assault rifles v. rifles

[GBullet]

A common debate on firearms forums centers around the supposed superiority of the assault rifle or the traditional military rifle over the other. It usually degenerates into a CAR-15 v. M-14 / M1A debate with neither side winning any converts from the other side. Maybe we should look at a few historical examples to instill a measure of objectivity.

During the American Revolution, the preponderance of firearms on both sides were muskets (assault rifle equivalent when compared to the rifle). The rifles were lopsidedly American, as the British had very few. British tactics were classical, open-field formation drill based on the musket. For the most part, American tactics mirrored the British tactics. The rifle emerged as a significant military weapon not only due to its merits, but because of the tremendous skill of its users. The battle of Kings Mountain was the defining moment for the rifle in the Revolutionary War. For a while, it seemed like British officers were going to become an endangered species. Tory Americans provided sample Pennsylvania / Kentucky rifles to the British for study.
Advantage: rifle, but both were important

The War of 1812 was simply a rematch of the Revolutionary War. This time the British brought some rifles, and riflemen, along with their muskets (assault rifle equivalent). Had the British not been tied up trying to corral Napoleon...and had America not had Jean LaFitte's cannoneers in New Orleans, America would have lost. The British troops invading New Orleans were regarded by many observers, then and now, to be the most highly trained and experienced troops anywhere in the world. Nonetheless, the American riflemen denied the British Army their key commanders at a crucial moment in the battle for New Orleans.
Advantage: rifle (and cannon)

The Civil War began with smoothbores and big charges. It ended with rifles in the hands of both sides. Skilled men behind rifled cannon were the best Federal asset and a "save the day" cavalry were the best Confederate asset. With the introduction of the Minie' ball, the rifle was shown to be superior to the musket.
Advantage: rifle

Late in the Civil War, larger numbers of Spencer (assault rifle) armed Federal troops faced smaller numbers of rifled-musket armed Confederates. The Confederate troops were more experienced and this helped to offset the firearm disparity. But in the end, the Spencer (assault rifle) was superior to the rifled-musket.
Advantage: assault rifle

Early in WWII, German paratroops invaded Crete. The Germans, largely equipped with SMG's, faced Enfield rifle equipped British defenders. Had the British commander not surrendered, the Germans might not have taken Crete. Regardless, the German casualties were unusually high.
Advantage: rifle

In WWII, the Eastern Front broke down both men and equipment. Surrounded by overwhelming numbers of rifle and SMG armed Russians, there were verified battles in which German paratroopers, armed with the StG 42 (forerunner of the StG43 and StG44), shot their way out of the Russian encirclement.
Advantage: assault rifle

The Korean War placed a smaller number of mostly rifle armed NATO troops in the sucky position of trying to stop masses of SMG and rifle armed enemy. Rifle armed good guys won.
Advantage: rifle

Any thoughts?

[Rich Z]

Sure! No wonder the government wants to take them away from us!

Darned inconvenient for them if they want to try to make us do something we REALLY don't want to do.....
:madeuce:

[Magnum88C]

I think this points out what most of us have been saying: that each can be a good weapon if used in it's proper place. The assault rifle tends to dominate in close-in fighting, the rifle in more open warfare. The best idea, in military terms is to give the troops a mix of both, which is the solution the people who know what they're doing came up with, hence the dispersal of DM rifles amongst the troops..

[Kent]

I'm not sure about the battle of New Orleans. Wasn't the war over when the battle was fought? Wonder what would have happened had we lost that battle,

You make some good points.

[GBullet]

I'm not sure about the battle of New Orleans. Wasn't the war over when the battle was fought? Wonder what would have happened had we lost that battle...

Kent, yes the war was technically over. Until recently, historians had atributed the battle to news of the peace treaty not having reached the participants.

However, there is now reason to believe that the British intended to sieze the lower Mississippi River to "strangle" a significant portion of the U.S. economy. With Canada then a British territory, it is conceivable that a new British colony connecting New Orleans and Canada could have slowly formed on the Mississippi.

Bottom line: If the British had won the battle and captured New Orleans, our westward expansion would have been delayed, or even blocked.

[GBullet]

The assault rifle tends to dominate in close-in fighting, the rifle in more open warfare. The best idea, in military terms is to give the troops a mix of both, which is the solution the people who know what they're doing came up with, hence the dispersal of DM rifles amongst the troops..

Magnum, I agree.

What about big cities? Do you think that DM rifle is well suited to covering long, open streets, or building-to-building? Could the DM rifle free up a light machinegun by assuming this role?

[andy]

Military crap is irrelevant to the survivalist. YOu aint GOT help. You aint GOT supply lines. You aint GOT a safe base to run back to, nor choppers, nor artillery, etc, when you bite off more than you can chew.

[RIKA]

Military crap is irrelevant to the survivalist. YOu aint GOT help. You aint GOT supply lines. You aint GOT a safe base to run back to, nor choppers, nor artillery, etc, when you bite off more than you can chew.

That is the reason we have rifles andy. They are totally relevant to survival and military rifles are much better suited because they are sturdier.

RIKA

[BigEd63]

Magnum, I agree.

What about big cities? Do you think that DM rifle is well suited to covering long, open streets, or building-to-building? Could the DM rifle free up a light machinegun* by assuming this role?


I think it could, up to a point.

* Also makes me wonder if a modern version of the BAR or BREN could be made for use in low-intensity/counter insurgency warfare. I mean SAWs and GPMGs are ok but they still have weight and the belts with their bags or other containers can be a PIA at times.

[DaRkWoLf]

I think it could, up to a point.

