BEST BATTLE RIFLE ??? *GASP* as in (another) "Gun Thread"

[The Chief]

CHIEF: from the seek and ye shall find Department (of the NAVY ???):[/i][/b]

Well, from the department of "Knowing just enough to be dangerous", i labour under the impression that there is a difference, albeit slight, between the 7.62 and .308 cartridge. Years ago, my memory serves, at the range an old Chief Gunners Mate let me fire an M1 chambered in .308. ""Navy Issue"".

Very interesting history of the 7.62. Did not realize there was that much done with the the 7.62. Thanks.

 

[Fly Navy]

Quiz: What's the metric designation for .30-06?

 

[Lawman]

7.62x63 mm

 

[Fly Navy]

7.62x63 mm

Ding ding ding!

 

[A4sForever]

CHIEF:Do you say po-ta-toe or po-tah-toe ????

This is what Walt Kuleck, and expert in the field and Fulton Armory web-san says about the differences between the .308 and 7.62 NATO:


They are not the same !!! Because the .308 Win was released by Winchester several years before the Army standarized the T64E3 as the 7.62MM. You'll get an endless discussion of pressure specs, endless because SAAMI and the Ordnance Dep't measured pressure in different, unrelateable ways. Howver, the chamber drawings are different.

They are the same!!! Because nobody (and we've been looking for many years!) makes 7.62MM ammo that isn't to the .308 "headspace" dimension spec. So 7.62MM ammo fits nicely into .308 chambers, as a rule.

But in some 7.62MM rifles the chambers are long (to the 7.62MM military spec), notably the Navy Garands with 7.62MM barrels. Thus, using commercial ammo in such a rifle is not a good idea; you need stronger brass. Use military ammo or the best commercial only, e.g., Federal Gold Medal Match. (note: but then, what else WOULD you use in a fine, match rifle ???)

Most of the time it's a distinction without a difference. But if you intend to shoot .308 commercial in a military arm chambered for 7.62MM, first check the headspace with .308 commercial gauges first. You may get a surprise.

 

[Fly Navy]

Interesting point A4s. There is also a difference between .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO. Do NOT use 5.56 NATO ammunition in a chamber specifically labeled .223 Remington. However, it is ok to use .223 Remington ammuntion in a 5.56 NATO chamber.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

The M16A4 is lightweight, versatile, accurate, easily maintained rifle

It has a muzzle velocity of 2800 fps and a max effective range of 800 meters against an area target. It has a cyclic rate of 800 rounds per minute.

It weighs just 8.7 lbs (w/ 30 round magazine inserted)

The m14 is heavier and less easily maintained.

It has a muzzle velocity of 2800 fps and a max effective range of 460 meters. (Not talking about the scoped enhanced versions we use today). It has a cyclic rate of 750 rounds per minute.

It weighs in at 11 lbs with a 20 round magazine inserted.

The M1 Garand is also heavier and even more difficult to maintain than the M14.

It also has a muzzle velocity of 2800 fps and a maximum effective range of 440 yards.

It weighs in at 11.25 lbs w/ it's 8 round clip inserted.
--

I don't know if the M16A4 would be admissible in this, because it wasn't first mass fielded until 2003, but if not, I would take the M16A2 over any other "stock" (ie - not match grade or anything) assault rifle that we have used in the 20th century.

 

[VetteMuscle427]

The M-14 is rediculously easy to maintain. With a bore brush, tooth brush and some lube you can do anything you need to keep it working in the field. No need to strip it down or anything. Can't say that about my M-4....

 

[A4sForever]

The M-14 is rediculously easy to maintain. With a bore brush, tooth brush and some lube you can do anything you need to keep it working in the field. No need to strip it down or anything. Can't say that about my M-4....

Ditto .... the M1903 Springfield, M1 Garand, M14 (did it ever have a name, i.e., "Garand" .... other than "M14"?? ... don't think so; can't recall if it did) are the simplest rifles to clean and fieldstrip that I have ever seen. Most G.I.'s who have used them agree.

BTW #1 .... full power cartridge battle rifles only in this Q&A .... no intermediates, Huey.


BTW #2 .... in case any of you were wondering ..... the 1968 Gun Control Act made it impossible for shooters and collectors to possess a military surplus M14 rifle, except in limited circumstances. Because the National Matches are shot with issue military rifles, this originally placed civilian shooters at a great disadvantage with military participants and their 7.62 Nato match ammunition. But the firearms industry responded with "M14-type" rifles that are semiautomatic in function only and the Director of Civilian Marksmanship and the National Rifle Association amended their rules to allow the civilian, semiautomatic-only rifles to be used. Thus was born the M1A ...... gotta love those politicians. When was the last time you heard of a 7-11 held up with an M14 ??? (AW smiley for politicians .... :censored_ )

 

[The Chief]

CHIEF:Do you say po-ta-toe or po-tah-toe ????[/size][/b]

World view is that it is less important how you say it as to how you spell it.

All roads do lead to Rome. I know Walt Kuleck. Fulton Armory is down the road apiece, Savage Maryland. Did you know he is also an Aerospace Engineer, MS from MIT? Guess MIT spells it SM. Fulton has refurb'd/reworked several of my firearms. Great folks.

Walt is the one that told me the .308 and 7.62 were different, slightly but indeed different. But what do i know? Thanks for taking the time to clear that up.

I think the answer is 14.

 

[A4sForever]

...... I know Walt Kuleck. Fulton Armory is down the road apiece, Savage Maryland. Did you know he is also an Aerospace Engineer, MS from MIT? Guess MIT spells it SM. Fulton has refurb'd/reworked several of my firearms. Great folks. .....

Wow!! Small world amongst the "chosen" gun aficionados ( -- lest any hyper-stressed-out individuals think me arrogant when I say "chosen" -- you too can be in the "club" ... just do your homework ... ) .... I even think he is "Doctor" Kuleck now, as in PhD .... now who could think a gun-nut could ever be so smart???

 

[Fly Navy]

The M16A4 is lightweight, versatile, accurate, easily maintained rifle

This is true, but it's not a "battle rifle". It's in the grouping of "infantry rifles" or "assault rifles".

 

[eddie]

This is true, but it's not a "battle rifle". It's in the grouping of "infantry rifles" or "assault rifles".

Whoah, I plead stupidity!

Can we define those differences for our viewers, please?

 

[Fly Navy]

Whoah, I plead stupidity!

Can we define those differences for our viewers, please?

Major difference being the cartridge. The 5.56 NATO and 7.62x39mm are intermediate cartridges. That throws them into the assault rifle definition. Something like a .30-06 is a full power cartridge. That puts them in the battle rifle definition.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Hmm...I was just making a comparison of the three primarily issued rifles in the 20th century: M1 Garand used in WWII, the M-14, and the M16A2(A4). Not counting the M16/A1 of course, which we can probably all agree wouldn't be on top of the list.

Actually, I too must plead ignorance (no longer thanks to the previous post) about the differences between a "battle" and "assault" rifle.

As far as the ease of maintenance of the M1/M14, I guess I am wrong. I had *heard* that they were more difficult to maintain than the M16. I am not talking about inspection ready maintenance, I am talking about simple field expedient cleaning aka knocking the carbon off and making sure it is clean enough to fire reliably.