend to exclude the 1895 actually, I jsut say that it is a little different than the others and therefore some may not group it with them. I'm editing to clarify.
TO my mind, it's the same basic henry/browning design that was simply refined and altered to a box magazine configuration, and to support a high pressure chambering.
Oh and as to their ratings, I have no idea how they came up with them. The M1 garand itself was HIGHLY innovative; but the M14 is plainly derivative of that; with a detachable box magazine glued on.
Also would you say that the Swiss Gew. 71 should be on the list? I'd probably say not top ten but maybe top 15.
As usual your posts are informative even when you are explaining your opinions, and your reasoning is impeccable. Thanks for such an interesting blog
The Turkish Army also adopted the Winchester '73 as its service rifle and scored a major victory against the Russians in 18--? Up to that time, both sides had been armed with single-shots, Berdans and Martinis, and the firepower of the Turks caught the Russians by surprise.
I agree that the Mosin-Nagant should be included. It helped defeat the biggest enemy of mankind since the Black Plague. And why no Manlichers? From a view of design and durability they rate excellent. True, they did not have as long a service as the Mauser. However, in the hands of the Greeks in 1940-41, they scored the first victory against the Axis powers.
P.S. I agree that the Swiss rifles should not be included on the additional criterion that they were never battle-tested.
Pretty much spot on...but the G series HK's would top the list, IMO.
And who put the Mosin Nagants on that list!?!? If you want soviet or chicom crap on your list...put the SKS on there!
You have a K31 don't you Chris?
The "service length" criterion brings to mind Brown Bess... but I guess she's disqualified for lack of rifling, huh?
That series has a long history of some rather questionable opinions, (the B-2 Spirit as the best bomber of all time? Huh? Say that again in 20 years when it's retired and B-52's are still flying!). That the G3 and variants weren't even mentioned blew me away: They were/are as widely used as the FN FAL, and possibly even more reliable. I agree with you on the Mauser and variants 100%: My 1903 is a helluva weapon and a blast to shoot. And no love for the Sharps? C'mon, it put the fear of God in many a Reb officer! 
FAL with "ergonomic oddities"? Not on you life - all those controls are right there for the right hand. Thumb can take the safety from safe to semi as easy as can be - the right forefunger just reaches out and releases the mag.
The left hand cocks the weapon - WITHOUT reaching all the way to the front sight like the G3. The only thing strange about the ergonomics that I can see is getting it to full auto, which you have pointed out in the M14 section is useless (well problematical) in 7.62x51 anyway.
The one thing I would have liked is a bolt forward assist, because a badly gunked up rifle may not want to close the bolt.
If I'm not understanding what you meant, please enlighten me.
Chris,
I have to agree with you RE: M16 vs M4. A lot of people over here feel they get 'stuck with' the M16 'musket' becaus the M4 is newer and more hyped, and yes, more ergonomically convenient.
Of course, they also get envious when us contractors have brand new Glock 19s and they have shitty-looking M9 (9mm Berettas) for sidearms. I can't bame them there- your pistol shouldn't rattle when its shaken.
Chris... I have to side with Oubaas... the FAL or R1 as we knew it was awesome and if you could shoot you never needed full auto... a double tap was all that you needed and the goblin never got up after that.
Personally I would put it at #1 because one never forgets your first love. ("This is your rifle and for the next year it will be your wife!")
Then at #2 the AK, why? because it is the Toyota of assualt/battle rifles... it always works and is cheap and reliable.
As usual a very informative and interesting post.
Cheers
Het RobC, where were you? Me at 4 SAI and 2 Reg de la Rey
Oubaas, 1SAI '72 then with Regiment Dan Pienaar till '84. Dit 4 border tours before an old lady in a mini made me medically unfit... Small world!
Btw Chris... I have linked this on my post about the "one shot, one kill battle rifle" on my military related blog http://beetlecrusher.wordpress.c...l-combat-rifle/
Cheers
Rob, you may want to check out these posts as well:
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/...on-for-
job.html
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/...-
specifics.html
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/...ttle-
rifle.html
I'm another M14 partisan; though an FAL or a G3 would serve nicely.
Thanks Chris, actually the last one is what got me thinking to set up my millitary related blog. I will do the linky thing sometime because they are also 3 well thought out articles.
As to the shortage of postings... the all consuming salt mine, kids and dirt racing seems to interfere with that somewhat at present... maybe more over Christmas when I take a break.
Cheers
Why have you got the M16 on that list, but haven't included the L85A2? The L85A2 is much better than the M16
The history and distribution and copies of the FAL speaks for itself, "The Right Arm of Democracy" Had the US adopted it instead of the M-14 it would still be in service as an evolved 7.62 weapon.
I cant believe that nobody mentioned the SVT 40, Garand makes the list and the 40 doesn't. 7.62X54r accurate and light autoloader in 1940. Heck the Germans were choosing these captured rifles over there own.
Excuse me for sounding impertinent, as I am new to this line, but to include the Winchester lever-actions in a post discussing martial arms is simply ludicrous. The only official issuance (U.S., anyway) was the Henry in the US Civil War, and that was extremely limited (roughly 1600 issued by the Union (not including personally owned weapons) compared to hundreds of thousands of mod 1860 Springfields. It chambered an anemic pistol cartridge, overheated during sustained fire (having no forearm guard,) and was unceremoniously dumped following the war, giving it a very short service life. The Spencer faired no better.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