* Also makes me wonder if a modern version of the BAR or BREN could be made for use in low-intensity/counter insurgency warfare. I mean SAWs and GPMGs are ok but they still have weight and the belts with their bags or other containers can be a PIA at times.

Seems like a BETA-C Mag and heavy bipod would cover that.

[Magnum88C]

Magnum, I agree.

What about big cities? Do you think that DM rifle is well suited to covering long, open streets, or building-to-building? Could the DM rifle free up a light machinegun by assuming this role?

No. I think the DM rifle could be very effective used in concert with a light machine gun, not replace it. A squad holding ground in a city with a DM and a SAW gunner would be quite the combination.

Also makes me wonder if a modern version of the BAR or BREN could be made for use in low-intensity/counter insurgency warfare. I mean SAWs and GPMGs are ok but they still have weight and the belts with their bags or other containers can be a PIA at times.
The BARs and Brens were the SAW of their times. The weight of the SAW makes it very controllable, and it is nice to have the 200 rounds on tap. However, don't forget the SAW can also use M16 magazines.

Used in concert, the DM rifle can effectively hit the long range targets, and the SAW and mow down closer targets. Backed up by precision rifle fire from the rest of the squad, it would be a very effective team.

[BigEd63]

I regards to the SAW I was thinking of something that could blast through what usually offers cover from the likes of the .223.

Not that it would replace the SAW per se but remain an option.

What I had in mind was a resurrection of the automatic rifle but something lighter maybe in the 12-15lb range than the old BAR. Though 7.62NATO wouldn't be a bad choice the 6.8SPC might do about as well or beter for a possible chambering.

I'd also like to know any feed back from Eastern Europe as they seem to be the only ones who fielded this concept in the RPK variants in modern times.

[Aslan]

I think we're about to see some really interesting stuff start showing up in the field, from the 25mm rifle (basically built on the barret, IIRC), the 6.8, and some other platforms - possibly even some new activity around the 7.62. Especially with the DM role becoming more and more critical.

:devil:

[Magnum88C]

I regards to the SAW I was thinking of something that could blast through what usually offers cover from the likes of the .223.

Not that it would replace the SAW per se but remain an option.

Well, the M240 might be your ticket.
If you want something more portable, controllable in full-auto and throws 7.62x51mm rounds (although we'd NEVER deploy it), there's always the FAL.
Lighter than a BAR, same 20 round capacity. I've heard bad things about using the 30 round magazines, maybe Garand knows of some good 30 rounders?

[Garand]

When I joined the Army in the early '70's we still had the FN in both the C1 & C2 versions. The C1 was semi auto and the C2 had a bipod and was selective fire at 15.5 pounds. The FN is a very reliable rifle capable of operating in many varied enviornments. The ONLY thing you have to do to make it unreliable is use the 30 rd mag instead of the standard 20 rd mag. I have carried both extensively. I do agree that the 5.56mm is a nice Urban combat/assault and jungle cartridge. But it has been my experience that there is a place for a 7.62mm also. Yes with a 7.62mm you can carry less ammo than a 5.56mm. All this means is that your marksmanship skills are more important as you can't afford to waste your ammunition. The battle of Stalingrad was fought largely but not exclusively with bolt action rifles and very successfully. This isn't rocket science. The ground line if you require a rifle for self defence, you should be skilled with it, know how to maintain it and have confidence in it.

[GBullet]

Great pictures, Garand. Thanks for posting them.

[andy]

BAR was 19 lbs, dummy. That's why nobody wanted to carry it, and why they wanted the M14 to offer full auto fire.

[andy]

Contrary to the BS you THINK you know, the REASON the taking of Europe was so slow is that the guys didn't risk their lives in the streets, if they could help it. They used sledgehammers to knock holes in a wall of a house, cleared that house, went on to the next house.

[GBullet]

...the REASON the taking of Europe was so slow is that the guys didn't risk their lives in the streets, if they could help it. They used sledgehammers to knock holes in a wall of a house, cleared that house, went on to the next house.

Very true! You and Garand are both right. The fighting in Stalingrad often took place within factories and department stores...including sniping!

What we tend to forget is just how massive some of these buildings were.

[andy]

they weren't massive enough to require more reach than the 500 yd capability of the AR and 223.

[Garand]

Actually if you research the battle of Ortona in Italy in 1943, you will discover that "mouseholing" was a Canadian invention and it was done with explosives. Yes the M1918A2 BAR was 19.4 pounds, but from whatever I have read, the only complaint was the weight. Nobody complained about its reliability. Anyways in a survival situation there is minimal requirement for fullauto fire.

As for the choice between 5.56mm, well the Army,and Marines are issuing the 7.62 for use in long range engagements in MOUT operations.

Weight differences of 2-4 pounds are actually irrelevent, a trained Infanteer adjust to the weight of his rifle very easily. Look at all the bells and whistles that are currently available to an AR, these days. The AR can easily outweight either an M1A or an FN.

[RIKA]

I guess they need all that stuff hung on the rifle but it sure looks heavy and cumbersome.

RIKA

[Garand]

Actually as I type this I'm watching a show on the History channel on the Battle of Ortona in Italy. They called it "Little Stalingrad". Very interesting show.

[Terry G]

Contrary to the BS you THINK you know, the REASON the taking of Europe was so slow is that the guys didn't risk their lives in the streets, if they could help it. They used sledgehammers to knock holes in a wall of a house, cleared that house, went on to the next house.Explosives and Bazooka's were used for "mouseholing", not sledgehammers. The use of explosives was for shock value to disorient the enemy occupants as they created the holes. No G.I. was going to stand there and bang on a wall with a sledgehammer while a "Kraut" was on the other side of the wall with an MG 42.